SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

Before I begin, all quotes of views from this group are limited to the administrators and/or moderators of the board, or to articles from this website. This is to make sure that this reflects, as much as can be done, the views that best represent this website and forums. A break in any quote is marked by an ellipses in brackets (ie. [...]).

I am greatly concerned about quite a few beliefs expressed here regarding the Law and the Old Covenant. What I wish to deal with right now is the nature of Paul's actions towards, and reactions to, the Mosaic Law.

For example, here's what some think of Paul and the Law:

• "Secondly, Paul did not keep the Mosaic Law. The points that he observed were to win the Jews to Christ, but he was not Torah observant."[1]
• "So I see no contradiction in that Paul would go along with certain things in the Law at certain times, when it would further his witness to jews (sic)."[2]
• "Paul circumcised Timothy, 'because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.' And his mother was a Jewess. [Acts 16:1-3] [...] Not as under the Law but to make it easier to witness to the Jews."[3]
• "There is no verse in the NT which states that Paul attended offerings in the Temple or had any intent of offering a sacrifice himself. He offered to pay for others. He did not not have a vow with them which is what required a sacrifice. If you read the text, it is clear what his intentions were. Paul was also taken away and locked up on the 7th day. The sacrifice was required on the 8th day. [...] Please note - the four men had a vow, not Paul. Paul simply purified himself with the four. The offering that should be offered was for the four, not for Paul, because he did not have a vow. [...] Also, please note, that the emphasis was in the four commandments given in Acts 15 - confirming again that NO OTHER commandments were given to the gentiles."[4]
• "Paul renounced circumcision. He allowed some like Timothy to be circumcised as a witness to the Jews in order to preach the Gospel."[5]
  

Now, I would hope that most people would see the great potential for errors in these quotes. Said and advocated is one of the dumbest things that you could say about Paul, partly due to the untrue nature of it, partly due to the accusation of wickedness that is actually laid against him, and partly due to the fact that you ascribe this supposed sin of his as an excellent example, namely in a supposed false dealing of the Law in order to trick Jews to leave Judaism for Christianity, which some seem to think are two different religions. Many of these quotes accuse Paul of being a con artist of the highest order, tricking people to leave the religion of their fathers for a new one. This is, by far, a terrible traducery against Paul. Besides that, Paul could not have been a righteous man, even if the message of the New Testament was correct, had he engaged in such deceit. After all, it is written, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully." [6] If Paul was using deceit to win people to the truth, he himself would be found wanting. His behavior is entirely questionable and lacking in such a case. Thankfully, we can dismiss these statements and quotes accusing – or even bragging of -- Paul of being deceptive as ignorant and false.

Either Paul did or did not keep the Mosaic Law. There is no middle ground of half-choosing what to follow. Statements of the contrary are just plainly ridiculous and ought to be ridiculed. Paul himself stated that he "[testified] again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."[7] Circumcision required the entirety of the commandments to be followed. Now, we know Paul was circumcised. He described himself in this manner: "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee."[8]

What is still even more ironic than that is that the same group that says that Paul didn't have to observe the Law is the same group of people who appear to believe that Paul circumcised Timothy out of some sort of perverse desire to make Timothy's witnessing a little easier. This is ludicrous. How was Timothy supposed to show this off? Was it even something he was supposed to show off in the first place? Was it merely so he could go back to his town and tell them he was a somewhat Torah observant Jew but with a new religion called Christianity? Or even worse, how would he use this to explain, to other Jews who didn't know him, that he kept the Law only in part? Would he tell them he just chose circumcision out of all of the commandments in order to make them feel better? Or did he keep the Law in whole? No doubt, he had to keep it in whole. Again, Paul stated that those who are circumcised must do all of the Law.

Paul didn't make this up, either. This came right from the Law itself. "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."[9] This clearly makes circumcision connected with being born in the land, requiring the conversion of the entire house to follow the Law. There can be no mistake on this matter; one who is circumcised must keep the entirety, as a Jew. So now Paul subjected poor Timothy to the entirety of the Law merely for witnessing purposes, according to some of you? Or did Timothy somehow manage to take advantage of a loophole? This is bad theology.

Furthermore, some doubt whether Paul had intended to offer the offering, but he intended it all along. The men of Jerusalem didn't invent a vow for him; he already had vowed the vow earlier before reaching Jerusalem, hence the shorn head seen previously before the study of Acts 21. The men of Jerusalem were only advocating that he make his observance of the vow certified by witnesses so that he could destroy the false statements about him that stated that he was teaching Jews to forsake Moses.[10] It is ridiculous to believe he was to follow through on the vow only up to the point of the sacrifice. Why do it at all? To convince the Jews of what? That he wasn't teaching Jews to forsake Moses but only to forsake part of Moses? In addressing one of the quotes above, Acts 15 does NOT cover every single thing that Gentiles must observe, but the things which they needed to know right then and there. Which one of the four commandments covers murder, theft, and covetousness? Are these OK for Gentiles to perform?

