Was the apostle Paul a Jew? (beliefs, believe, Catholics, Bible)

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by Nikk

Do you not know that the ceremony for the redeeming of the first born in Israel is called "Yeshua ha ben"! In english that is "Jesus the Son"? So, Jesus was the means by which the First born were redeemed in Isreal.

Pidyon ha-Ben: Redemption of the First Born

The first and best of all things belong to G-d. This is true even of the firstborn of children. Originally, it was intended that the firstborn would serve as the priests and Temple functionaries of Israel; however, after the incident of the Golden Calf, in which the tribe of Levi did not participate, G-d chose the tribe of Levi over the firstborn for this sacred role. This is explained in Num. 8:14-18. However, even though their place has been taken by the Levites, the firstborn still retain a certain degree of sanctity, and for this reason, they must be redeemed.

The ritual of redemption is referred to as pidyon ha-ben, literally, Redemption of the Son.

A firstborn son must be redeemed after he reaches 31 days of age. Ordinarily, the ritual is performed on the 31st day (the day of birth being the first day); however, the ritual cannot be performed on Shabbat because it involves the exchange of money. The child is redeemed by paying a small sum (five silver shekels in biblical times; today, usually five silver dollars) to a kohein (preferably a pious one familiar with the procedure) and performing a brief ritual. This procedure is commanded at Num. 18:15-16.

It is important to remember that rabbis are not necessarily koheins and koheins are not necessarily rabbis. Redemption from a rabbi is not valid unless the rabbi is also a kohein.

The ritual of pidyon ha-ben applies to a relatively small number of Jews. It applies only to the firstborn male child if it is born by natural childbirth. Thus, if a female is the firstborn, no child in the family is subject to the ritual. If the first child is born by Caesarean section, the ritual does not apply to that child (nor, according to most sources, to any child born after that child). If the first conception ends in miscarriage after more than 40 days' term, it does not apply to any subsequent child. It does not apply to members of the tribe of Levi, or children born to a daughter of a member of the tribe of Levi.

Source: Judaism 101: Birth and the First Month of Life

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by Nikk

... not CE, Christian Era ...

CE is Common Era and BCE is Before the Common Era.

[VelcroQueen]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Well, O Velcroesque One, since I have it prepared, I may as well post it.

"O Velcroesque One" and "Velquroe" -- Way, way too cute! I liked those, especially the first one!

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Good heavens, madam, don't you find any anti - Jewishness here?
John 8. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.

That's the most extreme but John is shot through with slamming of 'The Jews' and the other gospels are not much better.

No, I don't. He wasn't talking to all Jews; He was talking to specific people -- people who had come to Him in Judea, specifically. Some of the people of Judea began to believe Him (v. 30-32), but the others did not (33 ff). He often spoke to specific groups of the area.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Luke 11.37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.
39 Then the LORD said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside [the dish] to the poor, and everything will be clean for you..."

Not content with the junking of ALL cleanliness rules, Jesus thanks his host for dinner thus.

But there were groups and persons who added to the rules made by G-d in the Torah, setting up fences, some of which were great and some that were not. Messiah had trouble with the additions when they caused a person to disobey what G-d had actually said to write down or when they made obeying too difficult. (Example: the added rule that people could lend their money to the Temple/priesthood in order to avoid helping their parents when they were in need. Example: that the added rules had to be obeyed even at the cost of life.) There were rules added to Torah which required a special way of washing their hands and dishes. These weren't in Torah. When they condemned the people for not following the added rules for hand- and dish-washing, Messiah let them know that the added rules were not in Torah.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

42 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former
undone. 43 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces...47 "Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets
and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,

It is hard when someone tells us the terrible truth about ourselves or our ancestors. But these people were very familiar to Him (many teachers believe that Messiah, himself, was a Pharisee, and He certainly did have friends who were Pharisees). The Pharisees were a powerful group and held the power of life and death in many circumstances, yet they took this, because it is a common way of debate, taken a bit farther by Messiah than modern people might expect.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thus Luke sets the scene for the blaming of the Jews for ..everything. And the single terrible lie that was the origin of every pogrom and worse.

