Lets talk about Paul

[Rainrider]

No, the Tanakh was not the only scripture available! As I said and as scripture reveals, Paul was receiving new information through revelations and visions directly from the Lord. Neither Paul nor the other apostles were the authors of the NT books, God is. They wrote as they were moved by the Spirit.



Your statement above is ridiculous and dangerous on your part and that because if that were true, then we could not trust in anything that those apostles wrote, as being from God. But as scripture states, the apostles and the prophets wrote as they were moved by the Spirit. All scripture is God-Breathed and is not by any private interpretation.

You should be very careful in saying that Peter or any other apostles twisted the scriptures, because what is written is God's words not theirs.

Just you should be a bit more careful when you place unfounded accusations out there against others. When a person can not hold back twisting another words to fit their own intended need to derail, it i at that point that I find they loss all credibility in my eyes. As it shows one of 2 things. One you read into the words of others only what you hope thy will say,.
Or 2, you stop reading when you think you know what they are saying. Both are wrong, and do more harm to your own testimony, than to others.

 

[Rainrider]

Brother not trying to be a pain, I wonder if this is an omission in post #206?

He does want our sacrifices? Or did you mean to say does not want sacrifices? in the following excerpt:

With respect to the sacrificial system, Though HaShem has told us back in Jer. 6:20, Hos. 6:6, and others that don't come to mind right off, He does want our sacrifices, rather He wants mercy, and for us to get to know Him.

I am not real sure what you are asking, so if I get this wrong, please try to clarify for me.
In my little mind, the idea of Him not wanting our sacrifices, denoted all of man kind from the time He said that until the end of time. So I think that was just a misunderstanding. As such, may I ask, do you have a different understanding of this?

Just so you know, to answer a question related to the topic, is never a pain.

 

[Karraster]

I am not real sure what you are asking, so if I get this wrong, please try to clarify for me.
In my little mind, the idea of Him not wanting our sacrifices, denoted all of man kind from the time He said that until the end of time. So I think that was just a misunderstanding. As such, may I ask, do you have a different understanding of this?

Just so you know, to answer a question related to the topic, is never a pain.

I was pointing out that you said He "does" want our sacrifices. I thought it was an oversight and you meant to say "does not" want sacrifices. Isn't it something how a tiny word, a letter, can change the meaning? Just wanted to be sure I'm reading it right, and for anyone else's scrutiny.

 

[Rainrider]

I was pointing out that you said He "does" want our sacrifices. I thought it was an oversight and you meant to say "does not" want sacrifices. Isn't it something how a tiny word, a letter, can change the meaning? Just wanted to be sure I'm reading it right, and for anyone else's scrutiny.

My bad. Even when I looked back I didn't catch that one. I really do need to do better, sorry. And thank you for bring that to my attention, in a respectful manner. Think I will get someone to stand over me with a whip, and slap my fingers when I do stupid things like that. Shooting, BAD JOHN BAD. LOL Know any that would like that job? Only they can't like it to much, or it may become painful. LOL

 

[wolfwint]

Agreed, yet you seem to have misread that part of this post. It was not about what knew later in life, it was about his up bringing. And all that was before his revelation on the road to Damasks.

Hi Rainider, if I am not wrong, the theme of the thread is : Lets talk about Paul. I was interestet in this because view weeks ago I had a sermon about the Life of Paul. I am not a friend of speculations. So the base for me is what is written about Paul and from Paul in the bible.
When I read your first post, you distingished not an earlier ore later time of Paul. So how I could misread it?

Originally Posted by Rainrider
Have you ever wanted to know the man Paul, who he was, what he did, and most of all how he thought? I understand that yes the Word is all we have to work off with him. There are some other books and writers that fill us in on parts we may not know. I have even been told, though never found or read them, that the RCC has records no other church has on Paul.
From some of my studies, I do know that the RCC does have an extensive archive, some writings that date back to around 50 AD if I remember it right.
I am hoping this will stay on the topic of getting to know Paul, and stay clear of any use of Paul to make points that may or may not be true. If I learned anything from my time in Biblical study, both in and out of the class room, it is that if one truly wants to make a point of almost any kind, turn to Paul. His writings can be read to mean almost anything a person wishes to find. Peter tells us this about Paul,
2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This can be seen as a warning to us, that we should know the person, how Paul sees scripture, and just what parts of the Word Paul is calling scripture. It is only with this understanding that one can truly find the truth of his words. So lets get started.

