| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 20:04:00
|
Robert-James said: Paul's words and thoughts were to find and lead the lost sheep of the House of Israel, into an understanding of messiah Yahushuah, which was with the Israelites, in their wilderness walk
BatKol: Not at all. Paul states plainly that he is sent to "the Nations" which is Tanack talk for non-Israelites...What do you do with these verses which clearly state contrary to your above statement:
Paul says, "and having called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations.
Notice Paul does not say only the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael?
Also here, "James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave right hands of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we go to the nations (the uncircumcison), but they to the circumcision"
I just re-read Galatians and it is pretty clear what Paul (the super-Judean who sat at the feet of Gamaliel) is telling those specific Galatian peoples (the uncircumsized nations) is in a nutshell, " if righteousness is through law, then Christ died without cause."
Paul, who is an expert in Torah, goes out of his way to tell these Galatians there is no need for them to follow the Torah........ Paul says, "I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile, and not as the Jews, why do you compel the nations to judaize (i.e. - follow the Torah)? There are many more verses where he tells the Galatians they have no need for the Torah.
The point here to notice is that there was a division of two different types of peoples: The circumcision (Israelites under Torah which James and company were to go to) and the uncircumsized nations (who were never under the Law and who bypass it through Christ). It is there spelled out plain as day. It says what it says because the Galatians were non-Israelites, never being under the Torah. As for the census numbers in the Tanack.. they match up as well as the botched geneaologies of the New Testement.
Also, that the Torah provided an option for non-Israelites to become Israelites is to understand that there are Israelites who were not all of the same race. This is why Israel is a people not a race. |
 |
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 22:05:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Robert-James said: Paul's words and thoughts were to find and lead the lost sheep of the House of Israel, into an understanding of messiah Yahushuah, which was with the Israelites, in their wilderness walk
BatKol: Not at all. Paul states plainly that he is sent to "the Nations" which is Tanack talk for non-Israelites...What do you do with these verses which clearly state contrary to your above statement:
Paul says, "and having called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the nations.
Batkol:
We respectfully disagree that "Nations" is "Tanack talk for non-Israelites".
The Hebrew word "goyim" is translated nations and the Greek word "ethnos" is translated nations. It seems it is necessary to look at the context each time a translation occurs to determine if the reference is to Israylite people or non-Israylite people.
It is apparent in each of the following verses that it would be absurd to make the statement that the word "goy" (singular) or
"goyim" (plural) which is translated "nation" or "nations" refers to non-Israylites:
Isayah 1:3 clearly refers to Israyl and is followed by Isayah 1:4 which starts..."Ah, sinful nation (goy), a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children who are corruptors!"
It would be a misrepresentation of Scripture to say that Yahweh here was saying.."Ah, sinful non-Israylites..."when he was clearly speaking to Israylites.
In Isayah 10:6 when Yahweh states that He will use the Assyrians as a tool to punish Israyl by carrying them away in the Assyrian captivity he states "I will send him (the Assyrian king) against a hypocritical nation (goy),..." It would be improper to say that Yahweh here was stating that He would send the Assyrians against non-Israylites.
In Yeremyah (Jeremiah) 31:36 states: "If those ordinances (the sun, moon and stars) depart from before Me says Yahweh: (then) the seed of Israyl also will cease from being a nation (goy) before Me forever." This obviously does not mean that ...Israyl also will cease being a non-Israylite...
Genesis 12:2; 17:4-5; 25:23; and 35:11 clearly referring to lineal ancestors of Israyl are not "Tanack talk for non-Israylite".
In Genesis 25:23(a)...And Yahweh said to her (Rebecca): "Two nations (goyim) are in your womb."...Yahweh certainly did not mean two non-Israylites were in Rebecca's womb. Jacob and Esau were in Rebecca's womb. Jacob was to become Israyl and certainly would not be referred to by Yahweh as a non-Israylite.
In Genesis 35:10 and 11 Yahweh told Yaaqob his name would henceforth be Israyl and that "a nation (goy) and a community of nations (goyim) will come from you, and kings will come from your body. Yahweh was not telling Jacob/Israyl that a community of non-Israylites would come from his body.