Matth 27. 25 All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Again, translation, translation, translation! Unfortunately, many of the translators were/are haters of Israel, and it shows in the translations. Those of us who want to get to the bottom of these things realize we never will, unless we study the languages. Others are Jew-haters and will say so to our faces -- these are NOT believers! Then others will see through these things and realize that it is not in the personality of Messiah or His followers to hate Messiah's OWN people.

As far as the "Jews" who called for His blood to be upon them and their children, think about it: While there are some arguments that this occurred the evening of Passover, most teachers who have truly and honestly studied this believe it did. Where were the people? They were at home, behind closed doors, eating the Passover.

The men and boys had spent much of the day at the Temple. The women and girls had spent much of the day at home cleaning and preparing for the seder. The house had to be completely immaculate. The food had to be gotten ready, and this is a MAJOR feast. While this unlawful trial was going on (they were not to try such cases at night), the decent people were at home eating, shmoozing, and relaxing, then after a long, celebratory day, exhausted, they went to bed.

So who was at the trial? The Romans, the priests (and we all know that the priesthood was bought and sold by the Romans and those tainted with their practices), and the few irreligious Jews that were not celebrating. The priesthood and the irreligious were the ones that are called "the Jews"; it was NOT the majority! Unfortunately, many people through the ages have want looked for ANY reason to kill Jews, and they misappropriated this Scripture for an excuse. The book, Tom Sawyer, uses words that some parents would punish children for using. This does not make the book a bad book; it makes the book one to be used historically and the lessons in it need to be taught correctly. It is the same with the Bible, Madame Bovary, and other literature.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You will notice that it is only Matthew reports these sayings. "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." etc.

I would argue this. Throughout the Tanakh, when the Scriptures bring up Messiah, they say that this is the type of Messiah to expect. All of Israel was to uphold Torah and the Prophets; all of Israel was to fulfil Torah. He was to do the same, not to detract from it.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

However, the plain fact is that, nevertheless, Jesus DOES argue the breaking of the Sabbath and clean food laws.

Are you writing that He argued for breaking the Sabbath and against eating only kashrut? Can you give me a Scriptural reference for this? I am unaware of any such Scripture.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The argument is explained in Paul who says that the law cannot save, only faith in Jesus can save.
He therefore suggests that the law is still imposed on Jews but need not apply to gentiles.

Of course, the Law cannot save. Abraham's faith in G-d saved him. It is the same for all people, and Isaiah punctuated this concept time and again, when he said that G-d was sick of the polluted sacrifices. Why were the sacrifices polluted? Isaiah said they were polluted because they were done by rote and without faith in G-d. Faith in G-d saves; there is nothing anyone can do to save themselves.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The gospels go further. It suggests that Jews ARE at fault in practising these irrelevant rules and argues against them with the argment from: 'ok to do good on the sabbath', David ate the shawbread (one of the worst arguments I have heard in the Gospels) and altering 'clean' from ritually
clean to morally clean just as Paul pointing the way with moral 'circumcision' making ritual circumcision obsolete.

But take another look at David. Many of the readeers do not see it, but David was a priest, otherwise, he would not have had access to either the showbread or the whatchamacallit -- that priestly breast-plate, the name of which slips me right now. (It is way too late for me to be up like this! Please forgive me!)

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

This is the rationale behind 'Fulfilled'. In fact, it means that now Jesus has given the new teaching the old law is obsolete.

This is what the churches are teaching, and surprise! They are wrong! They will accept that "fulfill" means to do completely in some cases in the Bible, then decide that "fulfill" in this case means that Torah is obsolete!

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Luke16.16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

But for those who understand the rest, and compare the rest, they will not make this assumption. They will understand that Torah and the Prophets were proclaimed right up to the time when Messiah came on the Scene; Messiah (Matthew 5) continues to teach both (also see Luke 24:13 ff, where Messiah teaches the men about himself beginning at "Moses" and "all the prophets." This doesn't look like their teaching ceased! Futher, when the apostles wrote and talked about the Scriptures, they were talking about the Tanakh; there were no other writings considered to be Scriptures at that time.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thus 'fulfilled' is a rhetorical trick to make it seem that the Law has not passed away even though it is not needed anymore. But the fact is that Jesus is shown as saying that the Jewish ritual law is not to be followed. There is no way out of it; the whole law - every jot and tittle, is being
rubbished.