It is a clear fact that Paul only had what many today call the Old Testament. It is from this book that Paul based his teaching. In his writings Paul quotes from or makes clear allusions to the Tanach 111 times. He references the Torah 46 times, the Prophets 42 times, and the Writings 23 times.
In relation the dead sea scroll's represent the following, Deut. 27 times, Isaiah 21 times, and Psalms 39 times. Indicating that Pauls use of the Tanach fits with the general perspective of 1st century Judaisms. (FN) from page 153of the letter Writer, by Tim Hegg. #Quote#
#quote#
And then I mentioned that the tanakh is not the only source for Pauls teaching, as you statet. What was wrong with that?
You are calling me disturbing your teachings.
Is it not my freedom in this forum to say, if i find something wrong? You are teaching and it is your responsibillty for that.
Is it not my ore everysbody responsibillity to correct if he found what is wrong?

Originally Posted by Rainrider
Ss they are one and the same, would not one be wise to read the intent, and not pick over miner details? #Quote#


In post 188 I asked you what the intent is. But I got no response from you.



In post 233 I answered to your statement:

Originally Posted by Rainrider
As I will any time someone gets disruptive. Trust me, in a class room they would be asked once, then escorted out.#quote#

And I came to the conclusion that you not will talk about Paul as the threat name says, but teach about Paul and this without
hear some correction.

What I further not understand is your emphasize so much the tanakh. Paul is not teaching to hold the tanakh for gentiles. Except the conclusion from acts 15 on the apostle concile in Jerusalem. In non of his letters he encourage the believers to hold the tanakh. As for christians love is the key to all obidience and to hold the law. And not hold the law itself.
Also you are not revealed what specific part from the tanakh is to follow.
Is it not allowed to questioning what you teach?
Believe me I suppose no believer is interrestet to disrupt sound teaching! Its rare enough!

To Add:
you wrote

#This can be seen as a warning to us, that we should know the person, how Paul sees scripture, and just what parts of the Word Paul is calling scripture. It is only with this understanding that one can truly find the truth of his words.#

I cant agree with this. As christian with the Holy Spirit inside I trust not human wisdom, but that what Christ reveals through the Holy Spirit. I belive also for to understand Pauls writings I need only the Holy Spirit.
Your intention seems human wisdom is the key for to understand Paul and the truth in his words.

 

[Karraster]

My bad. Even when I looked back I didn't catch that one. I really do need to do better, sorry. And thank you for bring that to my attention, in a respectful manner. Think I will get someone to stand over me with a whip, and slap my fingers when I do stupid things like that. Shooting, BAD JOHN BAD. LOL Know any that would like that job? Only they can't like it to much, or it may become painful. LOL

Hi friend, thank you for taking it in the spirit in which it was meant, constructive and not destructive. Stand over you with a whip, lol. I think that's one reason I like your style of communication; you take the Word seriously, and don't take yourself too seriously.

 

[Karraster]

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, this is my take on some of what Rainrider is communicating:

All of our backgrounds in life are for a purpose. We prepared, or was prepared by Almighty, to do certain tasks. Whatever our calling in life, we bring those experiences to the table, (in the way we think and how we communicate, even how we solve everyday problems).

We can't think of Paul as a gentile and get much reality from his words. He comes from a strong formal education in not only Law, (both of God and man) but also of philosophy and general studies of his day. To say he was highly intelligent perhaps is understated....he was a genius in my opinion and I do not even believe Einstein was a genius, merely hyped, so there. Even so, many claim they understand Einstein's theories to which I say hogwash they are merely trying to look smart to their peers.

Paul speaks on a level that cannot be understood without some understanding of Torah. If Torah is supposed to be the schoolmaster that leads us to Jesus, then why do so many skip over that basic education, grade school if you will, and go straight to college? Certainly it is not wrong to go straight to Jesus, as He says "..little children.." but if you are here on CC one may assume you are studying to understand the Word, every word in the Word.

 

[wolfwint]

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, this is my take on some of what Rainrider is communicating:

All of our backgrounds in life are for a purpose. We prepared, or was prepared by Almighty, to do certain tasks. Whatever our calling in life, we bring those experiences to the table, (in the way we think and how we communicate, even how we solve everyday problems).

We can't think of Paul as a gentile and get much reality from his words. He comes from a strong formal education in not only Law, (both of God and man) but also of philosophy and general studies of his day. To say he was highly intelligent perhaps is understated....he was a genius in my opinion and I do not even believe Einstein was a genius, merely hyped, so there. Even so, many claim they understand Einstein's theories to which I say hogwash they are merely trying to look smart to their peers.

Paul speaks on a level that cannot be understood without some understanding of Torah. If Torah is supposed to be the schoolmaster that leads us to Jesus, then why do so many skip over that basic education, grade school if you will, and go straight to college? Certainly it is not wrong to go straight to Jesus, as He says "..little children.." but if you are here on CC one may assume you are studying to understand the Word, every word in the Word.