But in this battleground over Paul and the Law, we see such contradictory statements as, "Paul renounced circumcision. He allowed some like Timothy to be circumcised as a witness to the Jews in order to preach the Gospel."[5] Paul didn't renounce circumcision, and this is an outright lie against Paul's stance. Knowing this is false, the author of this quote had to explain the circumcision of Timothy, but wait! If Paul circumcised Timothy, he didn't renounce circumcision! So this renouncement has to come with some sort of very odd twisting and dancing to make it fit. Square Peg, meet Round Hole. This is typical of theology that does not rely entirely on the Bible.

What is more upsetting is that this type of contradictory reasoning allows many people to think they have found fault with the Bible. Jews who do not believe in the New Testament are led to believe they are dealing with a pagan religion, while Gentiles who do not believe the Bible are led to believe that they are dealing with a contradictory religion of illogical morons. Is this what the Bible really is? God forbid.

Somehow I doubt I'll be staying here long, whether by allowance of the leadership or by my own decision to move on, but nevertheless, I remain hopeful that my time here is blessed.

________
[1] sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=61&pid=996#pid996]
[2] Rose of Shushan [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=65&pid=372#pid372]
[3] An unknown article attributed to be from this website. Quoted by sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=91&pid=2660#pid2660]
[4] sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=91&pid=3714#pid3714]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jeremiah 48:10ff
[7] Galatians 5:3ff
[8] Philippians 3:5
[9] Exodus 12:48
[10] Acts 21:18-28 [In general.]

(10-19-2009 07:15 PM)DavidC99 Wrote: [ -> ]Before I begin, all quotes of views from this group are limited to the administrators and/or moderators of the board, or to articles from this website. This is to make sure that this reflects, as much as can be done, the views that best represent this website and forums. A break in any quote is marked by an ellipses in brackets (ie. [...]).

I am greatly concerned about quite a few beliefs expressed here regarding the Law and the Old Covenant. What I wish to deal with right now is the nature of Paul's actions towards, and reactions to, the Mosaic Law.

For example, here's what some think of Paul and the Law:

• "Secondly, Paul did not keep the Mosaic Law. The points that he observed were to win the Jews to Christ, but he was not Torah observant."[1]
• "So I see no contradiction in that Paul would go along with certain things in the Law at certain times, when it would further his witness to jews (sic)."[2]
• "Paul circumcised Timothy, 'because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.' And his mother was a Jewess. [Acts 16:1-3] [...] Not as under the Law but to make it easier to witness to the Jews."[3]
• "There is no verse in the NT which states that Paul attended offerings in the Temple or had any intent of offering a sacrifice himself. He offered to pay for others. He did not not have a vow with them which is what required a sacrifice. If you read the text, it is clear what his intentions were. Paul was also taken away and locked up on the 7th day. The sacrifice was required on the 8th day. [...] Please note - the four men had a vow, not Paul. Paul simply purified himself with the four. The offering that should be offered was for the four, not for Paul, because he did not have a vow. [...] Also, please note, that the emphasis was in the four commandments given in Acts 15 - confirming again that NO OTHER commandments were given to the gentiles."[4]
• "Paul renounced circumcision. He allowed some like Timothy to be circumcised as a witness to the Jews in order to preach the Gospel."[5]
  

Now, I would hope that most people would see the great potential for errors in these quotes. Said and advocated is one of the dumbest things that you could say about Paul, partly due to the untrue nature of it, partly due to the accusation of wickedness that is actually laid against him, and partly due to the fact that you ascribe this supposed sin of his as an excellent example, namely in a supposed false dealing of the Law in order to trick Jews to leave Judaism for Christianity, which some seem to think are two different religions. Many of these quotes accuse Paul of being a con artist of the highest order, tricking people to leave the religion of their fathers for a new one. This is, by far, a terrible traducery against Paul. Besides that, Paul could not have been a righteous man, even if the message of the New Testament was correct, had he engaged in such deceit. After all, it is written, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully." [6] If Paul was using deceit to win people to the truth, he himself would be found wanting. His behavior is entirely questionable and lacking in such a case. Thankfully, we can dismiss these statements and quotes accusing – or even bragging of -- Paul of being deceptive as ignorant and false.