Torah is need. It has never stopped being needed. Not in the Bible or at any time since. Without Torah, we are lost in the proverbial woods, because Torah teaches what sin is. Messiah NEVER said that the written Torah was not to be followed! The added parts? Sometimes, he followed them, but some, He said, were not acceptable, as mentioned above.

I like that you are open to discussion and debate and that you know how to do it with kindness, not derision. YOU, sir, are something else!

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by VelcroQueen

"O Velcroesque One" and "Velquroe" -- Way, way too cute! I liked those, especially the first one! ...

I like that you are open to discussion and debate and that you know how to do it with kindness, not derision. YOU, sir, are something else!

Yes, my mind runs away with images and I like kidding about.

I love discussion with someone who can discuss firmly and intelligently. That is much more useful that just trying to make cheap points or toss innuendo about. We learn nothing through that. My opinion of you has shot up since you put your views reasonably and we can discuss amicably even though we may not agree in the end.

I think this is all on - topic as it addresses the whole question of whether paul was a Jew or a christian or something in between, and how the gospels shed light on that or how paul's jewishness or not sheds light on the gospels!

I'll go through your post with my toast and get back to you.

P.s "Right now, I need to go sit on ice and study A.W.Pink!" My mind certainly ran away with that image.

[TRANSPONDER]

I take your posts together.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
...there was certainly an appeal to counteract the downside of the crucifixion...

Southwarden

Downside? Yes, it was a "downer" for the followers and disciples, but only until the resurrection! That was what rejuvenated them, they remembered what He had said, the Gospel took off, and here we are today after many rather tragic bumps and corrections in the road, but still going strong.

That is the gospel story - but it is not true. It is full of contradictions and unbelievable tales. The resurrection stories are as contradictory as anything in the Gospels. Acts is no better. Also Paul, in all his arguing, does not support this resurrection event. His resurrection is a purely spiritual one. His Jesus does not appear in the resurrected flesh (still with the crucifixion marks on) but talks to him in his head from his seat in heaven.

That is the resurrection that perked the Disciples up. A spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one. Because that is what Paul talks about, that is what the apostles talked to him about.

However, a Jesus in the head is not good enough. Just as the Bethlehem omission needed to be repaired by Matthew and Luke's contradictory nativity accounts, so the lack of a visible Jesus needed to be repaired by three bodily resurrection stories - again contradictory - and with staged demonstrations of being solid, eating fish and displaying wounds. But magical, mind you. Walking through solid doors and ascending into clouds.

Originally Posted by southward bound

I see no "Jew hatred" in the Gospels. Jesus spoke in spiritual terms. He hated no one. Truth can be hard to hear, but those that were willing to hear spiritual truths, heard and heeded.

I don't see how anyone not completely blinded by faith can read the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Jew- hostile Evangelists and not see the sort of venom that the religious commonly display towards their opponents. But it's not Jesus saying those things. He was a Jew. It was Christians writing those things.

Jesus began ideas such as a planned death? He invented the idea of himself as God incarnate?

No, my boy. That is my whole argument. All that was invented later by Christian writers brought up on Paulinist teachings.

Not my Jesus...He is the Son of God, Emmanuel "God with us", Savior, the great "I am", God in the flesh.

I should know by now the view of Jesus by Christian believers. All I can say is that I do not believe it. My Jesus is a Jew. Son of God in the Jewish sense, and, in the Jewish sense, never the great 'I am' or 'God in the flesh' as no observing Jew (as Jesus was) would ever entertain such an idea. The nearest that Jesus and his followers came to that was the chosen 'son of God', not by any trick of divine birth, but be being the chosen messiah. The apostles came to believe that this messianic spirit went to heaven after death and would come again. That is the message of Paul and thus what he had learned from the apostles. Jesus was not God either in Paul or in the view of the Disciples.

Thus the idea of the Holy spirit inhabiting Jesus is a step on by Christians witing the gospels after Paul, not before, and making up their Christian stories, not recounting what really took place. And even that is not yet quite the God-as-man doctrine evolved by Constantine and eusebius.