If you are right, then why Paul never taught the thora in his letters and in the churches? The most Nt teaching we do have from him. When he uses the thorah, then it is mostly adressed to the jews ore for to show the difference to the law and the gospel.
The danger I see in this way of study is that human thinking willatusoveremphezised. Nobody can clearly say what Paul thought and why he what thought if it is not from himself revealed. Everything else is speculation. And depent on the person who wrote about Paul.
For shure we will meat Paul in heaven. Then we can get a first hand answer from him.
The other thing is we can study the word our whole life without get the real thing, if not the Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom to understand.
I heared the saying: If we would do and obey that what we understand we would not have time to search the answer for that what we are not understand.

 

[Karraster]

If you are right, then why Paul never taught the thora in his letters and in the churches? The most Nt teaching we do have from him. When he uses the thorah, then it is mostly adressed to the jews ore for to show the difference to the law and the gospel.
The danger I see in this way of study is that human thinking willatusoveremphezised. Nobody can clearly say what Paul thought and why he what thought if it is not from himself revealed. Everything else is speculation. And depent on the person who wrote about Paul.
For shure we will meat Paul in heaven. Then we can get a first hand answer from him.
The other thing is we can study the word our whole life without get the real thing, if not the Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom to understand.
I heared the saying: If we would do and obey that what we understand we would not have time to search the answer for that what we are not understand.

Wolfwint he does! (teach from Torah) The gospel of the kingdom is also found in the Law and Prophets, it is not a new concept for the day in which Paul lived. Faith was always found among God's people, in small numbers of course.

I'm agreeing with a lot of what you say, just not fully:

"If we would do and obey that what we understand we would not have time to search the answer for that what we are not understand"

The above statement I selected, sounds like you are either thinking of rabbinic law, or else not considering the spirit of the law for those commands that do not pertain to our day or to us. It's not my business to say what anyone else must follow, but I would never dare say the commands are abolished because Yeshua said they were not. I personally love the commandments, they tell us about the character of Almighty.

 

[Rainrider]

Hi Rainider, if I am not wrong, the theme of the thread is : Lets talk about Paul. I was interestet in this because view weeks ago I had a sermon about the Life of Paul. I am not a friend of speculations. So the base for me is what is written about Paul and from Paul in the bible.
When I read your first post, you distingished not an earlier ore later time of Paul. So how I could misread it?

It is not speculation to understand that Paul didn't hold in hands what we today see as the NT. Not only was it ether being written, or were in the form of letters, and scattered around the then known world. This is all laid out clearly in this thread. As you say I did not place a time line in the the first post, as that was nothing more than an introduction.

Originally Posted by Rainrider
Have you ever wanted to know the man Paul, who he was, what he did, and most of all how he thought? I understand that yes the Word is all we have to work off with him. There are some other books and writers that fill us in on parts we may not know. I have even been told, though never found or read them, that the RCC has records no other church has on Paul.
From some of my studies, I do know that the RCC does have an extensive archive, some writings that date back to around 50 AD if I remember it right.
I am hoping this will stay on the topic of getting to know Paul, and stay clear of any use of Paul to make points that may or may not be true. If I learned anything from my time in Biblical study, both in and out of the class room, it is that if one truly wants to make a point of almost any kind, turn to Paul. His writings can be read to mean almost anything a person wishes to find. Peter tells us this about Paul,
2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This can be seen as a warning to us, that we should know the person, how Paul sees scripture, and just what parts of the Word Paul is calling scripture. It is only with this understanding that one can truly find the truth of his words. So lets get started.

It is a clear fact that Paul only had what many today call the Old Testament. It is from this book that Paul based his teaching. In his writings Paul quotes from or makes clear allusions to the Tanach 111 times. He references the Torah 46 times, the Prophets 42 times, and the Writings 23 times.
In relation the dead sea scroll's represent the following, Deut. 27 times, Isaiah 21 times, and Psalms 39 times. Indicating that Pauls use of the Tanach fits with the general perspective of 1st century Judaisms. (FN) from page 153of the letter Writer, by Tim Hegg. #Quote#
#quote#
And then I mentioned that the tanakh is not the only source for Pauls teaching, as you statet. What was wrong with that?
You are calling me disturbing your teachings.
Is it not my freedom in this forum to say, if i find something wrong? You are teaching and it is your responsibillty for that.
Is it not my ore everysbody responsibillity to correct if he found what is wrong?

Many times is not what a person has to say rather how it is said. I never said that Paul used ONLY the Tanakh, however as it is being made clear, that even when Paul use general terms of speech, his teaching does in part allude to the Tanakh.