Either Paul did or did not keep the Mosaic Law. There is no middle ground of half-choosing what to follow. Statements of the contrary are just plainly ridiculous and ought to be ridiculed. Paul himself stated that he "[testified] again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."[7] Circumcision required the entirety of the commandments to be followed. Now, we know Paul was circumcised. He described himself in this manner: "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee."[8]

What is still even more ironic than that is that the same group that says that Paul didn't have to observe the Law is the same group of people who appear to believe that Paul circumcised Timothy out of some sort of perverse desire to make Timothy's witnessing a little easier. This is ludicrous. How was Timothy supposed to show this off? Was it even something he was supposed to show off in the first place? Was it merely so he could go back to his town and tell them he was a somewhat Torah observant Jew but with a new religion called Christianity? Or even worse, how would he use this to explain, to other Jews who didn't know him, that he kept the Law only in part? Would he tell them he just chose circumcision out of all of the commandments in order to make them feel better? Or did he keep the Law in whole? No doubt, he had to keep it in whole. Again, Paul stated that those who are circumcised must do all of the Law.

Paul didn't make this up, either. This came right from the Law itself. "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."[9] This clearly makes circumcision connected with being born in the land, requiring the conversion of the entire house to follow the Law. There can be no mistake on this matter; one who is circumcised must keep the entirety, as a Jew. So now Paul subjected poor Timothy to the entirety of the Law merely for witnessing purposes, according to some of you? Or did Timothy somehow manage to take advantage of a loophole? This is bad theology.

Furthermore, some doubt whether Paul had intended to offer the offering, but he intended it all along. The men of Jerusalem didn't invent a vow for him; he already had vowed the vow earlier before reaching Jerusalem, hence the shorn head seen previously before the study of Acts 21. The men of Jerusalem were only advocating that he make his observance of the vow certified by witnesses so that he could destroy the false statements about him that stated that he was teaching Jews to forsake Moses.[10] It is ridiculous to believe he was to follow through on the vow only up to the point of the sacrifice. Why do it at all? To convince the Jews of what? That he wasn't teaching Jews to forsake Moses but only to forsake part of Moses? In addressing one of the quotes above, Acts 15 does NOT cover every single thing that Gentiles must observe, but the things which they needed to know right then and there. Which one of the four commandments covers murder, theft, and covetousness? Are these OK for Gentiles to perform?

But in this battleground over Paul and the Law, we see such contradictory statements as, "Paul renounced circumcision. He allowed some like Timothy to be circumcised as a witness to the Jews in order to preach the Gospel."[5] Paul didn't renounce circumcision, and this is an outright lie against Paul's stance. Knowing this is false, the author of this quote had to explain the circumcision of Timothy, but wait! If Paul circumcised Timothy, he didn't renounce circumcision! So this renouncement has to come with some sort of very odd twisting and dancing to make it fit. Square Peg, meet Round Hole. This is typical of theology that does not rely entirely on the Bible.

What is more upsetting is that this type of contradictory reasoning allows many people to think they have found fault with the Bible. Jews who do not believe in the New Testament are led to believe they are dealing with a pagan religion, while Gentiles who do not believe the Bible are led to believe that they are dealing with a contradictory religion of illogical morons. Is this what the Bible really is? God forbid.

Somehow I doubt I'll be staying here long, whether by allowance of the leadership or by my own decision to move on, but nevertheless, I remain hopeful that my time here is blessed.

________
[1] sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=61&pid=996#pid996]
[2] Rose of Shushan [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=65&pid=372#pid372]
[3] An unknown article attributed to be from this website. Quoted by sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=91&pid=2660#pid2660]
[4] sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=91&pid=3714#pid3714]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jeremiah 48:10ff
[7] Galatians 5:3ff
[8] Philippians 3:5
[9] Exodus 12:48
[10] Acts 21:18-28 [In general.]

David,

You must have missed my post in answer to yours in the intro section. I had kindly asked you to not post a whole list of topics which makes it highly difficult to respond to. Not only that, these topics each have threads of their own where they are discussed. You seem to have missed the main thrust of the responses we made, continuing to make the same errors, as you have written here without considering the information given in the threads dealing with these issues. If you have *new* information, posting in the thread of the topic is the correct protocol.



What we can do is leave your post up for awhile so you can go back to each thread and present your information there.

(10-19-2009 07:49 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ]David,

You must have missed my post in answer to yours in the intro section. I had kindly asked you to not post a whole list of topics which makes it highly difficult to respond to. Not only that, these topics each have threads of their own where they are discussed. You seem to have missed the main thrust of the responses we made, continuing to make the same errors, as you have written here without considering the information given in the threads dealing with these issues. If you have *new* information, posting in the thread of the topic is the correct protocol.



What we can do is leave your post up for awhile so you can go back to each thread and respond to the corresponding topic with what you have posted here so we can respond in a more timely and concise manner.

I both read and responded to the intro posts. Suggesting I missed it is a rather mind-boggling statement to make. In fact, I even addressed that point of yours, saying I would keep my material to one subject at a time. I'm not sure what you mean by "continuing to make the same errors." If I have made a mistake here in where I posted this, it is one error at this one particular point in time, not a continuation of errors.

