Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks. This (for me) is thinking along the right lines. But you will have to sort out with Richard why quoting a reform Rabbi somehow is a problem.
Totally right, and thank you for reposting a lucid and informative post. I was going to do it myself. Richard likes to make obscure posts thinking that it looks like he may have a valid point, but he won't follow up. It's just the way he operates. The history is valid.
Yes, as it is probably the most beastly and dishonest thing he wrote - which is saying something, as wella s forming part of of the flawed and biased argument that Romans is. Oh yes, I've read it.
But aren't we all sinners?
I guess you would have to call my post PC by comparison, but you sure NAILED it.
Acts 21 17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Paul Seized in the Temple 27And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 28Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Was Paul like these thousands of Jews who believed and became even MORE ZEALOUS to keep the laws of Moses?
Or is Paul a two faced liar who says one thing and does another to save his own skin?
Was Paul like these thousands of Jews who believed and became even MORE ZEALOUS to keep the laws of Moses?
Or is Paul a two faced liar who says one thing and does another to save his own skin?
Paul was one who recognized that the forms of the Laws and the sacrificial system were not important, just as YOU do about the sacrificial system, knowing that the spiritual is what is important, but he was willing, or even eager to fulfill them so that the ones who did not realize it would listen to what he had to say about the nature of Christ and the Way.
Paul was one who recognized that the forms of the Laws and the sacrificial system were not important, just as YOU do about the sacrificial system, knowing that the spiritual is what is important, but he was willing, or even eager to fulfill them so that the ones who did not realize it would listen to what he had to say about the nature of Christ and the Way.
Acts 21 contradicts everything you say.
Paul's life was put in danger by liars who said he was teaching against the laws of Moses and speaking against Jerusalem and the Temple, Paul proved his innocence, and if you say that the lies are true, then you convict him and you find him guilty and deserving death under the law.
Or was Paul a lousy two faced liar in the presence of thousands of Jewish believers who were zealous for keeping the laws of Moses?
You either show Paul to be a false prophet who deserves to die, or you show him to be a two faced coward who lies in order to save his own skin and I have no use for either.
You can't have it both ways, you are either WITH THE LIARS or you prove that Paul never taught against the laws of Moses.
You want it both ways but which is it?
Paul submitted himself to the authority of the priest of Judaism when he didn't even have to because he was a Roman citizen but he put HIS LIFE in THEIR HANDS and they found him INNOCENT of the charges YOU BRING AGAINST HIM.
Paul's life was put in danger by liars who said he was teaching against the laws of Moses and speaking against Jerusalem and the Temple, Paul proved his innocence, and if you say that the lies are true, then you convict him and you find him guilty and deserving death under the law.
Or was Paul a lousy two faced liar in the presence of thousands of Jewish believers who were zealous for keeping the laws of Moses?
You either show Paul to be a false prophet who deserves to die, or you show him to be a two faced coward who lies in order to save his own skin and I have no use for either.
You can't have it both ways, you are either WITH THE LIARS or you prove that Paul never taught against the laws of Moses.
You want it both ways but which is it?
Paul submitted himself to the authority of the priest of Judaism when he didn't even have to because he was a Roman citizen but he put HIS LIFE in THEIR HANDS and they found him INNOCENT of the charges YOU BRING AGAINST HIM.
I'm sorry, Hannibal, but what do YOU think it means when Jesus said that the Law is fulfilled in the two commandments He cited? Paul was not teaching AGAINST the Law, but some interpreted what he had to say that way.
How do YOU view the requirements for the different sacrifices today?
I'm sorry, Hannibal, but what do YOU think it means when Jesus said that the Law is fulfilled in the two commandments He cited?
How do YOU view the requirements for the different sacrifices today?
You quote Jesus and don't even believe Jesus.
Jesus said that whoever doesn't keep the laws of Moses and then teaches others not to keep the laws will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.
You can't even agree with anything Jesus said dude.
Jesus spoke very many things about lawless people and people who disrespect the laws of Moses, you can't even be true to the Messiah, you can't even choose to believe what he said.
Acts 21 17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Paul Seized in the Temple 27And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 28Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Was Paul like these thousands of Jews who believed and became even MORE ZEALOUS to keep the laws of Moses?
Or is Paul a two faced liar who says one thing and does another to save his own skin?