Therefore by closely looking at the context in which "goyim" and "ethnos" are used in Scripture and knowing of the multitude of Scriptures in which Yahweh prophesied that he would scatter the Israylites among the goyim and ethnos (i.e. nations) we are not surprised to find that Yahweh indeedtold the truth and the Israylites are scattered among the nations now and they were among the nations at the time Yahshua walked on earth and at the time Paul was ministering to those of them scattered among the nations including the Galations (Galatians 4:28-31, 1 Peter 1:1 referring to Israylites in Galatia); the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10:1-4); Ephesians (Ephesains 1:5 cross-referenced to Romans 9:4) and the Romans (Romans 4:1, 9:3-4, 9:10, 9:25 cross-referenced to 1 Peter 2:10 and Hoshea 1:10; Romans 15:8).
Yahshua knew the Israylites were dispersed among the nations(John 10:16 and others), the Jews of John 7:35 knew it, James knew it (James 1:1), Peter knew it (1 Peter 1:1, 2:9 quoting Exodus 19:5-6),
John the writer of Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 quoting Exodus 19:5-6 knew it....why don't we know it, Batkol?
Does Isayah 1:3 apply?...The ox knows its owner and the donkey (knows) its owner's crib; (but)Israyl does not know; My people do not consider; (understand).
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 06 Feb 2004 22:28:30 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 22:31:03
|
Marty, your point is well taken. However the context I was using it in, and I think it applies to Paul's pharisee thinking in Galatians, is Strongest Strong's 1471 which states "Goy - people, nation; regularly OT, any people in contrast to Israel; the Gentiles, pagans, heathen, uncultured." When I said "Tanack for non-Israelites" that was where I was coming from.. which is where I think Paul is coming from.
In the context that I was speaking of in Galatians, do you argee that when Paul is talking about his calling of going out into the "Nations to preach the gospel", that the Nations in this context is those of the "uncircumcision"? |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 14:20:55
|
Cornerstone Foundation Post Number 39
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Marty, your point is well taken. However the context I was using it in, and I think it applies to Paul's pharisee thinking in Galatians,...
In the context that I was speaking of in Galatians, do you argee that when Paul is talking about his calling of going out into the "Nations to preach the gospel", that the Nations in this context is those of the "uncircumcision"?
Batkol:
We agree that the letter Paul wrote to those in Galatia was written at least to some who were of the "uncircumcision" and it is possible that all of those to whom he was writing were of the "uncircumcison".
We perceive that many who have read Paul's letter to the Galatian's have missed the indications in the letter itself and in related scriptures that some if not all of the "uncircumcision" in Galatia were in fact uncircumcised Galatian Israylites who were literal flesh and blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israyl. This is in our opinion a highly significant point that many have either missed or ignored when they preach and/or teach on verses taken out of context from the Letter of Paul to the Galatians.
Peter wrote that "...Paul, in accordance with the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which some things hard to be understood, which those who are unlearned and unstable twist, as (they) also do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2Peter 15b-16)
It seems that Yahweh's Spirit inspired Peter to "hit the nail on the head" concerning Paul's writings. We feel it is important for us to keep this in mind when reading what Paul has written and to also encourage others who are serious about finding truth and living by truth to do likewise.
In Galatians 1:2 we noted that Paul indicates that the letter is written to "the called out ones of Galatia".
We also noticed in 1 Peter 1:1 that Peter wrote a letter to the "sojourners scattered throughout...Galatia..."
The Greek word translated "scattered" here is, Strong's No. 1290, diaspora.
Strong's only definition for the word diaspora is "the Israylite in Gentile countries scattered abroad".
The word "diaspora" is used three times in the New Writings.
It was common knowledge to the Jews who spoke the word "diaspora" in John 7:35 that there were in fact Israylites scattered in the (Gentile) nations.
James knew that when he used the word "diaspora" in James 1:1. He made it very clear that he was writing his letter to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad". Who were those twelve tribes?
Deuteronomy 4:27a: And Yahweh will scatter you among the nations and people...
Dueteronomy 28:37b ...among all nations where Yahweh will drive you.
