INTO Help Line

[intojoy]

Thanks for your answer!!!


'assuming that it is wrong for him to keep the Law in any case' - that phrasing can be easily misunderstood. Paul appears in some parts of his writings to teach the law i.e the commandments, but there are other aspects to it such as the Jewish customs. James equates a Jew who does not do the customs as apostatising from Moses in Acts 21. In the same passage he solidifies the sentiment that the kosher laws to gentiles are actually a part of the Law, hence they were coined as 'requirements' in Acts 15. (Paul agreed to this initially in Acts 15, but went away to teach otherwise).

It doesn't matter about the 'voluntary' nature, the fact is that the underlying meaning/value/purpose of the vow no longer holds. That's why Christians have had to say this is but a tribute act to Jesus's sacrifice.

With regards to your second point, that's a disturbing position to hold as it implies deception, which in this context involves the many thousands of the newbie believing Jews who obviously didn't ALL have the right understanding of Law. The problem is exacerbated when James actually speaks of them being zealous in a way in which clearly shows James is proud of it. What we take from this as, because James selected a nazarite vow (out of all of the other customs, he had to go for the expensive one which also should no longer have the same value to the new believers), it's clear James wants Paul to prove he is obedient to the Law to these zealous guys, thus affirming the sentiments of the vow. James then, was deceived by Paul, too.

Why the nazarite vow, that's littered with all of these customs which are full of conditions that you must stick to in order to become purified otherwise you cannot do certain acts of worship because you are unclean - these things have no salvific value in Paul's doctrine. Also, it has a sin-offering in it, too. If it's voluntary, why are James and the new believers under the vow choosing to do something like this vow in the first place? It's clear they uphold it's Torah meaning, they continued to do them.

With regards to your fourth point, there was a 'sin-offering' to conclude nazarite vows. This is the sort of mode created for those under the law. But they go on to affirm the nazarite vow and with it there is a sin offering involved. This is completely against what Paul's doctrine is about, but if he were to stand up against doing it, he would have the disciples brand him an apostate.

Fifth point, again that raises the problem of deception.

Sixth, were they really false? At the end of the day, Paul did speak of the Law in a universal way.

Remember that Paul didn't really meet with Peter, James and John much at all.

Verses 20-25 record the advice of the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem to Paul, beginning with their reaction to Paul's report in verse 20a: And they, when they heard it, glorified God. This showed that the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem were happy over so many Gentiles coming to a saving faith.
They then related to Paul the state of the Church of Jerusalem in verse 20b: and they said unto him, You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. The elders refer to Paul as brother, showing they viewed him as a fellow believer in the ministry, and they point out: how many thousands there are among the Jews.
The Greek word for thousands is the word from which the English word “myriads” comes. What James and the elders said was, “Notice how many myriads of the Jews have become believers.” A single myriad is ten thousand, but James used a plural, meaning “tens of thousands.” There was a minimum of twenty-thousand Jewish believers in the Jerusalem Church alone; it had become a sizable movement. These myriads of Jewish believers were all zealous for the law.
The Greek word does not mean zealous as an adjective, but Zealots. The Jerusalem Church was largely committed to keeping the Law of Moses. This was no longer mandatory , so why did they keep it? They kept it for one of two possible reasons. First, they may have done it as a free option, for freedom from the Law also means one is free to keep it if he so desires.
But secondly , and more likely as known from the overall context, they were still spiritually immature, and, in their immaturity , they still felt they were obligated to keep the Law. But they were not sinning by keeping the Law, they were only wrong in making it mandatory . The Jerusalem Church was composed of Jews who had chosen to keep the Law whether it was for the first or the second reason.

 

[intojoy]

INTO Help Line

The false rumor against Paul

and they have been informed concerning you, that you teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

Not the leaders, but the myriads have been informed. The Greek word means “to teach orally.” They had heard some oral teachings about Paul, probably a reference to the false rumors spread by the Judaizers. The way this is phrased shows that the leadership of the church did not believe these rumors, but the problem was that many of the congregants did believe them.