Christians became known by that name because they were forced out of the Synagogues, and people referred to them as "those Christ ones".

Come now. I am sure it is generally known that 'Christ' is just the Greek for 'Messiah'. Thus Christians were just greek messianists. In other words, those gentiles who believed that Jesus was the messiah.

I don't believe that Christians were forced out of synagogues. They would never be allowed into synagogues. That's clear from the wrangles of Paul with Peter over Jews eating with gentiles. Paul began his own version of Jewish Messianism (Christianity) adapted to the gentiles and they had their own gentile - type synagogues. I see the problem being with Jews (local and or sent by the apostles) to explain that, if they wanted to be God's people, share in the promise of Abraham and be saved, they had to convert and follow the Mosaic Law. That is what Paul is battling all the time.

[TRANSPONDER]

The promised reply.

: Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Good heavens, madam, don't you find any anti - Jewishness here?
John 8. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.
That's the most extreme but John is shot through with slamming of 'The Jews' and the other gospels are not much better.

Velcro

No, I don't. He wasn't talking to all Jews; He was talking to specific people -- people who had come to Him in Judea, specifically. Some of the people of Judea began to believe Him (v. 30-32), but the others did not (33 ff). He often spoke to specific groups of the area.

I agree that even John was ok with Jews if they had come to believe in Jesus. But those who didn't, those who still kept to the Jewish ways were slagged off from page 1 to the end. Brood of Vipers to taking away the tree of life and a council flat in the Holy City.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Luke 11.37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. 39 Then the LORD said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside [the dish] to the poor, and everything will be clean for you..."
Not content with the junking of ALL cleanliness rules, Jesus thanks his host for dinner thus.

Velcro

But there were groups and persons who added to the rules made by G-d in the Torah, setting up fences, some of which were great and some that were not. Messiah had trouble with the additions when they caused a person to disobey what G-d had actually said to write down or when they made obeying too difficult. (Example: the added rule that people could lend their money to the Temple/priesthood in order to avoid helping their parents when they were in need. Example: that the added rules had to be obeyed even at the cost of life.) There were rules added to Torah which required a special way of washing their hands and dishes. These weren't in Torah. When they condemned the people for not following the added rules for hand- and dish-washing, Messiah let them know that the added rules were not in Torah.

As in all Christian fallacy there is an element of truth in this. Yes; the Pharisees did dicker about how one might or might not observe the Mosaic rules. As I understand it, this was a sort of intellectual game which didn't matter very much because it was just arguing where the 'fence around the torah' should be. It was safe because the 'Fence' - the rules - kept everyone off the grass, so to speak. What the Evangelists were doing was making it seem that Jesus, with a completely un - jewish view of these practices, was using it as a pretext to attack the Jewish teachers and argue that all the cleanliness rules were invalid.
This makes sense to Christians as they see ritual cleanliness as nonsense. Jews don't. They are rules - Laws - given by God. No argument.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
42 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. 43 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces...47 "Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,

Velcro

It is hard when someone tells us the terrible truth about ourselves or our ancestors. But these people were very familiar to Him (many teachers believe that Messiah, himself, was a Pharisee, and He certainly did have friends who were Pharisees). The Pharisees were a powerful group and held the power of life and death in many circumstances, yet they took this, because it is a common way of debate, taken a bit farther by Messiah than modern people might expect.

But it isn't the truth. The terrible truth that Christians cannot accept is these gospel passage are a complete misrepresentation of Judaism and the Pharisees. They are - mark this - they are made the Baddies. Evil plotters and cheats, money - grubbers and opressors of the poor. That is utterly false. They may have had their poseurs and frauds; which organisations doesn't? But they were respected teachers. They had honest jobs. They did not live like the sort of people the evangelists were thinking of who used their position to gain money and influence.

The Pharisees were like modern Rabbis - you want to tell me they has the power of life and death? True, some were in the sanhedrin and all rulers (presidents) of synagogues were Pharisees, but to make them out as some kind of star chamber or vigilante group is just wrong.

: Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thus Luke sets the scene for the blaming of the Jews for ..everything. And the single terrible lie that was the origin of every pogrom and worse.
Matth 27. 25 All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

velcro

Again, translation, translation, translation! Unfortunately, many of the translators were/are haters of Israel, and it shows in the translations. Those of us who want to get to the bottom of these things realize we never will, unless we study the languages. Others are Jew-haters and will say so to our faces -- these are NOT believers! Then others will see through these things and realize that it is not in the personality of Messiah or His followers to hate Messiah's OWN people. As far as the "Jews" who called for His blood to be upon them and their children, think about it: While there are some arguments that this occurred the evening of Passover, most teachers who have truly and honestly studied this believe it did. Where were the people? They were at home, behind closed doors, eating the Passover.
The men and boys had spent much of the day at the Temple. The women and girls had spent much of the day at home cleaning and preparing for the seder. The house had to be completely immaculate. The food had to be gotten ready, and this is a MAJOR feast. While this unlawful trial was going on (they were not to try such cases at night), the decent people were at home eating, shmoozing, and relaxing, then after a long, celebratory day, exhausted, they went to bed.
So who was at the trial? The Romans, the priests (and we all know that the priesthood was bought and sold by the Romans and those tainted with their practices), and the few irreligious Jews that were not celebrating. The priesthood and the irreligious were the ones that are called "the Jews"; it was NOT the majority! Unfortunately, many people through the ages have want looked for ANY reason to kill Jews, and they misappropriated this Scripture for an excuse. The book, Tom Sawyer, uses words that some parents would punish children for using. This does not make the book a bad book; it makes the book one to be used historically and the lessons in it need to be taught correctly. It is the same with the Bible, Madame Bovary, and other literature.

I fully agree! Well done. These were NOT representative of all Jewry. Even if true (and I don't believe a word of it) it does NOT in any way, justify the centuries of Jew- hating that is based on this Christian belief that the Jews killed Jesus.

Now let's go translation - shopping.

Mat 27:25 Then 2532 (kai and, also, even, indeed, but) answered 611 (apokrinomai -1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer 2) to begin to speak, but always where something has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks refer) all 3956 (pas 1) individually, a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything, 2) collectively, a) some of all types) the people 2992, (laos - 1) a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the same stock and language 2) of a great part of the population gathered together anywhere Note that the implication is all the national people!) and said 2036 (eipon -1) to speak, say,) His 846 (autos -1) himself, herself, themselves, itself, 2) he, she, it, 3) the same) blood 129 (haima - 1) blood, a) of man or animals, b) refers to the seat of life, c) of those things that resemble blood, grape juice, 2) blood shed, to be shed by violence, slay, murder (you can try to say that means grape - juice if you like) [be] on 1909 (epi -1) upon, on, at, by, before, 2) of position, on, at, by, over, against 3) to, over, on, at, across, against) us 2248 (hemas -1) us, we, our etc.), and 2532 (kai) on 1909 (epi) our 2257 (hemon -1) our, we, us) children 5043 (teknon -1) offspring, children, a) child, 1) a male child, a son, b) metaph.[only fair to put in the metaphors] 1) the name transferred to that intimate and reciprocal relationship formed between men by the bonds of love, friendship, trust, just as between parents and children, 2) in affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers, teachers and the like employ: my child, 3) in the NT, pupils or disciples are called children of their teachers, because the latter by their instruction nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their characters, 4) children of God: in the OT of "the people of Israel" as especially dear to God, in the NT, in Paul's writings, all who are led by the Spirit of God and thus closely related to God, 5) children of the devil: those who in thought and action are prompted by the devil, and so reflect his character, c) metaph.1) of anything who depends upon it, is possessed by a desire or affection for it, is addicted to it 2) one who is liable to any fate, a) thus children of a city: it citizens and inhabitants, 3) the votaries of wisdom, those souls who have, as it were, been nurtured and moulded by wisdom 4) cursed children, exposed to a curse and doomed to God's wrath or penalty).

If anything, it looks worse in the Greek as the whole of Jewy, not just the people there, but the nation, accepts the blood - guilt on them and their children. I have no doubt, dear lady, that Matthew was switching the eternal divine blame for Jesus' death from the Romans (since he was pro - Roman if not one himself) to the Jews which he, like the other three harshly criticize throughout.

: Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You will notice that it is only Matthew reports these sayings. "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." etc.