Originally Posted by Rainrider
Ss they are one and the same, would not one be wise to read the intent, and not pick over miner details? #Quote#


In post 188 I asked you what the intent is. But I got no response from you.



In post 233 I answered to your statement:

Originally Posted by Rainrider
As I will any time someone gets disruptive. Trust me, in a class room they would be asked once, then escorted out.#quote#

And I came to the conclusion that you not will talk about Paul as the threat name says, but teach about Paul and this without
hear some correction.

What I further not understand is your emphasize so much the tanakh. Paul is not teaching to hold the tanakh for gentiles. Except the conclusion from acts 15 on the apostle concile in Jerusalem. In non of his letters he encourage the believers to hold the tanakh. As for christians love is the key to all obidience and to hold the law. And not hold the law itself.
Also you are not revealed what specific part from the tanakh is to follow.
Is it not allowed to questioning what you teach?
Believe me I suppose no believer is interrestet to disrupt sound teaching! Its rare enough!

The miss quote a person or remove it from it's context, as it seem you are doing here, is wrong on so many levels. Not only does it force a person into a discussion, that is baseless, it does remove from the intent of the thread. Talking of Paul is what we are doing, so to think that I don't wish to is a bit strange. As I do teach, and do so in may ways, and class forums, it is no wonder that this would follow me into CC. A discussion is just that. We should never use any formate, no matter what it may be to belittle, or discreat another. If we don't like what we see, then it is always best to simply more on, and let it a lone. Rather than, (as has been done on CC so many times, and is still being done), tring to distract from a thread, or derail it with both faults, as well miss leading info. Most of it being directed at the op. As it seemed, at let in my eyes, you and J7 have done.

To Add:
you wrote

#This can be seen as a warning to us, that we should know the person, how Paul sees scripture, and just what parts of the Word Paul is calling scripture. It is only with this understanding that one can truly find the truth of his words.#

I cant agree with this. As christian with the Holy Spirit inside I trust not human wisdom, but that what Christ reveals through the Holy Spirit. I belive also for to understand Pauls writings I need only the Holy Spirit.
Your intention seems human wisdom is the key for to understand Paul and the truth in his words.

To place the above, and your last quote of my writings, back into context. As it is in your almost quote, one may think that it was me giving a warning, and that is how that was used. That came as commentary to what Peter said about the use of Paul by some.
Here it is once more.
2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This can be seen as a warning to us, that we should know the person, how Paul sees scripture, and just what parts of the Word Paul is calling scripture. It is only with this understanding that one can truly find the truth of his words. So lets get started.

NOw that this is placed in context, let just say. That if read Paul, and remove the Tanakh from his teachings, then YSE we will miss his intended meaning. Just if we are to think that we can understand all of the NT with out first knowing the Tanakh, we only mislead our selves. I can show this in many ways. Yet that would be a topic of it's own. And there for should be left to a thread on that topic.
If you are willing to PM me, I will gladly show it there.

 

[Rainrider]

If you are right, then why Paul never taught the thora in his letters and in the churches? The most Nt teaching we do have from him. When he uses the thorah, then it is mostly adressed to the jews ore for to show the difference to the law and the gospel.
The danger I see in this way of study is that human thinking willatusoveremphezised. Nobody can clearly say what Paul thought and why he what thought if it is not from himself revealed. Everything else is speculation. And depent on the person who wrote about Paul.
For shure we will meat Paul in heaven. Then we can get a first hand answer from him.
The other thing is we can study the word our whole life without get the real thing, if not the Holy Spirit gives us the wisdom to understand.
I heared the saying: If we would do and obey that what we understand we would not have time to search the answer for that what we are not understand.

The idea that Paul never taught from the Tanakh when he went into synagogal, is a bit misleading to say the lest. please read all of the follow, then explain how Paul does not use the Tanakh.
Rom. 4:3
Rom. 9:17
Rom. 10:11
Rom. 11:2
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
That is a good worm up any way.

As to

I heared the saying: If we would do and obey that what we understand we would not have time to search the answer for that what we are not understand.

If we become to burdened with doing what we know as truth, then we don't understand what we think we we know. We can follow in the right paith, and never be so over worked in doing so that we loss track of even the smallest thing in our lives. You see, it is not us that leads us on the path of truth, and righteousness, that is the Holy Spirit. So to stay with the laws that govern us, is no work at all.

I understand that you may wish to push this, and use it ways that it was not intended. I say this as you have done so in the last post I replied to. If you do, I am telling you, I will not reply. You see, there are times when it best to say nothing, it helps to prevent saying things in a manner that is not right.

 

[J7]

Paul wrote the New Testament for goodness sake.