 

[Wednesday Addams]

Verses 20-25 record the advice of the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem to Paul, beginning with their reaction to Paul's report in verse 20a: And they, when they heard it, glorified God. This showed that the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem were happy over so many Gentiles coming to a saving faith.
They then related to Paul the state of the Church of Jerusalem in verse 20b: and they said unto him, You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law. The elders refer to Paul as brother, showing they viewed him as a fellow believer in the ministry, and they point out: how many thousands there are among the Jews.
The Greek word for thousands is the word from which the English word “myriads” comes. What James and the elders said was, “Notice how many myriads of the Jews have become believers.” A single myriad is ten thousand, but James used a plural, meaning “tens of thousands.” There was a minimum of twenty-thousand Jewish believers in the Jerusalem Church alone; it had become a sizable movement. These myriads of Jewish believers were all zealous for the law.
The Greek word does not mean zealous as an adjective, but Zealots. The Jerusalem Church was largely committed to keeping the Law of Moses. This was no longer mandatory , so why did they keep it? They kept it for one of two possible reasons. First, they may have done it as a free option, for freedom from the Law also means one is free to keep it if he so desires.
But secondly , and more likely as known from the overall context, they were still spiritually immature, and, in their immaturity , they still felt they were obligated to keep the Law. But they were not sinning by keeping the Law, they were only wrong in making it mandatory . The Jerusalem Church was composed of Jews who had chosen to keep the Law whether it was for the first or the second reason.

The false rumor against Paul

and they have been informed concerning you, that you teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

Not the leaders, but the myriads have been informed. The Greek word means “to teach orally.” They had heard some oral teachings about Paul, probably a reference to the false rumors spread by the Judaizers. The way this is phrased shows that the leadership of the church did not believe these rumors, but the problem was that many of the congregants did believe them.

Thanks for the response, it's nice that you go further to look into the greek.

This makes things even more problematic. Sure, they obviously viewed him as a fellow believer because they gave him authority to the gentiles and Paul had previously been nodding his head and approving despite teaching different in regards to the kosher laws to gentiles.
The higher the number of Jews, the bigger the problem as the locum of control for correct message propagation is weaker, and given the great number, what is clear then is that they were 'spiritually immature'. However appeasing them by performing a nazarite vow is to conform to their idea of what the vow entails, i.e the sin-offering is a legitimate one, the customs are important for the vow to work etc. Thus sin offerings were still performed. The church leaders continuing sin sacrifices is going to further mislead the new believers in Christ, yet James out of all of the customs, suggests this.
The meaning behind zealous/zealot nevertheless falls nicely under the umbrella of James's approval and joy of this status.
Doing it as a free option especially to a highly law-focussed Jewish consciousness is unwise. Doing a lengthly and even costly process when it has zero of its original value, is highly implausible and leads to the unnecessary death of God's creatures.
If they were truly new believers, then they should listen to what their belief actually teaches, but instead there is the portrayal that the disciples are now bowing and scraping to appease immature believers, this is not plausible.

With regards to the second post:
Again, the numbers issue makes this problematic. All of the many myriads have been hearing from the Jews among the gentile nations (not just one gentile nation), that Paul is teaching x and y. There's a consistent theme here, and gives off the impression that the letters themselves were the basis, but then Paul's teachings in person could have also been a hyper view, just to throw it out there.
Paul's message is easy to misunderstand in any case, hence why scholarship today are trying to decode him.

 

[intojoy]

Well, Paul and his fellow apostles taught that there are two sets of believers, the gentile believers and the Israel of God, Jewish believers.

That is why Paul did not circumcise Titus (a gentile) in Acts 15 but Paul does circumcise Timothy.

Because circumcision is not the token of the Mosaic Covenant but it is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Jewish believers need to be circumcised in order for them to qualify as members of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The issue facing the Jewish believers in the first century as in the book of Hebrews was the attempt by the Pharisees to gain control of their new sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. If the judaizers could enforce circumcision upon the gentile believers this would have led to the enforcing of all of the 613 commandments of the law of Moses and they then would be able to control the movement.

Many of the Jewish believers were intimidated by these men and even Peter was influence by their intimidation - not their teachings.