Velcro

I would argue this. Throughout the Tanakh, when the Scriptures bring up Messiah, they say that this is the type of Messiah to expect. All of Israel was to uphold Torah and the Prophets; all of Israel was to fulfil Torah. He was to do the same, not to detract from it.

I would argue that I am only talking about the gospels and why the Jesus in it cannot be the real, Jewish, Jesus. Of course Jewish writings uphold the Law and Torah. But the gospel Jesus doesn't. No matter how you try, you cannot avoid that Jesus was saying the Mosaic Law was obsolete. My point is that Matthew (alone) has some mention of the law not passing away. I can only suggest why that was put in or left in. I'm not going to come up with some slick answer when I truly don't know. But I do say that, despite that, Jesus does set aside the Law. It cannot be taken any other way.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
However, the plain fact is that, nevertheless, Jesus DOES argue the breaking of the Sabbath and clean food laws.

Velcro

Are you writing that He argued for breaking the Sabbath and against eating only kashrut? Can you give me a Scriptural reference for this? I am unaware of any such Scripture.

Absolutely.
Sabbath breaking. Let's do Mark for a change.
Mark 2. 23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" 25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?

The argument is crud, of course. Whether the priest is intimidated or not, he makes conditions and gives David permission to eat. That does not give a pretext for breaking the Sabbath. (1 samuel 21)
Besides, David wasn't sinless. He is hardly a theologically sound precedent. But the writer of the synoptic original knew how much David meant to the Jews, so he used that fatheaded argument (1) to try to undermine the sabbath, putting it into Jesus' mouth. Real Pharisees would have made mincemeat of that argument.

Even I can see what a trashy argument it is. And I cannot help but wonder: why only me? Out of the thousands of brilliant theologians who have studied the Bible, only I see this? What is going on? Tell me?

Right after this Jesus heals a man on the sabbath. Deliberately, note, to raise the matter of sabbath - breaking. This is important to the argument. As I understand the way the 'fence' would be placed, it is lawful to heal on the sabbath where a life is at stake, but it is not lawful to do it where it could as well be done the next day. The man was not in danger and did not ask to be healed. Now the Pharisees could do their pilpul about maybe he couldn't be there the next day or so what, it still isn't neccessary.

But there is no argument. The Pharisees creep off to conspire with the herodians of all people! Isn't it clear that this is a rubbish argument and a nonsensical blackening of the Pharisees? By Christians who did not respect either Jews or their laws.

Kashrut. Mark 7. we have already done this in Matthew's version
Mark 7.1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders..18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'

This is clear. the kashrut (kosher) rules on cleanliness don't apply anymore. All foods are 'clean'. It is only man's deeds, speech or thought that make him pure or impure. perfect sense to a Christian but against God's laws for a Jew becausde it says that one can eat all foods and none can make him unclean.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The argument is explained in Paul who says that the law cannot save, only faith in Jesus can save. He therefore suggests that the law is still imposed on Jews but need not apply to gentiles.

Velcro

Of course, the Law cannot save. Abraham's faith in G-d saved him. It is the same for all people, and Isaiah punctuated this concept time and again, when he said that G-d was sick of the polluted sacrifices. Why were the sacrifices polluted? Isaiah said they were polluted because they were done by rote and without faith in G-d. Faith in G-d saves; there is nothing anyone can do to save themselves.

Thank you. That is exactly what Paul argues in Romans 4. 9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!


Thus one can be righteous without circumcision and, by implication, any other Mosaic law. He goes on to say:Rom.2. 25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law,1 but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

Paul still says the law applies to Jews, but not to gentiles. It cannot save.

Romans 4.13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless,15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith,

study this in context as it is the pivot of Paul's argument.

4.23 The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our LORD from the dead.25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

This is Paul's theory in a nutshell. It is wrong as Jesus was 'delivered over' for sedition and punished as a rebel. But this is why I say that Paul got the idea that Jesus had suceeded in abolishing man's sin through his death. Romans 5.12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"

All can be saved by faith in Jesus. Of course there are problems. If the Law cannot save can righteousness save Abraham? Not without Faith in Jesus, apparently. The Law cannot be set aside but it cannot save. Not even being rightoues with or without the Law can save since, if it could, one need not have Faith in Jesus. Thus the Law (as Paul sees) is an imposition. One can offend by not observing the Law but it cannot save. What good is it? 'Much' says Paul, but read on and you'll see he cannot explain why or how. No wonder Luke has Peter at the council of Jerusalem (regarding circumcision) say in Acts 15.10 Now then, why do you try to test God1 by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke2 that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?