The Gospels were written from around AD41 to 60. Matthew and Mark were finished early. Luke around AD 60 it is reckoned. John between.

Luke worked with Paul, so Paul probably helped with the writing of Luke and Acts.

Paul had all the gospels in his hands basically, and then, apart from James, Jude and Peter, wrote the NT.

Paul was instructed personally by Jesus. Except where Paul interpolates his own opinion, he was communicating the thoughts of God.

 

[J7]

Paul quotes scripture in Romans because he is addressing the Rabbis.

 

[Rainrider]

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, this is my take on some of what Rainrider is communicating:

All of our backgrounds in life are for a purpose. We prepared, or was prepared by Almighty, to do certain tasks. Whatever our calling in life, we bring those experiences to the table, (in the way we think and how we communicate, even how we solve everyday problems).

We can't think of Paul as a gentile and get much reality from his words. He comes from a strong formal education in not only Law, (both of God and man) but also of philosophy and general studies of his day. To say he was highly intelligent perhaps is understated....he was a genius in my opinion and I do not even believe Einstein was a genius, merely hyped, so there. Even so, many claim they understand Einstein's theories to which I say hogwash they are merely trying to look smart to their peers.

Paul speaks on a level that cannot be understood without some understanding of Torah. If Torah is supposed to be the schoolmaster that leads us to Jesus, then why do so many skip over that basic education, grade school if you will, and go straight to college? Certainly it is not wrong to go straight to Jesus, as He says "..little children.." but if you are here on CC one may assume you are studying to understand the Word, every word in the Word.

You mean my little brain is being over worked? LOL Oh wait, I have a big brain, that is when I can find the thing. Most of what we as people do is to ride on the teachings of the ones that came before us.It has always been,(at lest in my mind) a warning light when someone tells me they know it all. Just as it is when a person tells me they have had a teacher help them to understand the Word.

 

[Rainrider]

JaumeJ

Re: Lets talk about Paul
When we revere anything or anyone, we have in mind the consequences of disrespect, and so I would imagine revering is also fearing, at least it would be inclusive in its definition...

We do revere at levels, but the ultimate level is reverence of our Father. He is wonderful, but you know that. God bless you always in Yeshua......j

,,,,,,,,,,,,

​

Thank you all so much for your replies concerning revere and fear. It seems you are all saying the same thing, yet with a slightly different twist, it's wonderful. I think I do see it better because of very loving parents. Can't help but wonder how one would grasp the meaning of those words properly who had no loving parents? I guess that's all the more reason to be kind and loving to every one we meet, online or in person.

Take it from a man that was more or less kicked out the family at age 9. Finding any hope all in the Word becomes a real challenge. After all, the best understanding f the love HaShem holds for us, can be found in the love parents have for their kids. The first time I head that, I was 14, needless to say, that set me back in my chair some. It took me almost 5 years to find that what I seen in that was so wrong, in so many ways. I truely spent 5 years looking at the 40years that Israel spent in the wilderness in this manner.
Ok so HaShem kicked them out, and now is only going to do what He feels to help them. That sounds about right. Then I read that He said He was going to kill them all, I though, well that comes as no surprises at all. It took the love and kindness of a lady, and a cat, to show me just how wrong I was. When HaShem calls us, and we answer, He makes sure we get to know Him if we try.

 

[wolfwint]

Wolfwint he does! (teach from Torah) The gospel of the kingdom is also found in the Law and Prophets, it is not a new concept for the day in which Paul lived. Faith was always found among God's people, in small numbers of course.

I'm agreeing with a lot of what you say, just not fully:

"If we would do and obey that what we understand we would not have time to search the answer for that what we are not understand"

The above statement I selected, sounds like you are either thinking of rabbinic law, or else not considering the spirit of the law for those commands that do not pertain to our day or to us. It's not my business to say what anyone else must follow, but I would never dare say the commands are abolished because Yeshua said they were not. I personally love the commandments, they tell us about the character of Almighty.

I give you an example. The NT specialy teach us christians to love each other. For to know what this means I do not know the Thorah. I can read in 1. Cor. 13 what love practical means. We all have many situations in our daily live where we are challenged to put in action what we read in 1. Cor 13. Are we all so full of love that we can say, yes I put always in action what I read in 1. Cor 13? I must confess I do not. I have enough to do that what I understand and must not search to do what I not understand. And the most things we read in the NT is understandable without knowing the OT.
Do you think when Paul taught to Corintians, Philippians and to all the gentile churches, they had an idea from the O T? Acccording the statement of Rainraider they had have first the knowledge from the OT to understand Pauls writings. And here I say thats not the case. It is possible to understand Pauls writings without have study first the OT.
Of course in the OT you will find the idea of faith and gods plan with the human race. You find the Messajah in the OT.
And the 10 comandments are helpful in the life between God and the Human race and between the people itself. But nowbody is able to keep them fully.
Yes and we can learn a about our father in heaven and the folk of Israel, no doubt!!
But I not agree that we need to study first Thorah to understand Pauls writings. In fact they are Gods writings and he gave his Spirit to us for open us for the truth.