Dueteronomy 30:1b ...wherever Yahweh your Father may disperse you among the nations.
Dueteronomy 30:3b ... from all the nations where He scattered you.
Dueteronomy 32:26 I (Yahweh) said that I would scatter them (the Israylites), and make their remembrance cease from among men,...
Ezekiel 20:23 I (Yahweh) lifted up My hand , (vowing to them) in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries,..
Ezekiel 20:34b ...out of the countries in which you are scattered...
Ezekiel 20:41b ...out of the countries in which you have been scattered..
Ezekiel 37:21 ...from among the heathen, wherever they have gone...
Leviticus 26:33a I (Yahweh) will scatter you among the nations...
Leviticus 26:41b ...I (Yahweh) sent them into the land of their enemies, then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for this sin,...
Hosheyah 8:8 Israyl is swallowed up. Now they will be among the Gentiles...
Jeremiah 23:3b and 8b ...from all the countries where I have driven them.
Amosyah 9:9b ...I (Yahweh) will sift the house of Israyl among all nations,...
Luke 21:24b ...and will be led away captives into all nations..
Thereare many other verses of Scripture that indicate this...What part of "scattered among the nations" don't we understand?
Yahweh said he would scatter Israyl among the nations. Does Yahweh tell the truth? Do we believe Yahweh? Are we surprised to find that Israyl is scattered among the nations...including Galatia?
Chapter 4 of Galatians seems very revealing in showing us that Paul is addressing flesh and blood literal Israylite Galatian descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israyl.
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 09 Feb 2004 13:17:14 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 18:36:28
|
Marty, yes, scripture is very clear that the tribes were scattered. Here is my biggest problem with the assumption that the Galatians were Israelites:
Paul is basically addressing them as recipients of the Good News of the uncircumcision and is dismayed at them for wanting to adopt Torah proclaiming, "so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end?" as well as "lo, I Paul do say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and I testify again to every man circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (snip)...". These are just a few verses.. I could keep snipping and posting here but it is clear to me that if the Galatians were lost Israel Paul would have been telling them to adopt Torah, get circumsized, etc. Clearly this is not what Paul was telling the Galatians. The point Paul drives home in Galatians is that he is dismayed that these believers, after hearing the Good News of the uncircumcision and receiving Christ, why they would want to put on "the yoke of servitude"? Surely this would not be a message to an Israelite. Only to one who was never under the Torah to begin with.
Please show me where I am wrong if this is NOT the message Paul was delivering to the Galatians. I most certainly open to studying this out.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 10 Feb 2004 08:58:44 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 19:26:42
|
Greetings to all,
What I gather from Paul speaking to the Galatians is that the circumcision is of the heart, therefore out of flesh. We see and hear of afflictions such as herpes, and all sorts of gonococcol diseases,etc., whether they'd be circumcised on the flesh or not, but that did not stop the plague of the sin from spreading on flesh.
Manuel |
Edited by - Manuel on 07 Feb 2004 19:30:31 |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 20:11:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
... if the Galatians were lost Israel Paul would have been telling them to adopt Torah, get circumsized, etc. ... The point Paul drives home in Galatians he is dismayed that these believers, after hearing the Good News of the uncircumcision and receiving Christ, why they would want to put on "the yoke of servitude"? Surely this would not be a message to an Israelite. Only to one who was never under the Torah to begin with.
BatKol,
Let me take a shot...
The Israel believer, who would have been circumcised, was with baptism a new man; through baptism he had been crucified, was dead, buried, and then resurrected. The circumcision was of naught, now being of Spirit through Christ. He was no longer bound to the old covenant which one entered through (the mandatory) circumcision. A similar thing for the non-circumcised lost-Israel (or non-Israel) man. Once baptized, he too was crucified, was dead, buried, and then resurrected. The circumcised and the uncircumcised were both new men of Spirit. It mattered not whether they were circumcised before baptism or not.
