Faith versus Faithfulness to the Law

[bananabrain]

St Paul, whether you like him or not, described the Law as a nursemaid, that once you had grown up, as it were, you no longer needed to consciously think about. But I now think that this is a continuous process. Sometimes decisions aren't easy.

well, that's just my problem with paul in a nutshell. the Law as something you outgrow, forsooth. of course Law must be a process - and, for us, it's a process that has never stopped. how could it, with new decisions being made every day? look at this:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/496840.html

because Jesus was a Jew and did keep the Jewish Law as it was in the Original Torah and not the oral traditions of his time.

sorry, ben57, but you have presented absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever - nor have i ever seen any. the oral tradition of the time has been *preserved* - we still have it and live by it. as far as we are concerned, this *is* the "original" law of the Torah and always has been. by all means try and show me if you think i am mistaken.

overstepped the comands imposing oral traditions that enslaved the people unnecessarily

what, you mean like allowing people to get married? look, the problem with the Written Law of the Torah is that it requires an Oral Law to explain it. for example, the Torah gives laws for divorce, but none for how marriage takes place. yet, clearly, marriage is not only permitted but encouraged (albeit not by our friend paul) so these laws all have to be implied or interpreted out of the Text. it's not possible to implement the Written Law without the Oral Law - as even the karaites found.

Christians believe that Jesus freed us from the law code of Moses

yeah, here we go. we don't think that the Law required us to be freed from it. we just wanted to be free to observe it. the only way you can argue that anyone needed to be "freed" (talk about "have you quit beating your wife?") is if you start converting people who then incur the obligations of the observance of the other 606 mitzvot - and if you were doing that then there's no point converting them apart from to this "law of love". so, again, this is somewhat self-serving rhetoric.

but you must exorect us that believe in Jesus as the Messiah not to agree with with you just as I not expect to talk about Jesus on a Jewish forum and not expect those good people to respond harshly to me.

er..if i understand you correctly (and i'm not sure i do) you want to be able to talk about jesus in christian terms without me objecting? listen, that is absolutely fine - you can believe what you like of course. i am not here to try and talk you out of being a christian! what i am objecting to is you justifying your christianity in terms of a polemic against jesus' historical opponents, particularly if those happen to be people who i know more about than you apparently do. christianity surely ought to be able to stand alone without requiring the straw man of "the law" or that other old favourite "the old testament god of vengeance". it's like what i'm always having to tell wiccans - it's no good being pissed off with the Big Beard In The Sky if you're going to replace him with the Big Tits In The Earth.

And it should be love for G!D and neighbour that motivates us to keep them not fear of being caught.

we say "the beginning of wisdom is the awe of Heaven" - but it is the beginning and, later on down the line, we do talk about "ahavah rabbah" - G!Dly Love.... so it's not something we don't know!

Also, if he did violate the oral torah, does the torah say anything about that?

hmmm. intriguing. what do you mean? the Talmud says plenty of things about the early christians, mostly pretty rude.

This, of course, is just one of the going theories.

BEEEEEEEEEEEEH. but they're all the same G!D, just wearing different hats. i often explain this in terms of my mum, who, depending on who you are, is also grandma, aunt, wife, daughter, mother-in-law, pain-in-the-bum and so on. she's still the same person.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

hmmm. intriguing. what do you mean? the Talmud says plenty of things about the early christians, mostly pretty rude.

I followed it up with a quote pointing to the fact that there would be an authority to go to, and that the authority should be followed.

BEEEEEEEEEEEEH. but they're all the same G!D, just wearing different hats. i often explain this in terms of my mum, who, depending on who you are, is also grandma, aunt, wife, daughter, mother-in-law, pain-in-the-bum and so on. she's still the same person.

That's not my point. They are the same, as I stated. Just each for a different place. The problem would be if the Northerners were to continue having all these different slaughter-sites. The people would not be unified. So in order to stop that, they said there would be no Gods before God. The only God that counts is the one of Jerusalem. All of the others; the one of this place, the one of that place, they were not the real God. God is One.

Dauer

 

[bananabrain]

i think the hebrew says literally "there shall not be for you other gods upon my face" - which for me kind of implies the spiritual equivalent of a condom, if that's not an indelicate way of putting it. in other words, go direct, straight to the Source. i think that's also a fairly good rationale for one Temple.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

That's another problem, BB. There were never many "temples." There were many tents of meeting. That's what the people were used to. Everything was changed.