I believe this account no more than the Flavian testament.

This sums up my argument about Paul and, keeping that in mind, one can read the whole of Romans and see how he argues that theory round and round

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The gospels go further. It suggests that Jews ARE at fault in practising these irrelevant rules and argues against them with the argment from: 'ok to do good on the sabbath', David ate the shawbread (one of the worst arguments I have heard in the Gospels) and altering 'clean' from ritually clean to morally clean just as Paul pointing the way with moral 'circumcision' making ritual circumcision obsolete.

Velcro

But take another look at David. Many of the readeers do not see it, but David was a priest, otherwise, he would not have had access to either the showbread or the whatchamacallit -- that priestly breast-plate, the name of which slips me right now. (It is way too late for me to be up like this! Please forgive me!)

Ephod (2) Forgive? I'm loving the way you discuss reasonably. David was a king. Just a king. True, he was High priest 'according to the order of Melchizedek' (which, as I understand it, made him High priest simply because God said so, not because he had any qualifications for the job)
In any case, if you are saying that this meant that David WAS ritually entitled to eat the shewbread (if he was, what's Abiathar making the fuss about ? See the account in 1 samuel 21) Then it is no precedent for sabbath - breaking.

: Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
This is the rationale behind 'Fulfilled'. In fact, it means that now Jesus has given the new teaching the old law is obsolete.

Velcro

This is what the churches are teaching, and surprise! They are wrong! They will accept that "fulfill" means to do completely in some cases in the Bible, then decide that "fulfill" in this case means that Torah is obsolete!

Are you saying that Law (sabbath and Kosher and circumcision) are still valid and we should be observing this? If not then you must agree that the church view that 'fullfillment' meant - as the Gospels - and Paul [ON TOPIC ] argue - that Faith in Jesus is all the Law that matters.

: Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Luke16.16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

Velcro

But for those who understand the rest, and compare the rest, they will not make this assumption. They will understand that Torah and the Prophets were proclaimed right up to the time when Messiah came on the Scene; Messiah (Matthew 5) continues to teach both (also see Luke 24:13 ff, where Messiah teaches the men about himself beginning at "Moses" and "all the prophets." This doesn't look like their teaching ceased! Futher, when the apostles wrote and talked about the Scriptures, they were talking about the Tanakh; there were no other writings considered to be Scriptures at that time.

I see your point. Of course they were going by the scriptures. By MY point is that they didn't like certain bits of those scriptures because they were gentiles. Paul earlier, had seen that very well . For THEM the Law was, indeed a 'stumbling - block'.
So, by arguing that it it couldn't save and Faith in Jesus could, he made it unneccessary for Gentiles to observe those bits of the Torah or tanakh they didn't like. That's what the gospels are saying: Jesus' arrival made the old Law obsolete.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thus 'fulfilled' is a rhetorical trick to make it seem that the Law has not passed away even though it is not needed anymore. But the fact is that Jesus is shown as saying that the Jewish ritual law is not to be followed. There is no way out of it; the whole law - every jot and tittle, is being rubbished.

Velcro

Torah is need. It has never stopped being needed. Not in the Bible or at any time since. Without Torah, we are lost in the proverbial woods, because Torah teaches what sin is. Messiah NEVER said that the written Torah was not to be followed! The added parts? Sometimes, he followed them, but some, He said, were not acceptable, as mentioned above.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Torah'. I mean those God - given law and rules by which Jews ordered their life and worship. If by 'Torah' you mean a Christian view of 'Love God and be nice and never mind about shrimp cocktail' that is precisely what Paul did to get his gentiles to accept his religious teachings and what the Gospel - writers are saying. And that means they are not Jews and never could be. They are Christians.

(1) for all the world like a poster here crowing that 'Einstein believed in God!!'

