If Paul adhered to Rabbinical teachings he *never* would’ve thought to teach that the *new* way to Gd is through faith, not works.
If he were a rabbi, he would’ve understood that faith is the heart and soul of Judaism and would never had tried to make such a discernment. (habakkuk 2:2-4- “See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness”)
If Paul was taught by the rabbis, how on earth did he get the impression that the only way to salvation for Jews was through the following of Gd’s Law to perfection? He flat-out misinterpreted Deuteronomy as ‘abide by the law’ when the Hebrew translation is ‘uphold the law’ - to affirm that the law is Gd’s will. The rabbis have been very clear on this from the start.
To back up the Jewish understanding of our relationship with Gd, I offer you this. Psalms 103:10 says clearly: “He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.”
Gd is merciful. Every Jew knows this and they would’ve seen through Paul’s proclamation of Jewish roots in a minute.
The fact that *he* actually believed that the *Jewish people* believed that the only way to Salvation was through the perfect practice of Gd’s Law, prove that he didn’t understand Judaism at all. The man had no idea what he was talking about when it came to Judaism.
And, on top of that, he completely misunderstood the Jewish practice of the blood sacrifice. No. We can’t sacrifice an animal to make up for our deliberate sins. We were only to sacrifice animals when we made a inadvertent *mistake*. It was a teaching tool. You mess up, break a law by accident, and you lose a prize goat. You won’t do that again. You can’t offer Gd the blood of an innocent to repay *your* deliberate sins and you never could. (King David went to Gd ‘with a broken heart’ after he had that guy killed so he could marry is wife - he didn’t sacrifice a goat. And the death of his son wasn’t to punish him. It was to bring attention to the sin so David would stop making excuses and finally repent.)
If Paul was such a great rabbi, why didn’t he know these basic facts about the religion?
Have you ever offered an animal sacrifice, much less at the Temple in Jerusalem, as Saul (and all the other Apostles and early Jewish Christians) did ? You are two thousand years and a tragic Galut removed from the facts, how could your testimony be better than Saul's ?
If Paul was such a great rabbi, why didn’t he know these basic facts about the religion?
***And, on top of that, he completely misunderstood the Jewish practice of the blood sacrifice.***
I believe he knew about the practice of blood sacrifice. He several times went to the TEMPLE, once with a vow on his head, and on his LAST trip there JAMES said he had several men with vows on their heads, and PAUL was to go with them, pay for their SACRIFICES to show the people that what the people had heard about him ABANDONING Jewish practices WAS NOT SO.
This was when the RIOT occured and he was rescued by Roman Troops because the people thought the Christian Jews with vows on their heads were GENTILES.
Remember, PAUL also circumcised Timothy because the Jews knew his father was GREEK, but his MOTHER was a Jewess.
“If Paul adhered to Rabbinical teachings he *never* would’ve thought to teach that the *new* way to Gd is through faith, not works.”
It is only a stereotype that Jews believed in salvation by works rather than grace. http://readingacts.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/basics-of-the-new-perspective-judaism-as-a-religion-of-grace/
I don’t believe Paul had the view you believe he did. I think Paul knew exactly what he was talking about.
AMEN
One of the biggest differences between Paul’s (Church of Rome) teachings is that we are saved by faith - belief in God/Jesus) alone. That’s convenient. Eat, drink and be merry - all is well as long as you ‘believe” -
James the Just - who was the leader of the followers after the Crucifixion until he was murdered in 62 AD - said “Faith without works is dead”
Reconcile this, you who believe in Paulinism - upon which most of the Christian churches are based:
James 2:14-26
New King James Version (NKJV)
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?”
I prefer to think that JAMES, who lived with, walked with and was taught PERSONALLY for 3 years by Jesus, just might have more of an understanding of what Jesus taught than Paul - who never met Him, and upon who’s word ONLY - NO WITNESSES - we are supposed to believe that Jesus appeared to in a manner which Jesus never before used? That Jesus would go outside of the Apostles that He had PERSONALLY chosen, taught and ordained, to teach and spread His Gospel?
And even if one still believes in Paul - reconcile the stark, opposite positions of Paul and James regarding Faith alone and Faith With works. (After all, “Even the demons believe...” So are THEY, then, also ‘saved”)
The Didache is a book perhaps every Christian should have on their shelves - a very early work - it was considered and left out when the “Holy Fathers” (upon orders from the POPE, were deciding which books of Gospel then being used would be allowed in the Bible. For the most part, if they held inconvenient teachings - they were condemned. The tiny Book of James squeaked by, after being objected too -
Any ‘Gospel’ that might shed inconvenient light upon the structure per Paul, that provided the power/money/control meme, was looked upon with disfavor and consigned to be destroyed. Fortunately, many were hidden and have been found in relatively recent years. (Remember, the Church of Rome discouraged people NOT to read the Bible until about the mid 20th century - but to just listen to what the Church preached - including, of course, that Mary Madelene was a ‘repentant whore’, even though there is NOTHING in the Bible to support that. But it helped to deflect from the fact that Jesus taught that women were equal and that He appointed women as disciples and teachers and healers. AND that He and MM were very close.
Well, gotta get a cuppa coffee -
OH, if you don’t have this, you may be interested -