I think the phrase does mean go direct, straight to the Source. Beforehand they were all going to the different slaughter-sites. It's what they knew, how they approached God. But the confederation of tribes was eventually pulled together and, as the kings kept trying to take power away from the different groups of priests, they centralized worship. And it is a good rationale for the Temple. That's why they had it written.

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

The commandment not to worship other gods may actually come from when the Northern Kingdom was integrating with Judah. In the northern kingdom every place had a different shrine to its own particular Yahweh, which is the same as the worshippers of Baal did.
Dauer

Do you remember the Ten Commandments? One of them commanded us not to worship any other god. Period.

Exd 34:14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

 

[dauer]

Do you remember the Ten Commandments? One of them commanded us not to worship any other god. Period.

Exd 34:14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

Right, and I'm not arguing against that, just that there is this extra idea that the only true God is the one of Jerusalem. The ones of other shrines and of the priests of different places are all false. But the thing is, they were all the same God. It has to do with centralization of worship on Jerusalem.

 

[bananabrain]

There were never many "temples." There were many tents of meeting. That's what the people were used to. Everything was changed.

i didn't know it was many tents of meeting (source?) but i know people sacrificed on altars at beth-el, shiloh etc. i'm calling them 'temples' in the colloquial sense i think, but what i think i mean is shrines, if you like. and yes, it is what the people were used to - maimonides makes this point on many occasions, that the traditional cultic system was "re-engineered" to be judaically sacred rather than idolatrous. the Text says so - and it was clearly an organic process as the people waxed and waned in their commitment to G!D as opposed to baal and the local idols.

But the confederation of tribes was eventually pulled together and, as the kings kept trying to take power away from the different groups of priests, they centralized worship. And it is a good rationale for the Temple. That's why they had it written.

well, G!D seems a bit ambivalent about the idea of a king, innit. the Text certainly represents the downside of centralisation - that it makes it easier to subvert and pervert the whole system that way. i guess my point is that this is not what i'd call a controversial idea within tradition.

there is this extra idea that the only true G!D is the one of Jerusalem. The ones of other shrines and of the priests of different places are all false. But the thing is, they were all the same G!D. It has to do with centralization of worship on Jerusalem.

the centralisation itself is implicit in deuteronomy 12:5, which is where the central place (which later becomes the "dwelling-house") is first commanded. so, from my PoV, the centralisation is commanded from Sinai.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

i didn't know it was many tents of meeting (source?) but i know people sacrificed on altars at beth-el, shiloh etc. i'm calling them 'temples' in the colloquial sense i think, but what i think i mean is shrines, if you like. and yes, it is what the people were used to - maimonides makes this point on many occasions, that the traditional cultic system was "re-engineered" to be judaically sacred rather than idolatrous. the Text says so - and it was clearly an organic process as the people waxed and waned in their commitment to G!D as opposed to baal and the local idols.

Yeah, I meant the shrines. But if the original system was idolatrous, why is that what was allowed after Josh, without an attempt at centralization? And how does their waxing and waning make it an organic process? It was after Solomon's attempts at a Temple, making the people serve in forced labor to build it, destroying the tribal system by creating districts, trying to establish his wisdom over the God-given word of the prophets, that Israel was split.

well, G!D seems a bit ambivalent about the idea of a king, innit. the Text certainly represents the downside of centralisation - that it makes it easier to subvert and pervert the whole system that way. i guess my point is that this is not what i'd call a controversial idea within tradition.

It does represent the downside of centralization. To me some of this may have been polemic against kingship, and some of it may have been an attempt to demonize Saul and turn David into a hero and savior.

the centralisation itself is implicit in deuteronomy 12:5, which is where the central place (which later becomes the "dwelling-house") is first commanded. so, from my PoV, the centralisation is commanded from Sinai.

Yes, this is one of those things I guess we would disagree about, since although I believe some of Deut may be older, I would link much of it to Josiah's time.

 

[bananabrain]

But if the original system was idolatrous, why is that what was allowed after Josh, without an attempt at centralization?

because joshua died before he had got rid of all the idol-worshippers, some of them (the gibeonites, i think) managed to talk their way out of it and, basically the israelites were easily corrupted by the canaanites and so on - that at least seems pretty obvious. you can't get rid of a belief system without everyone on-side.