I Cor. 7:
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Galatians 2:
3* But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4* And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Galatians 6:15* For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
But once baptised, the new Spiritual man, if he then enters into the old covenant by being circumcised under its mandate, he looses the benefit of Christ and His new covenant and is again bound to keep all the old laws - "under the yoke." Christ had kept those perfectly and through baptism we enjoy Christ's blessing. Again, adopting the old covenant by being circumcised after being baptized into the new, annuls the new. This is why I believe Paul wrote:
Galatians 3:
1 ¶ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Galatians 5:
1* ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Can Christ be crucified twice (a man's second baptism)? Don't count on it.
Hebrews 6:6* If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Read all of Galatians.
So... not spuring the Galatians to be circumcised is NOT proof that they were not Israel, as being circumcised would annul the salvation through Christ - as we must presume they were baptised - (regardless of their tribal origin).
Walter |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 21:04:14
|
Walter said: The Israel believer, who would have been circumcised, was with baptism a new man; through baptism he had been crucified, was dead, buried, and then resurrected. The circumcision was of naught, now being of Spirit through Christ. He was no longer bound to the old covenant which one entered through (the mandatory) circumcision.
BatKol: I think you spell that out well. I do believe that was Paul's focus, however, I gather from the many scriptures in the Tanakh which
speak of the return of the lost tribes back to under the Torah (Hosea spells this out). In the letter Paul is dismayed that the Galatians would even consider Torah having recieve the Spirit directly. Now, if these Galations were Israelites I would expect they would have been "earmarked" for the "gospel of the circumcision" that was from the Jerusalem group headed by James. Surely, Paul who studied at the foot of Gamaliel, would have never told lost Israelites to not adopt Torah. He excelled above all of the students and even called himself something like "a pharisee among pharisees"... I think he would have preached Torah to the Galatians if they were lost Israel in light of Hosea and the ingathering of the exiles which tell of Israel returning to the Torah and reuniting with the House of Yahudah. That is the way I understand what happens with Lo Ammi lost Israel. The Galatians don't seem to fit lost Israel if Torah is not being preached to them. I see your point too but I am of the opinion that the Torah was manditory for lost Israel's return to YHWH. |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 22:17:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Surely, Paul who studied at the foot of Gamaliel, would have never told lost Israelites to not adopt Torah. He excelled above all of the students and even called himself something like "a pharisee among pharisees"...
There's a difference between knowing the law and being bound by it. We all should strive to live up to the requirements of the law - primarily regarding "loving our neighbors as ourselves" -, but we are freed through Christ of its curse. Remember, Paul considered his righteousness under the law as dung compared to the glory in Christ. The point you brought up earlier highlighted circumcision, which I hoped I explained why it was not to be done. All the inhabitants of the Earth (and even the angels) should know God's law. But the "old man" and his subjection to the old law dies upon his baptism, and the new Spiritual man is not to be brought back under the old law. Paul was warning the Galatians not to be "bewitched" into giving up their liberty in Christ by turning back to the old law and away from the new.
I believe the Galatians probably were mainly dispersed Israel, as James writes:
James 1:1* ¶ James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
We don't know what else Paul had taught to the Galatians in person, he probably did teach from the Torah and prophets. But certainly this letter of warning and instruction was cannonized for us all. To borrow a phrase: I don't see the lack of evidence as evidence of absence. |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 01:49:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Walter
To borrow a phrase: I don't see the lack of evidence as evidence of absence.
Walter:
We have several comments and questions to put forth concerning your post and those above...but for tonight...only...what does the phrase you have "borrowed" above have to do with the subject being discussed...specifically.
Thank you for responding.
Marty
|
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 05:37:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation
...what does the phrase you have "borrowed" above have to do with the subject being discussed...specifically.