 

[Rainrider]

Chapter 6

1 So then, are we to say, "Let's keep on sinning, so that there can be more grace"?
2 Heaven forbid! How can we, who have died to sin, still live in it?
3 Don't you know that those of us who have been immersed into the Messiah Yeshua have been immersed into his death?
4 Through immersion into his death we were buried with him; so that just as, through the glory of the Father, the Messiah was raised from the dead, likewise we too might live a new life.


As Paul was just telling us that grace is multiplied when sin increases, it is no wonder that we now find him telling us that if we should not keep walking in sin, in order that we may gain more grace. He goes on giving his idea of baptism and what it means. Don't go thinking I saying that Paul doesn't understand the true meaning, and symbolize of it. It is clear that he is may be a bit radical than most, yet what he tells us is about as plain as it gets.
There are 2 ways I know of that the last 2 verses posted above are seen. The first, see it not so much as physical baptism, rather looks to the spiritual aspect. They teach that when a person comes to know the truth, and turns their life over, repenting of their sin, a Spiritual change over takes them. Some have even said they felt something move inside them. This teaching tells us that what is felt on a physical level is the circumcision of the Heart.
On the other hand, there is the teaching that Paul is speaking only of the physical act of immersion. If one was to look into just this one teaching, you would find so many sub teachings, that you could fill a library. Yet they all seem to come down to this one thing. the going under, is use joining Yeshua in the Grave. As we rise from the water, it is us, joining in His resurrection.
Before anyone tells me I am wrong, keep in mind, my thoughts on this are posted. Though my own thoughts, are much different than what you see.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will also be united with him in a resurrection like his.
6 We know that our old self was put to death on the execution-stake with him, so that the entire body of our sinful propensities might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For someone who has died has been cleared from sin.
8 Now since we died with the Messiah, we trust that we will also live with him.
9 We know that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, never to die again; death has no authority over him.
As we all know the penalty for sin is death. Paul is once more equating baptism with the death and resurrection. If one doesn't wish to look at Paul, and how he may have seen his words. ( as it seems one must qualify ever word on here this is not to say this is how it is, only that as stated PAUL MAY HAVE) Knowing that Paul was a well educated man, versed in the traditions of his people. ( I am already starting to dislike this need to per-qualify every word) It may, repeat, IT MAY be that Paul may have used the idea seen in the death bed confession found in the Siddur. As it does use the following words, "May my death be an atonement for all the sins, iniquities, and transgression of which I have been guilty against you."
Paul uses the idea of the death of our old self a lot. So it would be wise to ope our minds to all takes on that concept.
10 For his death was a unique event that need not be repeated; but his life, he keeps on living for God.
11 In the same way, consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive for God, by your union with the Messiah Yeshua.

In what ways would we think that Yeshua's death was unique? This was once asked in my classroom. The debate was stopped once it became clear they were looking for physical answers to a spiritual question. Yeshua's death is the only death ever, where the sin's of the world were placed on a man had no sin of His own. Also in death, Yeshua had work to do, did he not take the keys from Satan? His death open the door for our sins to be washed away. No longer to covered year after year. Yet his death alone didn't bring freedom from the sinful nature of mans heart. That as Paul points out came from His resurrection.
12 Therefore, do not let sin rule in your mortal bodies, so that it makes you obey its desires;
13 and do not offer any part of yourselves to sin as an instrument for wickedness. On the contrary, offer yourselves to God as people alive from the dead, and your various parts to God as instruments for righteousness.
14 For sin will not have authority over you; because you are not under legalism but under grace.
It may we be, (please note what I said IT MAY WELL BE) that Paul is not speaking of the removal of the Law, as it was given, rather as was shown in Rom. 3:20 it was Rabbinic law that was removed, to make room for the spirit of the Law. (If you see this as hard to understand please go back and read post #206. Or hay Just ask. ) As I hope you all know, I do not wish to make Rabbinic Teachings sound all bad. Just like the teachings that come from many other places, there is good and bad in them all. YES that does include my own. No one is ever right 100% of the time. Yet it is the the idea of salvation by works, that at one point seemed to come out of Rabbinic Law, that Paul may be speaking of.
15 Therefore, what conclusion should we reach? "Let's go on sinning, because we're not under legalism but under grace"? Heaven forbid!
16 Don't you know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, then, of the one whom you are obeying, you are slaves - whether of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to being made righteous?
17 By God's grace, you, who were once slaves to sin, obeyed from your heart the pattern of teaching to which you were exposed;
18 and after you had been set free from sin, you became enslaved to righteousness.

