Posted on 12/30/2013 8:39:57 PM PST by Phinneous
I suppose you didn’t watch the posted video. These claims belong to the Jewish gentleman addressing a (presumed) Jewish audience, on how to regard the entreaties of evangelical missionaries.
After Paul's conversion, he met with Peter and the other Apostles and presented his story.
His story/testimony, the story BTW of the very one who had previously been persecuting Christians and was in fact personally present at and responsible for the death of St Steven, was accepted in its entirety and Paul was invited to join the Apostles in spreading the Gospel.
The Rabbi is right. If Paul is lying, then we Gentiles are forever without Christ. That’s what the gospel of the grace of God is all about.
Ergo, Paul's testimony was accepted as true (i.e. aligning with the Truth as imparted directly by Jesus to the Twelve) by the Twelve and does not stand or fall ONLY on Paul himself.
No, I haven’t watched the posted video, and I suppose if I had your post wouldn’t need a sarcasm alert for me to understand it in context.
At the same time, I am interested in hearing believing Jews put their best forward, both because I have found that I can profit greatly from what they teach, and if one is interested in dialoguing with them where one disagrees, it makes sense to dialogue civilly about the best points putting forward the best arguments.
I found another post by Phinneous the other day to be very good, and am glad that it wasn’t a caucus thread, but a lack of civility is a good way to cause threads to be caucused.
Christianity as I profess it (I am a Catholic), and most forms of Christianity that I am aware of, does effectively live or die on Paul telling the truth. That is not to say that Paul’s testimony is the central facet about Christianity, or even that the lines of theology made more explicit by Paul were not already present and being developed prior to his testimony (I suspect that if I actually watched the video I would want to make some distinctions), but St. Paul is very entwined with a number of important Christian doctrines, such as Biblical Inerrancy.
The point is that Paul preached the same Christ as the Twelve...and since he had never personally met Christ, the consistency of his testimony with that of the Twelve means that Paul's testimony does not stand alone.
The Gospel is the Gospel...not Paul's or Peter's or James'...same for Christ himself.
Torah! Torah! Torah!
If there were more than one instance of revelation to a few, then it is not additive (in the Rabbi’s logic.) And still incomparable to revelation to an entire nation.
Not sure what you are saying here?
That said, Paul's revelation left him with an understanding of Christianity which was completely consistent to that of the men who had lived with Christ day in and day out. And after meeting Paul, those men who knew Christ accepted him (Paul) and knew his revelation was true because his knowledge of Christ through this revelation was the same as theirs.
I would agree that Paul’s testimony cannot ultimately stand alone—but as a Catholic I must at least allow the possibility that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. What Paul preached must ultimately be grounded in what Christ taught, but how what Christ taught was understood and articulated, at least from the Catholic standpoint, could be the subject of great development during apostolic times.
The Twelve themselves had a much different view of Christ’s teaching a decade after the Resurrection than they had the week before the Resurrection (or 40 days after). This does not mean that Christ’s teaching had changed, but that it was better understood. The Church, as I understand it holds, that Paul could contribute to that understanding.
If the Church is wrong on that point, to quote Flannery O’Connor on the Eucharist, to Hell with it.
LOL. That said, I don't think the Church is wrong.
Paul did expand quite a bit on the teachings of Christ, but they were all completely consistent in spirit, so to speak, with the rest of the Gospel.
Wow. In bold yet.
By “not additive” I mean that multiple people can make the same claim (of a personal revelation) and in this case could also have collaborated. It’s totally different from the Jewish claim of a whole nation claiming the same revelation and [convincing their progeny of it’s truth and to live that vastly different lifestyle from the rest of the world.]
Anyway, the intent is for Jews to learn of our origins. The Torah is True, the Oral Law and it’s concurrent revelation at Sinai are true, and we live it in its entirety until today. (To preempt, any claim that rabbis of the Judean period did not act and live like orthodox Jews of today can be explained in another post—Judaism adapts...it’s our way of conquering the world....slowly :) )
There are other anomalies that Jews see in Christianity, detailed here, and although this is the “Catholic” response, the outcome is the same-— revelation to a few, distinct from the origins of Judaism.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm
I would add that most Christians believe the Torah is true and can point to America’s success as being the pudding-proof of the truth of such (America being the only country to my knowledge resting on a foundation of Judeo/Christian culture and values).
Act 3:22 “For Mosheh truly said to the fathers, ‘יהוה your Elohim shall raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brothers. Him you shall hear according to all matters, whatever He says to you. 23 ‘And it shall be that every being who does not hear that Prophet1 shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ Footnote: 1Deut. 18:18-20.
Act 7:37 “This is the Mosheh who said to the children of Yisra’Ä•l, ‘יהוה your Elohim shall raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brothers. Him you shall hear.’ Act 7:38 “This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Messenger who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living Words to give to us, 39 unto whom our fathers would not become obedient, but thrust away, and in their hearts they turned back to Mits-rayim,
1Co 10:1 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were immersed into Mosheh in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed, and the Rock was Messiah.
1Co 10:6 And these became examples for us, so that we should not lust after evil, as those indeed lusted.
1Co 10:11 And all these came upon them as examples, and they were written as a warning to us, on whom the ends of the ages have come, 12 so that he who thinks he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.
Heb 3:7 Therefore, as the Set-apart Spirit says, “Today, if you hear His voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 where your fathers tried Me, proved Me, and saw My works forty years. 10 “Therefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, and they have not known My ways.’
Heb 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering into His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the Good News was brought to us as well as to them, but the word which they heard did not profit them, not having been mixed with belief in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter into that rest, as He has said, “As I swore in My wrath, if they shall enter into My rest...” And yet His works have come into being from the foundation of the world.
Paul’s testimony went much further than the 12 had revealed to them. Read Gal. chapter 2. He gave THEM instructions. Not the other way around.
I would take that as “true to a point.” Judaism is categorically against Jesus as messiah, so the “spirit” maybe not the letter of the Law is the take-away I suppose. :)
Paul's testimony, while adding much in detail, was underscored in a major way by his acceptance by the 12.
The 12 knew Paul was telling the Truth and they knew that he had actually met Jesus on the road to Damascus. They knew because Paul's testimony to them and afterwards was completely in the voice of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Paul’s eventual acceptance with the 12 was a very big event. So much so, that in Gal. Chapter 2, we find John, James, and Peter perceiving THE GRACE that was given to Paul. And at that point, gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, to go to the Gentiles with their gospel of grace, while they(Peter and the 11) remained preaching to the circumcision (the Gospel of the Kingdom). They gave the commission to go to all the nations to Paul at that point. Do you think they were reneging on their Kingdom Gospel commission?
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.