I was attempting to speak to BakTol's assertion that Paul would teach the Galatians the Torah if they were Israel. I am merely saying that just because there is no direct statement in our Bibles that Paul did so, does not mean he didn't. He could have taught them that and many other things while he was with them and in other letters not canonized in the Bible. Just because things are not recorded in the Bible does not necessarily mean those things did not happen. And this sub-thread had nothing to do with the topic. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 10:11:00
|
Thank you Walter and Marty for some great comments. Walter it is true what Paul does say what he says concerning the Torah. This we can't deny. I have always been under the mindset that one must look who Paul is talking to in these contexts. Yes, James does say, "to the Israelites scattered abroad" but, it seems, that his message was to those of the "circumcision" (i.e. - Israelites who need to come back under Torah, as per Hosea, etc). Paul, speaking often to those of the uncircumcision, almost seems to be preaching agaisnt the Torah in a sense. The reason, I think, for this is because these people did not take an oath to Torah, were not born into Torah, and hence were not Israelites in the sense of Torah. Paul, through sheparding them into the Christ awakening, was able to get them to the place that the Torah aims for through acts of the flesh. Directly. Twinkling of an eye type stuff. I can see why Paul would be upset with these people wanting to get under Torah having achieved already what the Torah's end goal is... With the Aryan Brahmins there is a same understanding. The slow methodical way is called "the Way of the snail" while there is a direct Way called, "the Way of the bird" which is like a bird effortlessly flying from one branch (current state) to another branch (non-dual State of Echad). It seems like Paul was teaching in this style.... Now, I am not saying that my understanding is correct, but, to me, this 'concept' that Paul was speaking mostly to those of the "uncircumcision" when speaking of the bondage of Torah. For these people, since they were not Israelites according to Torah, it would be pointless to make an oath to Torah.
Now to the Israelites scattered abroad, the "circumcision" I could see why James and company would be preaching Torah, circumcision, etc to them. This fulfills prophecy. This is the only way I see how to make the two views harmonize. Here is a link to the statue of "the dying gaul" 250 BCE
http://www.eekman.com/virtual_gallery/sculptures/gaul.shtml
This statue is uncircumsized but these pictures do not show this angle. If this is not archetypical white man... I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 11:02:21
|
Greetings, we have heard from Paul, ok? Ezekiel 44:5 and YHWH said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine "eyes", and hear with thine "ears" all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of YHWH, and all the laws thereof, and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.
And thou shall say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith YHWH, oh ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought {into My sanctuary} STRANGERS, uncircumcised in the heart and uncircumcised in the flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to pollute it, {even} My house, when ye offer My Bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken My covenant because of all your abominations.
And ye have not kept the charge of My set-apart things, but YOU have set keepers of My charge in My sanctuary for YOURSELVES. "Thus saith YHWH"...no stranger, uncircumcised in the heart...nor uncircumcised in the flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the Children of Israel.
Suffice to say, the Children are within the same Law as the strangers who want to enter the House.
After 1900 + years, is it possible we can get more revelation that even Paul? Please think yes.
Only an unregenerate dead lettered soul, following the dead letter, would assume the simple act of a cutting of extra skin would put him in the presence of YHWH. {This is what Paul was trying to overcome in the minds of the people}.
Nevertheless, Ezekiel's writings are scripture. Circumcision is much older that Abraham.
For some reason Roman christianity has always taught that since Jesus kept the Law, WE don't have too.
A righteous man falleth 7 times...and gets up again. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 12:07:13
|
Robert-James, I agree with the scripture you post even though I might not agree with how you are fitting it into Galatians.
The scripture you posted is for House of Yahudah and even unto the House of Israel..
NOT to non-Israelites (those of the uncircumcision)..
Concerning Israelites, yes the Torah is manditory. One of the main points in Scripture is the return of the Israelites to Torah. The messianic prophecies such as the re-uniting of the Two Houses, the weapons into plowshares, etc. will not happen with out this "Lost Israel" return to Torah. Call it a second coming or a first coming, either way there is no "One World Israelite Government" until the Houses (Two sticks) are brought back together.
Lost Israel must come back to Torah that is clear.
Now, if you believe that Paul really was a master student of Torah and the rest of Tanakh as he claims, you must seriously ask yourself why he would be swaying the Galatians from taking the Torah oath and thus binding them to such.
Paul tells you why: Because he was speaking, especially here in Galatians, to non-Israelites (those of the uncircumcision).
If they were of the lost Tribes of Israel, don't you think Paul (Torah scholar bar none) would have said all the same great things about the Christ experience along with taking the oath of Torah?? He clearly instructs them not to become bound to the Torah and to reject any other Gospel than the one, he Paul, was brining them (i.e. - the Gospel of the uncircumcision, (the gospel that was appointed to him and approved by the Jerusalem Temple headed by James).
