Concerned Follower Of Jesus!

[CRodgers]

Paul did not teach Torah?

First off, there was no New Testament bible back then. When they taught scripture to the new converts and brought them back to the synagogue, what do you think they taught them out of?

I know we have been brought up in a modern western mindset but please don't let that cloud our ability to see stuff like this.

Paul when he was arrested because he was accused of corrupting the temple by bringing Greeks into it said the following.

Act 22:3 I am verily a man, Jew, born in Tarsus, in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Not only was Paul a Jew but he was a Pharisee.

He said "I am a Jew" (Present Tense)

Standing before the Sanhedrin, Paul identified himself as a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:6) NOT as a "Christian" when he said "Brothers, I myself am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee!"

Paul even said in Acts 24:14 "I continue to believe everything that accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets."

In Acts 25:8 Paul said "I have committed no offense, not against the Torah to which the Jews hold, not against the Temple, not against the emperor." Although free from condemnation through the shed blood fo Yeshua, he walked in obedience to the Torah as a Jew.

When Paul finally gets to Rome, he "Called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: "Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner..." (Acts 28:17)

Paul not only walked and kept the law but taught it as well.

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all

[Theresej]

Paul did not teach Torah?

First off, there was no New Testament bible back then. When they taught scripture to the new converts and brought them back to the synagogue, what do you think they taught them out of?

I know we have been brought up in a modern western mindset but please don't let that cloud our ability to see stuff like this.

Paul when he was arrested because he was accused of corrupting the temple by bringing Greeks into it said the following.

Act 22:3 I am verily a man, Jew, born in Tarsus, in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Not only was Paul a Jew but he was a Pharisee.

He said "I am a Jew" (Present Tense)

Standing before the Sanhedrin, Paul identified himself as a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:6) NOT as a "Christian" when he said "Brothers, I myself am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee!"

Paul even said in Acts 24:14 "I continue to believe everything that accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets."

In Acts 25:8 Paul said "I have committed no offense, not against the Torah to which the Jews hold, not against the Temple, not against the emperor." Although free from condemnation through the shed blood fo Yeshua, he walked in obedience to the Torah as a Jew.

When Paul finally gets to Rome, he "Called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: "Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner..." (Acts 28:17)

Paul not only walked and kept the law but taught it as well.

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all

John 1612 "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 5 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus personally promised the disciples to send them the Holy Spirit to lead THEM into ALL truth - truth they were not yet ready for.

ACTS 10:9 6 The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. 7 10 He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all the earth's four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. 13 A voice said to him, "Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean." 15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane." 16 This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky.

[Kathe]

Paul did not teach Torah?

First off, there was no New Testament bible back then. When they taught scripture to the new converts and brought them back to the synagogue, what do you think they taught them out of?

I know we have been brought up in a modern western mindset but please don't let that cloud our ability to see stuff like this.

Paul when he was arrested because he was accused of corrupting the temple by bringing Greeks into it said the following.

Act 22:3 I am verily a man, Jew, born in Tarsus, in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Not only was Paul a Jew but he was a Pharisee.

He said "I am a Jew" (Present Tense)

Standing before the Sanhedrin, Paul identified himself as a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:6) NOT as a "Christian" when he said "Brothers, I myself am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee!"

Paul even said in Acts 24:14 "I continue to believe everything that accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets."

In Acts 25:8 Paul said "I have committed no offense, not against the Torah to which the Jews hold, not against the Temple, not against the emperor." Although free from condemnation through the shed blood fo Yeshua, he walked in obedience to the Torah as a Jew.

When Paul finally gets to Rome, he "Called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: "Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner..." (Acts 28:17)

Paul not only walked and kept the law but taught it as well.

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all

Don't you know???? Jesus and the disciples all walked around with the KJV under their arms. J/K of course.

I agree with you that the NT talks about Holy Scripture, scripture, etc it is only talking about the Old Testament. The Law, the Psalms and the Prophets.

[BloodySwordIsa63]

[QUOTE]

Don't you know???? Jesus and the disciples all walked around with the KJV under their arms. J/K of course.

You probably think that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with mein kampf tucked under their arms

[Theresej]

[quote=BloodySwordIsa63;1493453]

You probably think that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with mein kampf tucked under their arms

Actually, they used the Greek Septuagint version of scriptures. :)

[Kathe]

[quote=Theresej;1493455]

Actually, they used the Greek Septuagint version of scriptures. :)

It was a joke Theresej. I know what they used.

[Theresej]

[quote=Kathe;1493467]

It was a joke Theresej. I know what they used.

