Buggman: It doesn't come from Paul either, if one interprets his letters by his life. It comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first
Christ did not teach abandoning the Law, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. That's where the disagreement between +Paul and the Apostles who knew Christ personally arose. To them, +Pauline gospel (he called it 'my gospel') rang foreign to what they remembered from Christ's teachings.
More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?
Anti-judaizing elements in Christian movmeents appear relatively early (Didache, Epistle of Barnabas), calling the Jews "hypocrites," and claiming that the Jews were never in covenant with God. The latter (from the Epistle of Barnabas) disappeared from the Christian Bibles after the 4th century. But, as you observed earlier, the anti-judaizing rants of Christian leaders continued well into the fifth century (+John Chrysostom).
There is no other author of post-Pentecost Christianity other than +Paul. The Church in Jerusalem died out. We know next to nothing about its practices other than that it was very much like a synagogue and allegedly did not use the Eucharist.
It [the idea that Christianity is not Judaism] comes from people misreading Paul because they haven't done their homework in the Tanakh and the Gospel accounts first
How so? When +Paul preached 'his gospel' the Gospels were not written yet. From 44 until his death in the mid 60's of the first century, +Paul pretty much interpreted Christ's message to the Hellenized Jews and Gentiles without Gospels.
Christ did not teach abandoning the Law, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. That's where the disagreement between +Paul and the Apostles who knew Christ personally arose. To them, +Pauline gospel (he called it 'my gospel') rang foreign to what they remembered from Christ's teachings.
If this were true ... how could the Jerusalem Council (involving Peter, Paul, James, and others) ... agree to abandon circumcision as a requirement for Gentile christians ?
More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?
It is the Spirit which works to bring our imperfect understandings ... into agreement ... with the Truth (of course).
He's obviously still working on it.
We are imperfect receivers ... if you will.
And again, looking at the issue from the opposite perspective, ...
Would we, could we ... agree on as much as we do ... without the guidance of the Spirit ?
You are correct that Yeshua HaMashiach never advocated abandoning the Torah; just the contrary (Mat. 5:17-19).
But you are incorrect that Sha'ul did.
For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)Sha'ul's apparent opposition to the Torah was not an opposition to the Torah itself, but to a misuse of it that some elements were trying to foist on the infant Ekklesia:Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27)
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)
For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)
For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Co. 7:19)
Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)
But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully . . . (1 Ti. 1:8)
All Scripture (including the Torah) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)
First, the idea that circumcision--which in a first century context meant becoming Jewish via a rabbinical ceremony--was required for salvation; i.e., that one had to be Jewish to be saved.
And second, the idea that keeping the Torah--and in particular, keeping the rabbinical customs as part and parcel of keeping Torah--was a prerequisite for salvation.
Sha'ul opposed those ideas not on the basis of some new revelation, but on the basis of the Torah itself. Therefore, he was not anti-Torah, but very pro-Torah.
More importantly, if they were all inspired, and filled with Spirit, how could they be in disagreement?
Where were they in disagreement? Sha'ul rebuked Kefa (Peter) for an ill-considered action in distancing himself from the Gentiles at one point, but remember that Kefa and Ya'akov (James) both agreed with him, not only at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) but also later (Acts 21)!
There is no other author of post-Pentecost Christianity other than +Paul.
Your Bible stops at Hebrews? Interesting. Mine has three letters and a prophetic vision by Yochanan (John), two letters from Kefa, one from Ya'akov, and one from Y'hudah (Jude). I also have a history recorded by the companion of Sha'ul which tells us in some detail how the Apostles and the Jerusalem Ekkesia--the one closest in time, space, and culture to our Lord Yeshua--lived and practiced, and it tells us that they worshiped daily in one accord in the Temple (Acts 2:36), that the issue of Jews keeping the Torah was never even an issue (Acts 15), that it was not uncommon for even "optional" parts of the Torah like Nazrite vows to be undertaken (Acts 21:23-24) or for the requisite animal sacrifices for such vows to be made (v. 26).
More importantly, my Bible has the words of our Lord Himself, recorded in four Gospel accounts--and He never opposed the Torah, only human tradition piled on top of God's pure Word.
If Sha'ul--who never walked with the Lord Yeshua during His earthly ministry, and who started out opposed to Him--stood alone among all the Apostles--the rest of whom were taught personally by the Lord in the flesh--and we cannot even find this supposed anomia in the Messiah . . . well, guess who's in the wrong then. I guess you'd best go find an Ebionite congregation to worship in.
However, the fact is that Sha'ul was not in opposition either to the rest of the Apostles or to the Torah. You've been misreading him.
Now, in regards to post #7248, you write, It wasn't just circumcision; it was entire Judaism! You tell me how and why? Christ never said the Law did not apply because those who believe in Him are under grace. +Paul did. Justified under grace is not Judaism.
You obviously don't know the first thing about Judaism! First of all, where did Sha'ul get the idea that one is justified by faith rather than by the Law? Genesis 15:6--that's right, in the Torah! How then could it even enter your mind that grace and Judaism, built upon the Torah, are mutually exclusive?
But let us look at what the Jews say about their own beliefs. The basis of a Jew's salvation, in the minds of the rabbis, has never been that he keeps Torah, but on the basis of his fellowship in Israel with God, because of Israel's covenant with God. Hence why the Mishnah says,
All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, "your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedron 11:1, folio 90A)In Shabbat 119B, R. Joshua b. Levi points out that God annuls the retribution that He would be just to pour out on His people when they offer themselves to Him willingly. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?
In the Avinu Malkeynu ("Our Father, Our King"), traditionally sung on Yom Kippur, the Jew prays, "Be merciful unto us / For we have no deeds / Commending us unto You / Be merciful, save us, we pray." Hmm, nothing there about winning God's favor by keeping the Torah--in fact, we see the admission that only by God's unmerited mercy (grace) does one have a hope.
Now what is true is that modern Judaism--and I have no doubt this was going on in the first century as well--tends to emphasize a "merit system" of salvation. I suspect that this is in part an overreaction against the Christian emphasis on faith, just as Christian anti-Torah attitudes are an overreaction against the synagogue. However, the fact remains that according to Judaism's own oldest traditions, one cannot separate salvation from God's grace exhibited in the forgiveness of sins.
Now, for some friendly advice: Put down Paul for a while; pretend that those pages don't even exist in your Bible. Then go study the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel, and the other Epistles with all reverence and prayerfulness, asking God for wisdom (Jas. 1:5). Do a little historical study on the Jewish culture of the first century. Then return to Paul with fresh eyes, and see for yourself if he is really against the Torah, or if perhaps he was simply trying to return to a pure Torah.
It is not just St. Paul who saw a problem with the Judaizers. St. Peter received a vision that lead him to abolish the major tenet of Judaism, the dietary laws. It was adopted by the Jerusalem Council.
The moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday has nothing to do with St. Paul either.