Why? Obviously because the Galations were not "those of the circumcision". |
Edited by - BatKol on 10 Feb 2004 08:32:24 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 15:17:03
|
Cornerstone Foundation Post Number 40
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
Thank you Walter and Marty for some great comments. Walter it is true what Paul does say what he says concerning the Torah. This we can't deny.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Batkol: What specifically are you referring to that "Paul does say concerning the Torah"?
What specifically are you saying "we can't deny"?
quote:
Batkol wrote: Paul, speaking often to those of the uncircumcision, almost seems to be preaching against the Torah in a sense.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Perhaps "seems to be" is a key phrase in the statement above. Please remember what Peter said about Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15b-16.
Many people who study the New Writings know John 3:16 very well. We think perhaps it would be beneficial if they knew 2 Peter 3:16 just as well.
We certainly don't mean by stating this that you are unlearned and unstable. Our point here is that Peter's caveat concerning Paul's writings is important for us all to keep in mind as we search for the truth by "rightly dividing the word of truth" as Paul so appropriately encouraged Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15.
Having said that, we will suggest that you do something that has been helpful to us and that is: to ask the question, "Which Law?", every time Paul uses the word "Law" in his writings.
It seems perhaps that you are assuming that when Paul uses the word "law" in addressing the Galatians that he is in all cases referring to the Mosaic Law Covenant given at Mount Sinai.
We respectfully disagree with that assumption for several reasons.
We think that it is important to know that just as the word "bill" has several meanings so also the word "law" has several meanings.
1. You may know a man whose name is "Bill"
2. The electric company may send you a "bill" each month.
3. A "bill" is part of the anatomy of a duck.
4. A baseball cap has a "bill".
5. The legislature votes on a document called a "bill".
When Paul uses the word "law" in his letters we believe it is necessary to see which of the following definitions of "law" he is referring to each time he uses the term:
1. Yahweh's Law, Statute and Judgements which existed long before the time of Moses. This "Law" was evident in the Code of Hammarabbi (sp?). It existed at the time of Noah, it existed at the time of Abraham, and was codified as a part(meaning there were "additions" to it) of the Covenant with Moses at Mount Sinai but is not to be considered as being one and the same with "that law". {See Genesis 26:5 and other references).
2. A second definition of "law" is the covenant Yahweh made with Moses and Israyl at Mount Horeb in the Wilderness of Sinai in the third month after the exodus from Egypt. (please see Exodus 19:5-6 and the related portions of Scripture that follow). This definition number 2 of the word "law" includes but is not limited to the well know "Ten Commandments".
3. The third definition of "law" is the "additional" law covenant that Yahweh made with Moses and Israyl in the land of Moab forty years after the covenant referred to in definition 2 above. Information concerning "this law" begins in Dueteronomy 6:1 and continues through Dueteronomy 29:1. Dueteronomy 29:1 makes that point very clear as it states "These are the terms of the covenant Yahweh commanded Moses to make with the children of Israyl in the land of Moab 'in addition' to the covenant He had made with them at Horeb (Sinai)."
4. The forth definition of "law" is the law of the Levitical Priesthood.
5. The fifth definition of "law" is the law of the Aaronic Priesthood which has specific distinctions from the Levitical Priesthood law.
6. The sixth definition of "law" is the law of sin and death.
We don't have all of this totally sorted out in regards to which "law" Paul is referring to in each instance he uses the term "law" in his letter to the Galatians. We have studied this enough to know that there is something very significant here. Perhaps you can help us come to a fuller understanding.
Perhaps an amplified rendering of Galatians 3:17-19 would be:
"Now I, Paul, say this to you uncircumcised literal flesh and blood decendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israyl who are now called Galatian Israylites: The Law of the Aaronic Priesthood, which came into existence 430 years after the Abrahamic "Law" Covenant (definition #1) was already ratified by Yahweh-does not do away with, nor abolish the unconditional promise that Yahweh made to your literal flesh and blood ancestor Abraham.