In posting this topic, I had believed I dealt with one topic, namely this relating particularly to Paul and his view of the Mosaic Law. I actually had cut out a lot of material that I want to post, that had nothing to do with this, and kept it to this small subject out of respect for you and the other readers.

In fact, I was under the impression, you would not have wanted me to write in multiple topics addressing each point separately. Had I done that, I can't help but think you or another admin might have accused me of spam, which is something I had wanted to avoid.... as you might remember I was warned about that, too. (Hmm, all these warnings on both ends of the spectrum. :( )

Either way, the formatting is an irrelevant concern, as I'm willing to go about this with your rules, even if it means more work for me. I'll get to it as time goes on. At least you have an advanced warning of the type of material I wish to discuss.

Thank you for taking the time to address this.

(10-19-2009 08:01 PM)DavidC99 Wrote: [ -> ]I both read and responded to the intro posts. Suggesting I missed it is a rather mind-boggling statement to make. In fact, I even addressed that point of yours, saying I would keep my material to one subject at a time. I'm not sure what you mean by "continuing to make the same errors." If I have made a mistake here in where I posted this, it is one error at this one particular point in time, not a continuation of errors.

In posting this topic, I had believed I dealt with one topic, namely this relating particularly to Paul and his view of the Mosaic Law. I actually had cut out a lot of material that I want to post, that had nothing to do with this, and kept it to this small subject out of respect for you and the other readers.

In fact, I was under the impression, you would not have wanted me to write in multiple topics addressing each point separately. Had I done that, I can't help but think you or another admin might have accused me of spam, which is something I had wanted to avoid.... as you might remember I was warned about that, too. (Hmm, all these warnings on both ends of the spectrum. :( )

Either way, the formatting is an irrelevant concern, as I'm willing to go about this with your rules, even if it means more work for me. I'll get to it as time goes on. At least you have an advanced warning of the type of material I wish to discuss.

Thank you for taking the time to address this.

"The errors" are the ones that you promote as ones we have dealt with in the other threads - so we have had "advance warning" for years. In other words, it's not new information - we are more than familiar with your view. According to the NT Scriptures we have proven that your position is in error. Paul clearly stated why he did the things he did. Each topic you have listed is a different concept which is why we have a separate thread for each and why we prefer that you address each point in it's proper place - you had to copy and paste from them to begin with. It would have been easier to deal with them where they were at

If you think so...

Hi,

I'd just like to say that I think David makes some interesting points and that having them presented in a "new" thread makes it easier to follow rather than wading through the other threads. I realise that goes against the tradition of the forum... but having read the other threads on the topic I personally find it useful to have a fresh start on a new perspective.

Quote:Said and advocated is one of the dumbest things that you could say about Paul, partly due to the untrue nature of it, partly due to the accusation of wickedness that is actually laid against him, and partly due to the fact that you ascribe this supposed sin of his as an excellent example, namely in a supposed false dealing of the Law in order to trick Jews to leave Judaism for Christianity, which some seem to think are two different religions. Many of these quotes accuse Paul of being a con artist of the highest order, tricking people to leave the religion of their fathers for a new one. This is, by far, a terrible traducery against Paul. Besides that, Paul could not have been a righteous man, even if the message of the New Testament was correct, had he engaged in such deceit. After all, it is written, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully." [6] If Paul was using deceit to win people to the truth, he himself would be found wanting. His behavior is entirely questionable and lacking in such a case. Thankfully, we can dismiss these statements and quotes accusing – or even bragging of -- Paul of being deceptive as ignorant and false.

David I see two things here. One you say that some seem to think that Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. Its not that some think it, it's that they are two different religions.
Second you seem to think that the message of the NT was not correct since you said

Quote: Besides that, Paul could not have been a righteous man, even if the message of the New Testament was correct, had he engaged in such deceit.

David I don't think you are reading Paul's words correctly.I guess Rahab was cursed when she used deceit to help the work of God? No, I don't think so.

Quote:Either Paul did or did not keep the Mosaic Law. There is no middle ground of half-choosing what to follow. Statements of the contrary are just plainly ridiculous and ought to be ridiculed. Paul himself stated that he "[testified] again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."[7] Circumcision required the entirety of the commandments to be followed. Now, we know Paul was circumcised. He described himself in this manner: "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee."[8]

Well if you say there is no middle ground we must accept that Paul did not keep the Mosaic Law.Since he was away from Jerusalem up to 14 years at one point.So that’s an awful lots of feasts he failed to observe wouldn’t you say.