This will be worded as clearly as I can make it, (NOTE I am not saying that following the Law will save you, nor that trying to follow the letter of the law can be of any help at all)
In 16 we find that Paul speaks to be obedient. One teaching of this is that if we obey the flesh and flow after sin, then we are lost. In that teaching is also found that once we turn our backs on sin, and give our lives over to HaShem, though the blood of Yeshua, their is no wish to follow sin. A teaching I am sure we can sink our teeth into. However, that same teaching stops right there. The concept of now showing obedience to HaShem, is lost.
This the other teaching on this. Though it follows the first, so no need to repeat that part. It goes on to tell us that Paul makes clear the need to now follow obedience that leads to righteousness. Just as Paul said in verse 16. They go on to say that this doesn't remove the Law from out hearts, rather through the Holy Spirit, we are lead to follow the spirit of the true Torah.
19 (I am using popular language because your human nature is so weak.) For just as you used to offer your various parts as slaves to impurity and lawlessness, which led to more lawlessness; so now offer your various parts as slaves to righteousness, which leads to being made holy, set apart for God.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relationship to righteousness;
21 but what benefit did you derive from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end result of those things was death.
22 However, now, freed from sin and enslaved to God, you do get the benefit - it consists in being made holy, set apart for God, and its end result is eternal life.
23 For what one earns from sin is death; but eternal life is what one receives as a free gift from God, in union with the Messiah Yeshua, our Lord.

Paul in classic style with words, shows us that lawlessness sets us apart from HaShem. The more we follow a life of lawlessness, the more removed from HaShem we become. Yet when we turn our selves over to HaShem, and hold nothing back from Him, then and only then do we can we find true rest. This rest, however leads once more into obedience. Only now, that obedience leads not to death, rather to life.
Before you jump on the , you can work your way into heaven band wagon, Paul also makes it clear, that if you wish to work your into something, death is what you earn. As stated many times in my life, Salvation come by FAITH, and that faith must be followed by OBEDIENCE.

 

[graceNpeace]

I give you an example. The NT specialy teach us christians to love each other. For to know what this means I do not know the Thorah. I can read in 1. Cor. 13 what love practical means. We all have many situations in our daily live where we are challenged to put in action what we read in 1. Cor 13. Are we all so full of love that we can say, yes I put always in action what I read in 1. Cor 13? I must confess I do not. I have enough to do that what I understand and must not search to do what I not understand. And the most things we read in the NT is understandable without knowing the OT.
Do you think when Paul taught to Corintians, Philippians and to all the gentile churches, they had an idea from the O T? Acccording the statement of Rainraider they had have first the knowledge from the OT to understand Pauls writings. And here I say thats not the case. It is possible to understand Pauls writings without have study first the OT.
Of course in the OT you will find the idea of faith and gods plan with the human race. You find the Messajah in the OT.
And the 10 comandments are helpful in the life between God and the Human race and between the people itself. But nowbody is able to keep them fully.
Yes and we can learn a about our father in heaven and the folk of Israel, no doubt!!
But I not agree that we need to study first Thorah to understand Pauls writings. In fact they are Gods writings and he gave his Spirit to us for open us for the truth.

Any suggestion (and they come thick and fast on this forum) that any doctrine or Biblical knowledge that is not present in the OT cannot be a valid current understanding or doctrine is utterly false.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ as it unfolded, despite Jews having hundreds of years of the complete canon of the OT for perusal resulted in a complete failure of Jews per se to really "get" who Jesus Christ was.
Even His own disciples, right up until His ascension, were shown to have missed the boat.

Yes, it is true that, in RETROSPECT, all those Messianic prophecies were shown to have been completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, no lesser light than Peter had his issues with recidivism as well documented in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's letter to the Galatians.

Prospectively, though, Jesus Christ represented nothing that Judaism was expecting as a Messiah, and that included the disciples cum apostles.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and the consequences of that in-breaking into human history is unique and was NOT completely predictable, despite the plethora of Messianic prophecies and references to found in the OT. John the Baptist, the disciples, as well as the priests and leaders, and the Pharisees (do not make the mistake of labelling them all as evil critters because they were not) were all unable to come up with who and what Jesus Christ was through their knowledge of the OT.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ represents fresh and unique revelation - it is most decidedly NOT a retread of OT revelation and doctrinal understanding. The fact that He was predicted by the OT and He Himself, obviously, referenced the OT copiously, and actually came to fulfil the demands of the Sinaitic covenant on our behalf, does not change the fact that no-one, then or now, can come up with Jesus Christ purely on the basis of the OT alone...