For if the inheritance is outside the Abrahamic "Law" covenant (definition #1), then it is no longer from the promise Yahweh made to your father Abraham when he made that unconditional Abrahamic "Law" Covenant with Abraham.
What then was the purpose of The "Law" of the Aaronic Priesthood "Law"? It "was added" 430 years after the Abrahamic "Law" Covenant for forgiveness of transgressions, until the Seed would come to Whom it had been promised, ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator"
Now with all that in mind, please read Galatians 4:21-31 where it becomes very clear that at least in this portion of the letter Paul is addressing literal flesh and blood Galatian Israylite descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israyl.
Marty
|
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 08 Feb 2004 15:48:30 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 16:28:47
|
Paul admitted his job description was to preach to the "heathen". Which word in greek is ethnos...which in American-English is ethnic...which means tribe, nation. Oxfords defines ethnic as: having a common national or cultural tradition. Acts 24:17, {Paul speaking} now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation. Nation here is the greek word; ethnos. The KJV was politically correct for their day. THEY only wanted THEIR KING to sit on the Throne. Sorry translators, this is a new Day. We are becoming a nation of king-priests. Truth is the hardest substance in the universe. Many a pirate ship has been smashed when they ran into the Rock of Ages.
Deuterony 32:8-12.
Yahushuah also admitted that He was called to seek and save the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Scattered among the nations. Paul was a prisoner of messiah Yahushuah...and The Message. The book of hebrews is addressed to whom??? Jamess' epistle also.
Psalm 83 lists 10 nations that try to cut off Israel from being a nation. Psalm 2 says it all. Those who hate the Son, hate the Father also.
Precious is the Blood of the Lamb. Precious also in the sight of YHWH is the blood of His saints.
What saith the talmud about the blood of Yahushuah? |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 19:23:49
|
Greetings on this day, In His name Yahushua, the Messiah,
Messiah reminded us that he was not here to abolish the law, but to fulfil, and only by exceeding the rightousness of the scribes and pharisees would we enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
What say you? Is not this His Word coming to Life, whereby the weeds are being noticed among the wheat, now that the age of awakening is uprooting, and His Light is revealing the hands on which the blood of the prophets blood are on?
In Him, I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 17:01:57
|
Marty asks: Batkol: What specifically are you referring to that "Paul does say concerning the Torah"?
What specifically are you saying "we can't deny"?
BatKol: That Paul is dismayed that the Galatians, who were of the uncircumcision (not under Torah), would want to be bound over to the
Torah like those who were preaching the "message of the circumcision".
As I posted earlier which you might have missed:
"Paul is basically addressing the Galatians as recipients of the Good News of the uncircumcision and is dismayed at them for wanting to adopt Torah proclaiming, "so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end?" as well as "lo, I Paul do say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and I testify again to every man circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (snip)...". These are just a few verses.. The whole
centerpiece of the letter to Galatians is Paul's dismay at the Galatians for thinking they need to be bound to the Law. Why? Because the Galatians were those of "the uncircumsized". Paul says this. So let me change my language to "seems like Paul is speaking against Torah" to "Paul is telling the Galatians that they don't need to be bound to Torah because he is identifying them as "those of the uncircumcison"...
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Perhaps "seems to be" is a key phrase in the statement above. Please remember what Peter said about Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15b-16.
BatKol: Again, I would now strike that "seems to be" as to "is telling them". How can you read Galations from first to last chaptera nd not get that Paul is telling them there is no need to be bound to Torah? That is clear. Why? Because the Galations considered gentiles (of the uncircumcision".. I mean Paul says this through out,no? Does it stand to reason, that Peter, who was of the camp to preach the "Gospel of the circumcision", knew that Paul's words could be twisted if one did not know who Paul was addressing? To me it seems obvious.
Conerstone Foundation said:
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Please remember what Peter said about Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15b-16.