Quote:What is still even more ironic than that is that the same group that says that Paul didn't have to observe the Law is the same group of people who appear to believe that Paul circumcised Timothy out of some sort of perverse desire to make Timothy's witnessing a little easier. This is ludicrous. How was Timothy supposed to show this off? Was it even something he was supposed to show off in the first place? Was it merely so he could go back to his town and tell them he was a somewhat Torah observant Jew but with a new religion called Christianity? Or even worse, how would he use this to explain, to other Jews who didn't know him, that he kept the Law only in part? Would he tell them he just chose circumcision out of all of the commandments in order to make them feel better? Or did he keep the Law in whole? No doubt, he had to keep it in whole. Again, Paul stated that those who are circumcised must do all of the Law.

What is perverse about the desire to make Timothys witnessing a little easier? The fact is that Timothy was jewish, he just had not been circumcised since his father was Greek. But technically Timothy was jewish and entitled to attend the Temple like his fellow jews.That is why Paul had him circumcised so that he could now enter the Temple and be able to witness to his fellow jews. On another occasion we know that Paul did not circumcise Titus.Why not David? Because Titus was not jewish at all and that would have been deceit.
When Paul talks about not getting circumcised he is referring to the issue where some were saying that believers had to get circumcised and obey the Law. Something which the NT makes clear is not necessary under the New Covenant.I don’t think youre quite getting this issue since you keep harping on about how Paul said that if one is circumcised one has to obey the whole law.Do you not get what Paul was going with that?

Lets take a look at this verse

Gal 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Paul was away from Jerusalem 14 years and when he did go up after all that time it was due to revelation and not because he routinely went three times a year as the Mosaic Law demanded.
He did not circumcise Titus who was a greek.That's because Titus did not have a jewish father.So even if he had wanted to he wouldn’t have been able to circumcise him in order to get him into the Temple.That would have been deceit.
You need to go back and read Galatians again.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

David what Paul was saying was that if someone advocated circumcision that belonged to the Old Covenant and as such they were joining himself to that covenant which bound the person to obey the whole Law.You cannot just read one verse in isolation but rather, look at the context.Read the context which shows Paul was saying that in Christ we no longer needed to circumcise. In the New Covenant that is not a physical requirement.The circumcision of the male symbolized the reality of a circumcised heart in the New Covenant.In the New the emphasis isn’t in outward rituals but on the reality that the Old Covenant rituals represented.
As to whether Jews that believe in Jesus can continue to circumcise..it seems that theres no problem with this.As long as its done knowing that its not a requirement.Theres nothing wrong with jewish believers continuing to perform this ,since its something that is done in every jewish family.It is good and necessary for jewish believers to remain in their families and be a light and a witness to them.And it is not wrong to circumcise them in honour of the covenant made at Sinai with their ancestors.But for a gentile to do it..it doesn’t make sense in the light of the NT.
Paul was so against it that he said this


Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

(10-19-2009 07:15 PM)DavidC99 Wrote: [ -> ]For example, here's what some think of Paul and the Law:

* "Secondly, Paul did not keep the Mosaic Law. The points that he observed were to win the Jews to Christ, but he was not Torah observant."[1]


Now, I would hope that most people would see the great potential for errors in these quotes. Said and advocated is one of the dumbest things that you could say about Paul, partly due to the untrue nature of it, partly due to the accusation of wickedness that is actually laid against him, and partly due to the fact that you ascribe this supposed sin of his as an excellent example, namely in a supposed false dealing of the Law in order to trick Jews to leave Judaism for Christianity, which some seem to think are two different religions. Many of these quotes accuse Paul of being a con artist of the highest order, tricking people to leave the religion of their fathers for a new one. This is, by far, a terrible traducery against Paul. Besides that, Paul could not have been a righteous man, even if the message of the New Testament was correct, had he engaged in such deceit. After all, it is written, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully." [6] If Paul was using deceit to win people to the truth, he himself would be found wanting. His behavior is entirely questionable and lacking in such a case. Thankfully, we can dismiss these statements and quotes accusing – or even bragging of -- Paul of being deceptive as ignorant and false.

In Paul's own words, he stated clearly that he was as a Jew to win the Jews to Christ. When he was with a Gentiles, he was as a Gentile to win them to Christ. So the concept that Paul "lied" in order to preach the Gospel completely misses *how* Paul "was a Jew to the Jews".

The perfect example is Jesus Christ. He came to earth as a man - leaving His glory behind that He might give His life by being a servant to "win us to God" so-to-speak [Phil 2]. Ephesians states that through Christ we are reconciled to God. Jesus was not lying in that He became a man in order to be as we are - to be tempted, to live in a flesh body, etc. That did not make Him exactly like us with the propensity and nature to sin, but God in the flesh - holy and perfect and without sin, but yet human. So was Jesus deceptive because He could not sin? Was He pretending to be human so He could trick us?

Another example. If I am invited to go to a practicing Jewish home for dinner do you not think that on behalf of Christ, I would observe their kosher table? In that way, am I not being as a Jew to the Jew hoping for the opportunity to witness the Gospel?