And how does their waxing and waning make it an organic process?

the clue's in the last sentence of judges: "in those days there was no king in israel, so everyone did what seemed best in his own eyes." even maimonides concedes that a wholesale abandonment wasn't possible, so a step-by-step approach was adopted - in change management terms, it wasn't a "big bang". solomon's approach was "big bang" and it ended up splitting the "organisation", as it were.

To me some of this may have been polemic against kingship, and some of it may have been an attempt to demonize Saul and turn David into a hero and savior.

OK, but it also stands as a warning - after all, G!D and samuel were right about how the kings turned out.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB,

when I look at that last sentence I wonder whose scribe wrote that.

I would also wonder who wrote the lines Samuel spoke. But you can understand why Samuel spoke that way anyway. He was heavily involved at Shiloh, a priest, and if a king came he would lose his power, and all the priests would. Of course he would speak against kingship. And look what happened to the priests. They were all side-lined.

Dauer

 

[JJM]

Thanks to Saul/Paul hardly anybody is interested in the Law anymore.
Saul/Paul's aim was to make the Law irrelevant and a mere historical curiosity. He developed the concept of salvation through faith rather than faithfulness or loyalty to the Law. He called salvation 'a free gift' (Rom 5:15-18) that can be acquired merely by believing that Yahshua died for our sins.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.




Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.



​

Please notice that Paul is apparently quoting the LXX of


Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

The Habakkuk Commentary in the Dead Sea Scrolls both exposes Paul as The Liar and clarifies Habakkuk 2:4 to read as "As for the righteous man, by loyalty to him may one find life."

(This refers to those who obey the Law among the Israelites whom Yahweh will rescue from among those doomed to judgment, because of their suffering and their loyalty 'to the Teacher of Righteousness'.

'The Teacher of Righteous' prophetically refers to James the Just, Brother of Yahshua, who would be a Zealot for the Law, and who opposed Paul The Liar and The Wicked Priest Ananas (who would be High Priest of the Herodian Pharisees in the years following the crucifixion)

For further insights. please read the book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh and "James, Brother of Jesus" by Richard Eisenman.

Wolfgang von USA

Hi I haven't read this whole thread I will but I feel the need to respond right now to this before I read on. So if this has been addressed then I'm sorry. This is not Paul's Message. He isn't saying that one merely needs to believe Christ died for him to be saved. This is the spin Luther put on his writings to back up his own beliefs. What Paul is actually saying is that Man can't earn salvation on his own. And that following of the law without understanding of it and the message of God is useless. Now he is saying that the parts of the law that don't involve morals shouldn't have to be followed. Such as circumcision, not using alloys, kosher laws, and not working on the Sabbath when it is cumbersome. The later two where even done away with by Christ Mk 7:17-23 and Mk 2:23. Notice Paul says the Just shall live by Faith not simply have it even Demons have faith. As for the dead see scrolls how do they expose Paul for a liar. They may show he was using a poor copy of Habakkuk or that the people who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls were but it doesn't make him a liar. Also the Dead Sea scrolls also show that the term Works of the law refers to the laws that don't involve morals. So Paul is saying those laws don't matter not all the laws.

 

[JJM]

What it all seems to come down to is that He seems to be saying you should love your neighbor just as long as he is a member of your own tribe.

So it would seem that He did not believe in universal brotherhood, but only a brotherhood for those who belong to the lost sheep of the House of Israel!?

What do you think? Did Jesus come to bring salvation to everybody on the planet or did He come just to help out His own flock, the nations of Israel?

I am not really sure, but I am trying to unravel this Gordian Knot. Help me if you can!!

Wolfgang

Well I think I can help on this one. The reason Jesus acts this way is because as I stated in law of 2or3 thread Jesus was sent to the Jews. So he shouldn't be ministering to the Gentiles. However when the Jews reject him he sends his disciples to all people. This is my quote from that thread



Jesus didn’t accomplish his initial mission. If you ready Matthew 21:33-46 you see that Jesus was originally supposed to cause the Jewish People to repent. Because the Householder in the parable is God. The Husbandmen are the Jews. The servants are the Prophets and obviously the son of the householder is Jesus. So Jesus came to make the Jewish people bear fruit.