Paul completely explained why the letter killed. But Paul chose to observe parts of the Mosaic law voluntarily because of his love for Israel. It is not wrong for Jewish believers to obey the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcisions it is not wrong for Jewish believers to worship God from a Jewish frame of reference any more than it being wrong for Americans to worship God thru the ways we do. These are neutral issues.

What is your understanding with the purposes of the Mosaic Law?

 

[Zeke]

The false rumor against Paul

and they have been informed concerning you, that you teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.

Not the leaders, but the myriads have been informed. The Greek word means “to teach orally.” They had heard some oral teachings about Paul, probably a reference to the false rumors spread by the Judaizers. The way this is phrased shows that the leadership of the church did not believe these rumors, but the problem was that many of the congregants did believe them.

Paul remarks in Galatians concerning those who wanted to be justified by the works of the law were under a curse and fools, and what to do about it Gal 4:30! Acts is a unreliable letter that tries to make Paul benevolent toward the teaching of the circumcision when Galatians shows he was extremely apposed to it in Galatians. Throw in the Acts contradiction of Paul's Galatians conversion and its pretty easy to see one of them is a fraud, my vote is that Acts is a fraud.

 

[intojoy]

Paul remarks in Galatians concerning those who wanted to be justified by the works of the law were under a curse and fools, and what to do about it Gal 4:30! Acts is a unreliable letter that tries to make Paul benevolent toward the teaching of the circumcision when Galatians shows he was extremely apposed to it in Galatians. Throw in the Acts contradiction of Paul's Galatians conversion and its pretty easy to see one of them is a fraud, my vote is that Acts is a fraud.

You're missing Israelology just like everyone else on TOL save for steko and a couple others.

You have not understood the purposes of the mosaic law which was multifaceted. Until you define the purposes of the Mosaic law as Paul does we can't move forward. There is no contradiction between Paul and James. Titus no Timothy yes explain that.

 

[intojoy]

Why are MAD wackos so wacko?

Because they miss the fact that there are Eight Mysteries in the NT

 

[Wednesday Addams]

Well, Paul and his fellow apostles taught that there are two sets of believers, the gentile believers and the Israel of God, Jewish believers.

That is why Paul did not circumcise Titus (a gentile) in Acts 15 but Paul does circumcise Timothy.

Because circumcision is not the token of the Mosaic Covenant but it is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Jewish believers need to be circumcised in order for them to qualify as members of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The issue facing the Jewish believers in the first century as in the book of Hebrews was the attempt by the Pharisees to gain control of their new sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. If the judaizers could enforce circumcision upon the gentile believers this would have led to the enforcing of all of the 613 commandments of the law of Moses and they then would be able to control the movement.

Many of the Jewish believers were intimidated by these men and even Peter was influence by their intimidation - not their teachings.

Paul completely explained why the letter killed. But Paul chose to observe parts of the Mosaic law voluntarily because of his love for Israel. It is not wrong for Jewish believers to obey the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcisions it is not wrong for Jewish believers to worship God from a Jewish frame of reference any more than it being wrong for Americans to worship God thru the ways we do. These are neutral issues.

What is your understanding with the purposes of the Mosaic Law?

Well, Paul and his fellow apostles taught that there are two sets of believers, the gentile believers and the Israel of God, Jewish believers.

That is why Paul did not circumcise Titus (a gentile) in Acts 15 but Paul does circumcise Timothy.

Because circumcision is not the token of the Mosaic Covenant but it is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. Jewish believers need to be circumcised in order for them to qualify as members of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The issue facing the Jewish believers in the first century as in the book of Hebrews was the attempt by the Pharisees to gain control of their new sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. If the judaizers could enforce circumcision upon the gentile believers this would have led to the enforcing of all of the 613 commandments of the law of Moses and they then would be able to control the movement.

Many of the Jewish believers were intimidated by these men and even Peter was influence by their intimidation - not their teachings.

Paul completely explained why the letter killed. But Paul chose to observe parts of the Mosaic law voluntarily because of his love for Israel. It is not wrong for Jewish believers to obey the Abrahamic Covenant by circumcisions it is not wrong for Jewish believers to worship God from a Jewish frame of reference any more than it being wrong for Americans to worship God thru the ways we do. These are neutral issues.

