Posted on 09/09/2004 9:56:01 PM PDT by ksen
I have seen some interesting things said on this forum. But this statement brought me up short. Here is the quote from another thread and I will leave the poster of the quote anonymous because I'd like to open a discussion about the idea behind the quote and not the person behind the quote:
However you define doctrine, it is essentially Man's interpretation of God's Law, and I believe that would even include Paul's docrtinal statements.
Was Paul writing Scripture? Are the Pauline Epistles just as much God's Word as the Gospels are? as the giving of the Mosaic Law?
I believe Peter thought they were when he told the people he was writing to to pay as much attention to Paul's writings as you do the other Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-17).
But what do you do when confronted with someone who says that Paul's interpretation of God's doctrine is fallible because it came from a man like us, albeit a man somewhat closer to God than we are.
What are your thought? And remember to keep it civil.
So true.
The real apostle Paul was nothing like the misogynistic, racist, bigoted, homophobic corruption that his writings were twisted into.
I have stuning PROOF based on the artwork of Michaelangelo that an unbroken line of neo-oppressive secret scribes are responsible for the theft of gnostic beliefs away from its' pure beginnings in Palestine when it was occupied by the Roman invaders 2000 years ago. The Romans were bent on genocide against the gentle occupants of Palestine, who are the direct forefathers of the current oppressed inhabitants of the land, exemplified by His Excellency Imam Yasser Arafat.
The cabal of conspirators that are organizing this effort are manifested in the modern day activities of Karl Rove, Billy Graham and Dr. Steve Johnson.
Be very careful of this group of people!
Lesser impact, absolutely. Not necessarily false, but without them, what standard would you use to determine sin? What standard would Messiah have to walk by to be perfect?
And as a seperate question, exactly what truth do you find in the Torah?
Just what Messiah said, that they are the scriptures that testify of him and validate who he is. They are the scriptures that tell us how to love YHWH and how to treat our neighbor.
Read Psalm 119 and see what David felt about Torah.
When Paul says not to pay heed to another gospel, I'm sure you pay attention. When YHWH says the same about anyone teaching another Torah, I pay attention. That is why I test all things to see whether they contradict Torah.
Blessings
If circumcision is barbaric, why have anything to do with the God who ordered it in the first place? And why have anything to do with His servants, Paul included?
We were discussing homosexuality in an ethics class. He did not see anything wrong with homosexuality because Christ never condemned it in the Gospels. When confronted with Romans 1, for example, he just said that those were Pauline writings.
And to be totally honest, this professor was not a flaming leftist. His ideas went more libertarian than anything.
Paul's epistles are just as valid and carry as much weight as the other Apostles' epistles.
It would be most helpful and appreciated if you could let us know which of several usages of the word "Torah" is in effect here. You keep using the term, but you never define it for the reader - and it does have more than one meaning within Jewish literature and culture.
It could be used to refer strictly to the Written Law, what we Christians would refer to as the Old Testament (and in some usages "Torah" refers specifically to the five books of Moses). Or (and I find this to be the form used most often) it could be used to include both the Written Law as well as the Oral Law (which is called the Talmud). And there's another, similar possibility that could be considered. You could be specifically referring to Rabbi Maimonides' multi-volume Mishneh Torah, which is more of a Written+Oral+commentary work.
Now if you're using one of the latter forms, it begs the question "which work do you hold to be more authoritative over the other" - the Written Law or the Oral Law? If it's the latter, why?
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised: that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: (St. Paul, Romans 4:11)
Paul was right. No baby needs to be cut to fulfill some religious belief of their parent. It was always a barbaric custom, and Paul did right in steering Christianity away from it.
19 posted on 09/10/2004 12:17:45 AM MDT by The Once and Future King
You may view it as a barbaric custom but
It dramatically reduces cervical cancer
and the day it was prescribed to be performed
the baby boy has the highest level of vitamin K for blood clotting.
and OBTW it was commanded by G-d.
At the beginning of the New Covenant,
In the days of Jeremiah, it was transferred to the heart by metaphor.
It was not done by Paul for Christianity.
NAsbU Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
I have faith in the testimony of Christ and His servants.
Jesus testified that the Scriptures -- of which the Torah (including Genesis 17) was the preeminent part -- cannot be broken.
Jesus testified that Abraham will be in Heaven.
Paul testified that Abraham was righteous because of his faith.
The author of Hebrews testifies to the same thing, and singles out Abraham's willingness to offer up Isaac.
Do you believe them, or not?
TOFK>If all copies of what you're calling the Torah, and all references thereto, were to disappear from the awareness of humankind tomorrow, would the life and message of Christ somehow be rendered false or of lesser impact?
And as a seperate question, exactly what truth do you find in the Torah?
36 posted on 09/10/2004 11:13:09 AM MDT by The Once and Future King
Most of the message of the Christ is from the book of Deuteronomy, which is a book of the Torah.
In fact ALL of the scripture that Y'shua quoted was from the Tanach.
You need to understand the whole counsel of G-d, not isolated proof texts for man's religions
a bondslave to the Christ
chuck
Then I would exhort you to listen to the words of the one you judge to be "worth following", Jesus Christ...
John 5:46:47
For had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed me:
for he wrote of Me. But if ye
believe not his writings,
how shall ye believe my words?
I gather you consider yourself a better judge of character than both the writers of the New Testament and Jesus Christ Himself.
***I believe that Jesus Christ never cut an 8-day-old baby, and that he never put a child on a sacrificial altar.***
God the Father put His own Son on the alter and did not spare the knife. Abraham's sacrifice was but a picture of that coming sacrifice. God was letting Abraham share just a little in the pain that He would experience over His own Son.
***Abraham did both. ***
At God's command.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