BatKol: Yes, keep this in mind as well. Keep in mind that Paul is clearly speaking to the "uncircumcision" NOT those of the circumcision. IF one is not watching who Paul is talking to, one could get confused as to which camp the people belong to. Paul is everything to everyone so this is very important. The Galations are being talked to, not as lost Israelites (Else he would be preaching Torah), but as Gentiles. Of course, Paul would not be advising Israelites not to be bound to Torah. Only a Gentile who has not, nor has need to, be bound to Torah. The Torah was not given to them only to Israel and Yahudah (the circumcision).
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Which Law was Paul speaking of in Galations?
BatKol: The same Law that "those of the circumcision" followed since that is what the Galatians were looking into. I seriously doubt that
Paul was speaking of only the circumcision part of the Torah since the Torah is a whole covenant and must be followed as a whole. Look into what Law was followed by those of "the circumcision" and you will find out what Law Paul is advising against concerning the Gauls. NOTE: I am not saying Paul is speaking against Torah, only that it is not for "the uncircumcision".
In a nutshell, it is very important to know who Paul is talking to to understand why he says what he says about the Torah. I think this is what Peter is saying. Context, context, context....To his own, he up holds the Torah because he is talking to Israelites/Yahudeans. Torah is manditory to the "circumcision". To Gauls, gentiles and heathen (all of the uncircumcision) he says why bind to Torah when you have Christ.
I would be more specific on this post but I am using a computer that is not funcioning properly and what normally takes me three minutes to type now takes 20 mins.
I look forward to your response. |
Edited by - BatKol on 09 Feb 2004 21:04:45 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 19:11:32
|
Greetings Manuel, yes, even today the wheat is being gathered and the tares are boasting oh so wonderfully.
BatKol, is Yahushuah your messiah? Do you accept the free gift of your salvation, cleansing from the sin nature, by the shed blood of the Lamb?
The snake always leaves a trail.
BATKOL you are being visited...do you humble yourself before Yahushuah messiah?
We all anticipate your testimony. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 20:50:12
|
Robert-James I absolutely reject and refuse the NICEAN version of the JESUS FICTION that the ROMAN KATTI-CHURCH demanded allegence to (or suffer the sword). What I do welcome with open arms is the allegorical Christ model which existed with my Aryan forefathers, hundreds upon hundreds of years before Yahushua came. This model has been around since before 'the foundations of the world'.. the same illusionary world (maya) as taught by Yahushua, Paul, and the Aryan Brahmins before them.
This gift of salvation is the same gift of salvation spoken of by the Brahmins, i.e Realization and non-identification (Melchezidek)with the flesh/blood realm (maya, world). You can't earn this. "It" chooses you as an act of Grace... This process is happening 'to me' Now and has been happening for quite sometime now. Christ, the Annointing, is the process to this Melchezidek State. I never understood this until I learned about why John the Baptists did what he did, who were the Magi who came to visit baby Yahushua. I never understood this until I found out what the 'court of the gentiles' was in the area of the Temple where Yahushua over turned the tables of the money changers. The 'court of the gentiles' is not included in the Torah design. Find out why the House of David had to share the first Temple with those original inhabitants that could not be driven out and you will see the pattern that brought me to my current juncture. This is, conceptually, the last stop before all concepts (types and shadows) end and all that is left is no-thing (and even NO-THING).
You want my testimony? I Am that which was never born and that which will never die. I Am not the flesh and blood that cannot ever Please YHWH, nor inherit the Kingdom which is neither here nor there.
What you are dealing with here in maya/world is the after-image, a danced, bit-playing puppet named "Steve" in YHWH's Script played out here in this illusionary world of constant change. The Annointing has rent the 300 millisecond veil that stands between the illusionary after-image of the earthly REALM and Melechezidek Now (Eternal without time/space).
Want to see the after-image? Spin your cigarette around in a circle. See the blurred image of lighted tip that gives the illusion of perfect, intact circle? WE, the flesh and blood men are THERE. There is your snake trail.. YHWH is the Light, all else is the after-image. The Annointing stands in the 300 ms gap but don't ask me to build 'my house' on a bridge. The map is not the territory. The menue is not the meal.
PS - Speaking of numerics: How do you like this testimony being the 111 post from BatKol... signs, signs, everywhere the signs! 
|
Edited by - BatKol on 10 Feb 2004 08:40:41 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Yeshua and Talmud