What is your understanding with the purposes of the Mosaic Law?

Thanks for the response, it actually isn't the point I'm making but it's a good summary of the landscape of the Judaizers :thumb: But you can't be running off to elaborate concepts just to understand the screaming sentiment of the Acts 21 passage. This is exactly what Trinitarians do to justify unitarian verses like Mark 13:32. i.e the whole 'Any problems with trinity? Go to John 1:1. Let's talk about the word Logos'. When that's a completely flawed approach.

Yeah, the gentile believers didn't have to do the likes of circumcision etc. and if they felt it was necessary to do circumcision for their salvation, then their faith is in vain and they should castrate themselves. With regards to the circumcision of Tim, it would be circular reasoning to suggest that this was because Paul wanted circumcision for Tim for the sake of the covenant, and indeed, Paul's intention is narrated. The same way as Acts 21, Paul wanted Tim to accompany him but the problem was that the Jews knew that his father was Greek.

With regards to the Abrahamic covenant, Paul teaches differently, they don't need to be circumcised anymore because Jew and Gentile alike, true circumcision is that of the spirit, and that anyone is in the Abrahamic promise who accepts Jesus as saviour. That is the clear nuance.

The pharisee's desire to gain control is not related to the issue of Acts 21 per say. I find the event of Peter supposedly being intimidated quite suspicious, but that is a different issue. I do think that it is in Paul's consciousness to opportunistically make a deal of this anyway if I'm granting the truth of the story, to give the impression that he is in line with Jews. But in reality, we don't have the accounts of Peter with regards to this story, just the accounts of a man (Paul) who would agree to Peter to his face and then preach something completely different i.e status of Law to gentiles (food laws), and the Nazarite Vow problem.

The Judaizers should not have been appeased with the nazarite vow just to hide from 'problems', the Christian account of things has the apostles of Christ being weak, intimidated and doing a vow that's original value does away with Jesus's need to save men from sins. My account has James affirming the law as he does in Acts 21, being proud of the zealousness of the Jews as he does in Acts 21 etc.

Sure, it isn't wrong for Jews to circumcise, but Paul wasn't in charge of ministry to Israel, he made it a big deal to go to the ignorant gentiles. If Paul is in strict opposition to circumcision in Israel, he'd have James to answer to, and alas James in Acts 21 believes a Jew is apostatising from the Law of Moses by teaching against circumcision of the Jews. Paul has a PG way of teaching that it isn't necessary. It all adds up why the Jews of the many gentile nations felt Paul was teaching against circumcision - Paul was preaching it had no salvific value, whereas James makes clear it does for Jews as it's a part of their Law.

Hebrews is not authored by Paul, I never really look into Hebrew's for Paul's personal theology, but what it does represent is a theology that takes Paul's to the next level whereas Paul's teaches tended to be a little more open ended. If you believe Hebrews is inspired doctrine, this adds more problems, for sin-offerings would be blasphemous at this point, so can you imagine James's followers (with the permission of James) to go through a voluntary nazarite vow?

 

[Zeke]

You're missing Israelology just like everyone else on TOL save for steko and a couple others.

You have not understood the purposes of the mosaic law which was multifaceted. Until you define the purposes of the Mosaic law as Paul does we can't move forward. There is no contradiction between Paul and James. Titus no Timothy yes explain that.

I think you have been led astray concerning who,what, and where IS RA EL really originated from.

Plus the contradictions between the two events, Paul's conversion, and what happens "right afterward" is pretty cut and dried if one can step out of the traditional box.

 

[intojoy]

I think you have been led astray concerning who,what, and where IS RA EL really originated from.

Plus the contradictions between the two events, Paul's conversion, and what happens "right afterward" is pretty cut and dried if one can step out of the traditional box.

View attachment 20762

 

[intojoy]

Thanks for the response, it actually isn't the point I'm making but it's a good summary of the landscape of the Judaizers :thumb: But you can't be running off to elaborate concepts just to understand the screaming sentiment of the Acts 21 passage. This is exactly what Trinitarians do to justify unitarian verses like Mark 13:32. i.e the whole 'Any problems with trinity? Go to John 1:1. Let's talk about the word Logos'. When that's a completely flawed approach.