(2)
The priestly ephod was the seamless robe referred to in John. That would be a white one but the High Priest's ephod was a more elaborate one, Violet or purple with a bronze breastplate.

[Walter Greenspan]

Again, I remind everyone, the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) found in the Torah are only binding on those at Sinai, their descendents and those who voluntarily accept them through conversion; Gentiles are only bound by the 7 Noahide Commandments.

The disciples knew this, and when it proved to be an annoying slow process for Gentiles to first convert to Judaism to become followers of Jesus of Nazareth, they changed tactics and allowed Gentiles to become Christians without first converting to Judaism, and that's why Gentiles are not required to observe kashrut, Shabbat or other Torah-required observances, because Gentiles, be they Christians or not, are not required to do so.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

Again, I remind everyone, the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) found in the Torah are only binding on those at Sinai, their descendents and those who voluntarily accept them through conversion; Gentiles are only bound by the 7 Noahide Commandments.

The disciples knew this, and when it proved to be an annoying slow process for Gentiles to first convert to Judaism to become followers of Jesus of Nazareth, they changed tactics and allowed Gentiles to become Christians without first converting to Judaism, and that's why Gentiles are not required to observe kashrut, Shabbat or other Torah-required observances, because Gentiles, be they Christians or not, are not required to do so.

Can you clarify something for me.

(a) did the 1st century Jews believe that the Last days, a general stirring up and putting things to right by God (using his Messiah), was imminent?

(2) If so, would the Jews, through the promise of Abraham, come out of it in the ascendent?

(3) if so, would the gentiles also share in this if they hadn't converted with acceptance of all the 613 commandments? Your ref gives:
"Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come." But it is not too clear what sort of a place.

(4) If not, can we take it that observance of the 7 Noahide commandments would not (without conversion) put Gentiles on a level playing field with the Children of Abraham?

It if does, that very much changes the whole matter and I would have to do a serious rethink.

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Can you clarify something for me.

(a) did the 1st century Jews believe that the Last days, a general stirring up and putting things to right by God (using his Messiah), was imminent?

(2) If so, would the Jews, through the promise of Abraham, come out of it in the ascendent?

(3) if so, would the gentiles also share in this if they hadn't converted with acceptance of all the 613 commandments? Your ref gives:
"Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come." But it is not too clear what sort of a place.

(4) If not, can we take it that observance of the 7 Noahide commandments would not (without conversion) put Gentiles on a level playing field with the Children of Abraham?

It if does, that very much changes the whole matter and I would have to do a serious rethink.

The spiritual afterlife is referred to in Hebrew as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come, although this term is also used to refer to the messianic age. The Olam Ha-Ba is another, higher state of being.

Although there are a few statements to the contrary in the Talmud, the predominant view of Judaism is that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Statements to the contrary were not based on the notion that membership in Judaism was required to get into Olam Ha-Ba, but were grounded in the observation that non-Jews were not righteous people. If you consider the behavior of the surrounding peoples at the time that the Talmud was written, you can understand the rabbis' attitudes. By the time of Rambam, the belief was firmly entrenched that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba.

Also, bear in mind, the 7 Noahide Commandments are applied more leniently to Gentiles than the corresponding commandments are to Jews, because Gentiles do not have the benefit of the Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws. For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew; however, according to some sources, the Christian worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry for Gentiles.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

The spiritual afterlife is referred to in Hebrew as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come, although this term is also used to refer to the messianic age. The Olam Ha-Ba is another, higher state of being.

Although there are a few statements to the contrary in the Talmud, the predominant view of Judaism is that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba. Statements to the contrary were not based on the notion that membership in Judaism was required to get into Olam Ha-Ba, but were grounded in the observation that non-Jews were not righteous people.

Naturally.

If you consider the behavior of the surrounding peoples at the time that the Talmud was written, you can understand the rabbis' attitudes. By the time of Rambam, the belief was firmly entrenched that the righteous of all nations have a share in the Olam Ha-Ba.

Also, bear in mind, the 7 Noahide Commandments are applied more leniently to Gentiles than the corresponding commandments are to Jews, because Gentiles do not have the benefit of the Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws. For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew; however, according to some sources, the Christian worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry for Gentiles.

Can I take that as a 'no' then?