Because Paul had been a practicing Jew, he could very easily take part in the "Jewish fatih" of his background by being accepted in that role. This would open the door for him to witness. It was not deception, he was a servant of the Lord and out of respect and deference to those that he loved enough to be like them - in order to win them to Christ.

So. We should keep ALL the law of moses:

We should be circumsized?

We should not eat pork?

We should never wear clothing of mixed fabric, both wool and cotton for example, and God forbid that we should ever wear <UGH> synthetic fabrics!!

Well, Paul said those who were circumcized were obliged to the whole law and had fallen from grace, and Jesus said that all foods were clean.

Or do you argue a little more subtly and refer to the moral core of the LAw, like the ten commandments?

Well, do you love God with all your heart mind and strength? do you love your neighbour as yourself? Link these with what Jesus said about what our spontaneous reactions actually indicate (try the sermon on the mount) and with who our neighbour actually is, (an example was that scum of the earth - for so the Jews thought at the time - the samaritans) you must, if honest, admit that you do not keep the moral law of the law either.

It goes without saying that neither do I.

and our efforts do not even approach keeping the Law, in fact our efforts twist ourselves in knots and also twist our understanding of the Law also

And put this with I John,whereby if we do not love ourt brother we do not even know God and see where it leaves us if we ignore grace or, as is most common, invoke it falsely?

Paul said the Law was the ministry of condemnation that in fact stirred up sin and made it worse.

So, try to keep the Law and fall into the error of the Galatians, and be a candidate for blaspheming the Spirit. I was headed that way but the Spirit, in a right neighbourly gesture of kindness, dont you think? gave me repentance of the sins that was leading me to the unforgiveable before i got there.

You have to love? I dont dispute that fro one moment. but if it is merely a commandment in a book it is of no use to us, it becomes our death warrant.

St James said the LAw was a mirror. if you cannot see your own helpless self in the mirror of the LAw then you have no notion of what the LAw is for.

Stil think you can and should keep the law?

Knock yourself out

(10-19-2009 07:15 PM)DavidC99 Wrote: [ -> ]Before I begin, all quotes of views from this group are limited to the administrators and/or moderators of the board, or to articles from this website. This is to make sure that this reflects, as much as can be done, the views that best represent this website and forums. A break in any quote is marked by an ellipses in brackets (ie. [...]).

I am greatly concerned about quite a few beliefs expressed here regarding the Law and the Old Covenant. What I wish to deal with right now is the nature of Paul's actions towards, and reactions to, the Mosaic Law.

For example, here's what some think of Paul and the Law:

• "Secondly, Paul did not keep the Mosaic Law. The points that he observed were to win the Jews to Christ, but he was not Torah observant."[1]
• "So I see no contradiction in that Paul would go along with certain things in the Law at certain times, when it would further his witness to jews (sic)."[2]
• "Paul circumcised Timothy, 'because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.' And his mother was a Jewess. [Acts 16:1-3] [...] Not as under the Law but to make it easier to witness to the Jews."[3]
• "There is no verse in the NT which states that Paul attended offerings in the Temple or had any intent of offering a sacrifice himself. He offered to pay for others. He did not not have a vow with them which is what required a sacrifice. If you read the text, it is clear what his intentions were. Paul was also taken away and locked up on the 7th day. The sacrifice was required on the 8th day. [...] Please note - the four men had a vow, not Paul. Paul simply purified himself with the four. The offering that should be offered was for the four, not for Paul, because he did not have a vow. [...] Also, please note, that the emphasis was in the four commandments given in Acts 15 - confirming again that NO OTHER commandments were given to the gentiles."[4]
• "Paul renounced circumcision. He allowed some like Timothy to be circumcised as a witness to the Jews in order to preach the Gospel."[5]
  

Now, I would hope that most people would see the great potential for errors in these quotes. Said and advocated is one of the dumbest things that you could say about Paul, partly due to the untrue nature of it, partly due to the accusation of wickedness that is actually laid against him, and partly due to the fact that you ascribe this supposed sin of his as an excellent example, namely in a supposed false dealing of the Law in order to trick Jews to leave Judaism for Christianity, which some seem to think are two different religions. Many of these quotes accuse Paul of being a con artist of the highest order, tricking people to leave the religion of their fathers for a new one. This is, by far, a terrible traducery against Paul. Besides that, Paul could not have been a righteous man, even if the message of the New Testament was correct, had he engaged in such deceit. After all, it is written, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully." [6] If Paul was using deceit to win people to the truth, he himself would be found wanting. His behavior is entirely questionable and lacking in such a case. Thankfully, we can dismiss these statements and quotes accusing – or even bragging of -- Paul of being deceptive as ignorant and false.