Yeah, the gentile believers didn't have to do the likes of circumcision etc. and if they felt it was necessary to do circumcision for their salvation, then their faith is in vain and they should castrate themselves. With regards to the circumcision of Tim, it would be circular reasoning to suggest that this was because Paul wanted circumcision for Tim for the sake of the covenant, and indeed, Paul's intention is narrated. The same way as Acts 21, Paul wanted Tim to accompany him but the problem was that the Jews knew that his father was Greek.



With regards to the Abrahamic covenant, Paul teaches differently, they don't need to be circumcised anymore because Jew and Gentile alike, true circumcision is that of the spirit, and that anyone is in the Abrahamic promise who accepts Jesus as saviour. That is the clear nuance.



The pharisee's desire to gain control is not related to the issue of Acts 21 per say. I find the event of Peter supposedly being intimidated quite suspicious, but that is a different issue. I do think that it is in Paul's consciousness to opportunistically make a deal of this anyway if I'm granting the truth of the story, to give the impression that he is in line with Jews. But in reality, we don't have the accounts of Peter with regards to this story, just the accounts of a man (Paul) who would agree to Peter to his face and then preach something completely different i.e status of Law to gentiles (food laws), and the Nazarite Vow problem.



The Judaizers should not have been appeased with the nazarite vow just to hide from 'problems', the Christian account of things has the apostles of Christ being weak, intimidated and doing a vow that's original value does away with Jesus's need to save men from sins. My account has James affirming the law as he does in Acts 21, being proud of the zealousness of the Jews as he does in Acts 21 etc.



Sure, it isn't wrong for Jews to circumcise, but Paul wasn't in charge of ministry to Israel, he made it a big deal to go to the ignorant gentiles. If Paul is in strict opposition to circumcision in Israel, he'd have James to answer to, and alas James in Acts 21 believes a Jew is apostatising from the Law of Moses by teaching against circumcision of the Jews. Paul has a PG way of teaching that it isn't necessary. It all adds up why the Jews of the many gentile nations felt Paul was teaching against circumcision - Paul was preaching it had no salvific value, whereas James makes clear it does for Jews as it's a part of their Law.



Hebrews is not authored by Paul, I never really look into Hebrew's for Paul's personal theology, but what it does represent is a theology that takes Paul's to the next level whereas Paul's teaches tended to be a little more open ended. If you believe Hebrews is inspired doctrine, this adds more problems, for sin-offerings would be blasphemous at this point, so can you imagine James's followers (with the permission of James) to go through a voluntary nazarite vow?

Hebrews is not written by Paul since the author identified himself as a second tier apostle, one not having seen the resurrected Christ. - correct.

Tim was a half Jew and therefore as a half Jew had the authority to make a choice of identification. He chose to identify with his Jewish side and was therefore circumcised by Paul.

Paul although sent to the Gentiles kept his policy of "to the Jew first". Everywhere Paul travels he will visit the Jews of that region before going to the Gentiles - always.

The Jew inwardly is the Jewish believer who accepts Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah, a spiritual Jew. I am a spiritual gentile by regeneration.

If you read Galatians correctly, the context is neither Jew not Greek in "how one gets into a right relationship with God" he can be Jew or gentile male or female yet he or she remains who they are, males, females, Jews, or geeks.

As far as the Triunity of the Godhead is concerned, scriptures teach plurality of God and limit that plurality to 3 persons.

 

[intojoy]

Any final questions?

 

[iouae]

Any final questions?

When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, is he burnt UP or will he burn forever?

 

[intojoy]

When Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, is he burnt UP or will he burn forever?

Both

 

[intojoy]

Any final last questions?

 

[Ktoyou]

Yeh, how come two persons with the same IP address are posting in this tread?

 

[intojoy]

Yeh, how come two persons with the same IP address are posting in this tread?

We wrestle not against flesh and blood

 

[jamie]

Hebrews is not written by Paul since the author identified himself as a second tier apostle...

Not.

 

[intojoy]

INTO Help Line

Not.

View attachment 20766

 

[intojoy]

Questions?