That's a good post and a good questions, but I have to point out another option: Can we trust the account in Acts? There are many reasons to doubt that it is an accurate record rather than Luke (it is Luke, for sure) simply inventing a story quite clearly based on some sources, which seems to include Paul and Josephus.
Right away the death of judas conflicts with Matthew as surely as Luke's nativity does. There are many absurdities, such as the Stooge-like Ethiopian in his chariot, but the laughable hammock of wrigglies raises a serious question; after all their time together, Peter had never been taught by Jesus that what goes in the mouth does not defile but what comes out?
It will not do to say that he was still the ignorant fishers who doesn't understand anything. Apart from the spirit breathed over him at the resurrection night, and Jesus's post asciention lectured at the end of Luke, and the final revelation at pentecost giving is a God like Judge smiting down anyone who dares to keep back something to live on and not give it all to the church (Luke was always a money -grubbing little creep, which character flaw he of course projected onto others) and still he'd not learned that Clean food laws don't matter?
There's Gamalliel's speech which refers to the revolt of Judas in the days of the census (which proves that Luke was talking about the census of the roman takeover - not some Herodian tax) but he gets Judas and Theudas back to front. Theudas being taken out under a later Roman Governor. (Felix? or was it Alexander?) which mistake Gamaliel couldn't have made. Luke (the historical dabbler) could.
But his account of Paul's escape from Damascus to escpate the approaching Nabatean army (which Paul claims - absurdly- was after him) is turned by Luke into an escape from a plot by the Jews to kill him. (1)
I can add that the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is highly improbable, not to say impossible, with Peter speaking up for Paul in Pauline terms (the Law - a burden than neither we or our fathers could bear). is alloiwed to pass as an "Atheist -stumper" when those of the "Circumcision" should have been yelling in protest. And I thank Mike 555 for helping me to see that James' quote of Hosea is a misquote, which is allowed to pass, even though the misquote is used to justify Paul. And this, mind, is about the time Paul says he had a wrangle with Peter about his eating with Gentiles.
Just add to that Paul saying nothing about the road to Damascus, but rather ascending to the third heaven for tea, buns and a chat with Jesus, who told paul just what he wanted to hear - even if he had to fisdlle it out with quotemining and chop -logic in Romans.
No. We cannot place the slightest reliance on Acts.
(1) I know Mike 555 argued powerfully for a sone unexplained plot involving the Jews, Paul and Aretas, the Nabatean general, to (in the Eusebian term ) "weave together" two conflicting stories to make them work. In fact it may work once or twice. But after a dozen or more conflucts in the Bible "Explained" using this Method, it wears a bit thin and by the time we get to Acts is seen for the Apologetics Excuse of contradictions that it really is.
It is essentially a place where Jesus told the common people not to fight city hall, but not to do as the Pharisees did. It's been covered and Richard knows that.
matt 23: 1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
"Moses' seat" combines civil and religious authority.
Ok. And where is it in Mark and Luke?.....
Nope?
Mark 12. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers:
these shall receive greater damnation.
Not a word about observing whatever they tell you.
Luke 20 4 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
45 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. hese men will be punished most severely.”
This is the same material in the synoptics (it doesn't appear in John of course) and Luke and Mark both end with some condemnation of punishment for these fellows.
Not in Matthew who writes reams of denunciation that is not in Mark or Luke, so it Matthew's own work.
Thus, I argue, so is the passage at 23 2.
It is still an interesting Puzzle as to Matthew's thinking. He is clearly interested in OT scripture, prophecy and law and even gives it some respect, but he is more venomous in his hate for these people than even Luke, who is no mean hater of Judaism.
In my useful debate with Alt. Thinker (on "Q" document) I was able to show that he could not have bneen a Jew who knew his Torah. He not only misunderstand the Torah and the Law, but evidently makes mistakes because he had to read it in Greek.
We can't be sure of why he added that bit but we can bet he added it, and thus, it is NOT what Jesus said. If indeed any of it is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-21-2017 at 10:30 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) "weave together" two conflicting stories to make them work. In fact it may work once or twice. But after a dozen or more conflucts in the Bible "Explained" using this Method, it wears a bit thin and by the time we get to Acts is seen for the Apologetics Excuse of contradictions that it really is.