Either Paul did or did not keep the Mosaic Law. There is no middle ground of half-choosing what to follow. Statements of the contrary are just plainly ridiculous and ought to be ridiculed. Paul himself stated that he "[testified] again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."[7] Circumcision required the entirety of the commandments to be followed. Now, we know Paul was circumcised. He described himself in this manner: "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee."[8]

What is still even more ironic than that is that the same group that says that Paul didn't have to observe the Law is the same group of people who appear to believe that Paul circumcised Timothy out of some sort of perverse desire to make Timothy's witnessing a little easier. This is ludicrous. How was Timothy supposed to show this off? Was it even something he was supposed to show off in the first place? Was it merely so he could go back to his town and tell them he was a somewhat Torah observant Jew but with a new religion called Christianity? Or even worse, how would he use this to explain, to other Jews who didn't know him, that he kept the Law only in part? Would he tell them he just chose circumcision out of all of the commandments in order to make them feel better? Or did he keep the Law in whole? No doubt, he had to keep it in whole. Again, Paul stated that those who are circumcised must do all of the Law.

Paul didn't make this up, either. This came right from the Law itself. "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."[9] This clearly makes circumcision connected with being born in the land, requiring the conversion of the entire house to follow the Law. There can be no mistake on this matter; one who is circumcised must keep the entirety, as a Jew. So now Paul subjected poor Timothy to the entirety of the Law merely for witnessing purposes, according to some of you? Or did Timothy somehow manage to take advantage of a loophole? This is bad theology.

Furthermore, some doubt whether Paul had intended to offer the offering, but he intended it all along. The men of Jerusalem didn't invent a vow for him; he already had vowed the vow earlier before reaching Jerusalem, hence the shorn head seen previously before the study of Acts 21. The men of Jerusalem were only advocating that he make his observance of the vow certified by witnesses so that he could destroy the false statements about him that stated that he was teaching Jews to forsake Moses.[10] It is ridiculous to believe he was to follow through on the vow only up to the point of the sacrifice. Why do it at all? To convince the Jews of what? That he wasn't teaching Jews to forsake Moses but only to forsake part of Moses? In addressing one of the quotes above, Acts 15 does NOT cover every single thing that Gentiles must observe, but the things which they needed to know right then and there. Which one of the four commandments covers murder, theft, and covetousness? Are these OK for Gentiles to perform?

But in this battleground over Paul and the Law, we see such contradictory statements as, "Paul renounced circumcision. He allowed some like Timothy to be circumcised as a witness to the Jews in order to preach the Gospel."[5] Paul didn't renounce circumcision, and this is an outright lie against Paul's stance. Knowing this is false, the author of this quote had to explain the circumcision of Timothy, but wait! If Paul circumcised Timothy, he didn't renounce circumcision! So this renouncement has to come with some sort of very odd twisting and dancing to make it fit. Square Peg, meet Round Hole. This is typical of theology that does not rely entirely on the Bible.

What is more upsetting is that this type of contradictory reasoning allows many people to think they have found fault with the Bible. Jews who do not believe in the New Testament are led to believe they are dealing with a pagan religion, while Gentiles who do not believe the Bible are led to believe that they are dealing with a contradictory religion of illogical morons. Is this what the Bible really is? God forbid.

Somehow I doubt I'll be staying here long, whether by allowance of the leadership or by my own decision to move on, but nevertheless, I remain hopeful that my time here is blessed.

________
[1] sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=61&pid=996#pid996]
[2] Rose of Shushan [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=65&pid=372#pid372]
[3] An unknown article attributed to be from this website. Quoted by sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=91&pid=2660#pid2660]
[4] sheep wrecked [http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=91&pid=3714#pid3714]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jeremiah 48:10ff
[7] Galatians 5:3ff
[8] Philippians 3:5
[9] Exodus 12:48
[10] Acts 21:18-28 [In general.]

It's quite clear David, that you have attempted to use the thinking of one who rejects the NT and Jesus Christ and the writings of Paul. What you have attempted to do is prove the validity and truth of rejection of the NT, Christ and Paul's writings by using the arguments, reasonings and beliefs of those who do reject it all, as valid. They aren't. That isn't the litmus test of Truth.

Just because someone draws particular conclusions based on not believing the NT, doesn't mean their conclusions are truth. Nor their arguments.

You have made some pretty bad statments and accusations, including personal attacks, about what is being said. Aside from the behind the scenes dialogue with Sheep, your intent and attitude has been clear from your first post. You had every intention of posting your agenda. And every attempt to get you to apply what the admins said to you was rejected with the, "there, I knew it would be like this", and then you have leveled accusation upon accusation against us, the website and any that agree with what we have posted concerning these issues.