And a similar principle exists when studying NT writings, the current NT canon. It is not a retread of the OT despite copiously referencing it. The New covenant is NOT a retread of any OT covenant, much less the Sinaitic covenant that God made with Moses on the slopes of Mount Sinai. What Paul outlines in his many Epistles is not directly or completely discoverable within the OT. The same goes for the other authors of the NT canon. It takes the revelation that is Jesus Christ to give the breadth and depth and intensity of New covenant theology and doctrine!

Enough said...

 

[Rainrider]

Any suggestion (and they come thick and fast on this forum) that any doctrine or Biblical knowledge that is not present in the OT cannot be a valid current understanding or doctrine is utterly false.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ as it unfolded, despite Jews having hundreds of years of the complete canon of the OT for perusal resulted in a complete failure of Jews per se to really "get" who Jesus Christ was.
Even His own disciples, right up until His ascension, were shown to have missed the boat.

Yes, it is true that, in RETROSPECT, all those Messianic prophecies were shown to have been completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, no lesser light than Peter had his issues with recidivism as well documented in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's letter to the Galatians.

If the Ot had not shown us what to look for, then trust me, not one person no this earth would have known that Yeshua was Who He was. In respect to them them not knowing him, why not turn to the facts.
Rom 11:7 So this is the situation: Most of the people of Israel have not found the favor of God they are looking for so earnestly. A few have—the ones God has chosen—but the hearts of the rest were hardened.


Rom 11:8
As the Scriptures say, “God has put them into a deep sleep. To this day he has shut their eyes so they do not see,
and closed their ears so they do not hear

So with out looking to the OT what scripture tells us about this? Can it be oh Is. 29:10? or juast maybe it was Duet. 29:4? Nope can't be, the NT as you said has nothing to with the OT.

Prospectively, though, Jesus Christ represented nothing that Judaism was expecting as a Messiah, and that included the disciples cum apostles.

So even though Yeshua lived His life in every respect to Torah, (the full embodiment of Judaism) fulling ever Feast, Law, and Word spoken of him Perfectly, this in no way shows any representation of Judaism? An interesting tail. Though it holds to basses in fact, it is cute.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and the consequences of that in-breaking into human history is unique and was NOT completely predictable, despite the plethora of Messianic prophecies and references to found in the OT. John the Baptist, the disciples, as well as the priests and leaders, and the Pharisees (do not make the mistake of labelling them all as evil critters because they were not) were all unable to come up with who and what Jesus Christ was through their knowledge of the OT.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ represents fresh and unique revelation - it is most decidedly NOT a retread of OT revelation and doctrinal understanding. The fact that He was predicted by the OT and He Himself, obviously, referenced the OT copiously, and actually came to fulfil the demands of the Sinaitic covenant on our behalf, does not change the fact that no-one, then or now, can come up with Jesus Christ purely on the basis of the OT alone...

And a similar principle exists when studying NT writings, the current NT canon. It is not a retread of the OT despite copiously referencing it. The New covenant is NOT a retread of any OT covenant, much less the Sinaitic covenant that God made with Moses on the slopes of Mount Sinai. What Paul outlines in his many Epistles is not directly or completely discoverable within the OT. The same goes for the other authors of the NT canon. It takes the revelation that is Jesus Christ to give the breadth and depth and intensity of New covenant theology and doctrine!

Enough said...

 

[graceNpeace]

If the Ot had not shown us what to look for, then trust me, not one person no this earth would have known that Yeshua was Who He was. In respect to them them not knowing him, why not turn to the facts.
Rom 11:7 So this is the situation: Most of the people of Israel have not found the favor of God they are looking for so earnestly. A few have—the ones God has chosen—but the hearts of the rest were hardened.


Rom 11:8
As the Scriptures say, “God has put them into a deep sleep. To this day he has shut their eyes so they do not see,
and closed their ears so they do not hear

So with out looking to the OT what scripture tells us about this? Can it be oh Is. 29:10? or juast maybe it was Duet. 29:4? Nope can't be, the NT as you said has nothing to with the OT.



So even though Yeshua lived His life in every respect to Torah, (the full embodiment of Judaism) fulling ever Feast, Law, and Word spoken of him Perfectly, this in no way shows any representation of Judaism? An interesting tail. Though it holds to basses in fact, it is cute.

Clearly you have completely missed the point of my post, since you appear to contesting issues which have nothing to do with what I have said...