So Jesus came to his own people but when he was rejected brought salvation to all.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Wolfgang.

Apologies for the delay in responding.

Above all, I am a seeker of truth, and I am a seeker of truth by means of reason rather than faith.

As am I, ask anybody here.

By the way, faith appears to be a Pauline concept, whereas faithfulness (to the Law) in an anti-Pauline concept well distributed throughout the OT.

I agree there is an inordinate focus by modern Christianity on faith as opposed to law, but that is not necessarily Paul's doing.

And faith is obviously subversive to the purpose of reason. And by the way, good science and good religion are ALWAYS compatible.

I disagree, faith is not obviously subversive to the purpose of reason. In your case, and mine, we have placed our faith in reason. Science and faith are compatible where they overlap and confirm each other, but there are many questions science cannot address, as there are many questions faith cannot address.

Yahshua warned of false apostles whom we would accept in preference to Himself. When we find such a false apostle do you think He would want us to build him up or tear him down?

The current debate is to determine if Paul is indeed that false apostle, But in this process Paul cannot be a 'sacred cow'. Either he stands up to the investigation or he falls.

Does Paul ever say anything good in his letters. Certainly!! If he didn't he would never have been able to infiltrate the early Christian movement. But remember that rat poison consists more of pure wholesome grain than it does of its active poisonous ingredient that delivers the lethal blow. Therefore, be not deceived!

Yashua also advised that we gauge a prophet by the fruit of their works. Paul was a human, and as such, was subject to human shortcomings. Having said that, Paul did his level best to bring the gospel, the good news, and everything that entails to the cosmos, the nations, the gentiles, those who previously were not part or parcel of the covenant. Paul opened the door to allow in those who had not previously been allowed to share in the covenant. Without Paul's teaching, the door remains closed to all but the chosen, that is, the Jews who accept Messiah (as the Essenes, who looked forward to the coming Messiah). In short, do away with Paul, and you close the door to yourself (unless you happen by chance of birth to be a Messiah believing Jew).

I am convinced that he must be the false apostle of whom Yahshua warned. And along with all the other evidence I cannot ignore His warning to "be wary of the leaven of the Pharisees".

That is your choice. Personally, I see fruit in Paul's work that you prefer to ignore. Likewise, I see no viable fruit in your work here.

Where Paul builds up others and provides them with hope, faith and charity, I see you attempting to destroy other's faith, hope and charity for you own selfish reasons. You may be using logic, but to what purpose are you using that logic? Further, if one looks hard enough, one can find valid and logical arguments to question, tear down and destroy elements within every belief system. Which logically leads to atheism, which can also be logically challenged. Logic by itself is insufficient to address the illogic of faith. Faith ultimately is a matter of the heart, and how a person connects to and relates with the illogic of the Divine, that is, our Heavenly Father.

You prefer to focus your efforts at one level in whatever attempt you are making to establish your own faith. The end result is to discredit Christianity, so convert and become a Jew or Muslim if that seems better suited to your spiritual path. I have been speaking on a level of abstraction above where you are focused. I understand what you are saying, Paul has been granted a form of reverence he probably does not deserve. That does not make his teaching invalid, it speaks more rather to the inadequacies of the political constructs of the Church.

And ultimately, I see Paul building up people, giving them hope, faith, charity and reason. This is a good thing, as things go coming from men. Whereas tearing people down, destroying their faith, hope, charity and reason, is not a good thing, either spiritually or by men.

You sir, are not half the man Paul was, nor will you ever be. Neither will I, or anybody here in this forum, so this comment is no personal slight. It is however, cause to really consider (logically) just what your motivations are in attacking other people's faiths, let alone the person of Paul.

Disagreement is one thing, there are ways to respectfully disagree. Wholesale dismissal is not respectful disagreement. Soapbox preachers are a dime a dozen, and no one listens to them. If your intended purpose is to bring a better understanding to believers and edify and build their faith, then begin by helping the poor, the widows and orphans, and visiting those in prison. Demonstrate by example. Then you may gently guide them and others to understanding, and perhaps learn a bit yourself along the way. It would do you well to begin by learning tolerance.

Faith, as a matter of the heart, is seldom swayed by the logic of the mind. With all of the greatest logic available to try to persuade, people will still follow their hearts. My heart tells me you are mistaken, not in your logic, but in your motives.

Shalom.