However David, it is clear in your failure to declare Christ when asked, that the "major Issues" that you feel are important have outweighed the need for Christ, and the Gospel. You see us as several unkind labels, and foam at the mouth when asked to step back and settle down. You intended to play the victim, and expected to put everyone in a position to dump on you. Well. No one did. You have brought nothing new to the table. Your arguments are based on despising the Truth.

If you did love Christ, you have lost that in favor of advocating being under the law of Moses instead of the New Covenant. It always amazes me how many advocates miss what Jeremiah 31 says, and what Moses said about the Prophet to be listened to, and God saying He would speak what He said. All claiming to adhere to the Law---but miss the crux of the message. Christ.

As far as your quotes reflecting the attitude of this forum and website---you missed it totally, because you missed the whole message of Christ and the New Covenant. Not one is attributing deceit, dishonesty and false statements to Paul--except you. That you want that to be the conclusion readers reach, is very sad. Because you have missed and ignored and attempted to overturn what Paul taught. And what Peter and the other apostles understood. That Jew and Gentile were one under Christ and all are saved by God's grace through faith, not by the law.

Every single person that claims to keep the law of Moses and advocates it must be kept fails. Because the very parameters within the law keep it from being kept without the temple, without the levitical priesthood, and if even practicing Jews in Israel can keep less than 300, the dilemma becomes if one is required according to God in the law---to keep ALL of it-- or face the curses for not and there is no verse anywhere in there to allow not keeping it ALL if one is bound to it---all those saying they keep it are lying--and breaking another commandment---so please before accusing, consider the implications.

Because Paul, Peter, Silas, Barnabas and other Jewish believers gave witness they could be with the Gentiles and not live as a Jew. Because Christ delivered the final sacrifice and removed the law out of the way so all people would have equal access based on the very basic reality that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The law made no one righteous--and no one or no sacrifice or works can make us clean or acceptable to God, except through Christ, who can make us clean. Acts 15 tells that those Jewish believers who were commanding that new believers be circumcised and keep the law of Moses----were subverting the souls of those they told, according to the apostle James and the other apostles and elders of the churches.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

subverting means>

G384
ἀνασκευάζω
anaskeuazō
Thayer Definition:
1) to pack up baggage in order to carry it away to another place
1a) to move one’s furniture (when setting out for some other place)
2) of an enemy
2a) dismantling, plundering
3) of a place
3a) to overthrow, ravage destroy towns lands etc.
4) to turn away violently from a right state, to unsettle, subvert
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G303 (in the sense of reversal) and a derivative of G4632

So to say those in Christ must be circumcised and keep the law is destroying their souls. That's quite a burden to acquire and have on judgment day.

Peter said the Gentiles were no different than Jewish believers, and were made clean by faith in Christ, which is the true circumcision of the heart, not the body. He then asked why did any of them expect to put the yoke on Gentiles that the fathers couldn't bear---and which they--the Jewish believers including the apostles-- couldn't bear. Notice that--it was meaning those from the time of Moses to then, and they as Jews were not able to bear that yoke; no one could keep it perfectly. So why expect Gentiles to?

Peter went so far as to say this concerning Jews and Gentiles, "... put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples..."

In other words, who did they think they were to challenge and try to change the message and Truth of the Gospel and the New Covenant, and try to burden new believers with the yoke that was taken away with Christ dying on the cross. And the truth that faith from Christ causes circumcision of the heart, and cleanses that which was unclean. For all. Jew and Gentile. There aren't 2 different gospels and 2 different ways to live for Christ.

What was the yoke in question? What was being discussed? Circumcision and commanding the keeping of the law of Moses. That was the yoke the fathers nor they could bear.

The yoke was not something else as some try to say. Many Messianics and Hebrew Roots proponents like to say that the yoke was the "oral law". But "fathers" in that text is defined as the fathers of Israel, meaning ancestors to those at Mt Sinai where the law was given to the children of Israel. The contrast of the burden of that yoke that Peter said the fathers nor they could bear, is found with Jesus saying,

Matthew 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The yoke of the law was not on Abraham, but on Moses and the people of the covenant. Paul encouraged against being caught up in trying to keep the law of Moses by comparing it to being entangled with the "yoke of bondage."

Galatians 5:1-4 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

People who advocate the keeping of the law of Moses, are trying to be justified by the law, which they can't keep. Therefore, they are fallen from grace, according to the Scriptures. Anything believers do is to be for the glory of God and sharing the gospel. That is what the apostle Paul exemplified. Circumcision, as part of the discussed issues, did not come from the law of Moses, but was given to Abraham, after the promise was given to him by God and before he was circumcised. So that all those who walked by faith could be heirs of the promise. Circumcision became part of the continuing covenant with Abraham under the Mosaic law, but the promise had nothing to do with the law of Moses, other than to point to Christ and be a shadow of what was to come.

Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Act 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
Act 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.