And I smiled :)

[BloodySwordIsa63]

[quote=Theresej;1493455]

Actually, they used the Greek Septuagint version of scriptures. :)

Thats rich


There are absolutely NO manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament.
Quotations by Jesus or Paul in new versions’ New Testaments may match readings in the so-called Septuagint, because new versions are from the exact same corrupt fourth and fifth century A.D. Eusebius/Origen manuscripts which underlie the document sold today and called the Septuagint.
These manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus.
According to the colophon on the end of Sinaiticus, it came from Origen’s Hexapla. The others likely did also. Even church historians of questionable character and faith like Jerome, Hort, and Carson, agree that this is probably true.
Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. Yes, the source is at least 200 years AFTER Christ! NIV New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match occasionally because they were both penned by the same hand, Eusebius/Origen. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament to suit his antichrist and strange Gnostic leanings. New versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in fact, Origen’s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. Origen’s Hexapla is a very unsafe source to use to change the historic Old Testament. The preface of the Septuagint marketed today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. (before Christ) creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are based on FABLES.
ALL of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in its concordance were written after A.D. 200 and represent Origen’s Hexapla. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethicselaborates, calling "the letter of the pseudo- Aristeas, a manifest forgery and the fragments of Aristobulus highly suspect." It also points out many of the LXX’s Gnostic and antichrist heretical readings.
The fable of the Septuagint arose from the counterfeit and obvious hoax letter intended to deceive, of pseudo-Aristeas. That hoax and perfect deception said that seventy-two scholars were called, around 250 B.C., by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to create a Greek Old Testament. This Egyptian ruler supposedly asked them a number of questions related to pagan philosophy and pagan theology. If they could answer these questions, they could be on the Septuagint "committee." The fable further states that six Jews from each of the twelve tribes were involved. The word Septuagint means seventy, however, not seventy-two.
The easily verifiable HOAX of the letter of pseudo-Aristeas proves that the Septuagint (LXX) cannot be the word of God for several reasons:
1. Only the tribe of Levi was permitted by God to write the scriptures (1 Chron. 16:4).
2. Any Jew living in or returning to Egypt was in direct disobedience to God’s command in Deuteronomy 17:16. "But he shall not... cause the people to return to Egypt... forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."
3. It contains apocryphal books such as Tobit, The Prayer of Manasses, 2 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees; there are also additions to Esther and Daniel. SOME OF WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF ARISTEAS. Jesus never quoted the Apocrypha and the Jews rejected it also. (Corrupt manuscripts followed by the NIV and NASB contain these false books within the Old Testament text itself!)
4. Origen’s six-column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.
5. The Septuagint can be traced no farther back in time than to its obvious source of Eusebius and Origen’s Hexapala.
The Stewarton Bible School of Scotland says the following about the Septuagint:The Septuagintis an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is not inspired. Tradition has it that the Septuagint (known also as the LXX because 70 scribes were involved in its production) was written some 250 years before the Christian era. But this is not the case. WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT? In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes that "Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype...
Peter Ruckman (in the Christian's handbook of Manuscript Evidence) has taken a similar position. His arguments can be summarized as follows:
The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle calls it propaganda), and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C.
The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX. one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.
In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text."
PROBLEM TEXTS - In his masterful book Problem Texts (published by Pensecola Bible Institute Press, P.O. Box 7135, Pensecola, Florida 32504. USA) Peter S Ruckman Ph.D. writes of the Septuagint in Appendix Two, "I have a copy of the notorious Septuagint on my desk (Zondervan Publishing Co.1970, from Samuel Baxter & Sons, London). In the Introduction, the party line of the Alexandrian Cult is laid out as neatly as a tiled floor. Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN'
Ruckman then lists the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came. Brief details include:
A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.
Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.
C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!
B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.
Ruckman continues:
"Those interested in further damaging evidence will observe that every papyrus manuscript found with any part of the Old Testament in it was written after the resurrection, with the exception of one scrap containing less than six chapters of Deuteronomy on it.
The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."
"The mythological LXX or Septuagint is the most persistent spook to haunt orthodox Christianity since the myth that Christ was born in a cave. The theory is based on abstract speculation of the wildest sort without one piece of reliable documented evidence of ANY kind that there was ever on this earth one single copy of an OLD Testament in GREEK before the heading up of the school at Alexandria by Origen, one hundred years after the entire New Testament was complete, yet to this day there exists on every campus of every fundamental school in the United States the nebulous ghost of this non-existent spook."

[Kathe]

Yes JGIG it did accomplish something. It meant that we don't have to sacrifice lambs and bulls. It means that the sacrifice He made was more than sufficient for any breakage of the Law that we might do. It meant that He accomplished what He was supposed to do while here on earth. That Satan no longer has a hold on believers. The Law, Psalms and Prophets still stand until ALL is complete. That means the Psalms and the Prophets, the Day of the Lord. That means until this current age is done - the heavens and earth pass away.

He says in that same passage that those who teach against keeping the Law will be the least in the Kingdom. Is that what you are striving for?

[JGIG]

Yes JGIG it did accomplish something. It meant that we don't have to sacrifice lambs and bulls. It means that the sacrifice He made was more than sufficient for any breakage of the Law that we might do. It meant that He accomplished what He was supposed to do while here on earth. That Satan no longer has a hold on believers. The Law, Psalms and Prophets still stand until ALL is complete. That means the Psalms and the Prophets, the Day of the Lord. That means until this current age is done - the heavens and earth pass away.

You contradicted yourself within the first paragraph:

"It meant that we don't have to sacrifice lambs and bulls."

So parts of the Law are obsolete?

"The Law, Psalms and Prophets still stand until ALL is complete."

Except the parts that you say don't still stand, namely the sacrificing of lambs and bulls?

The only thing consistent about your theology is its inconsistency.

The way Paul teaches that the Law still stands, it is the believer's relationship to the Law that changes in Christ makes a whole bunch more sense. I'll go with what Paul teaches in the Scriptures, thanks.

He says in that same passage that those who teach against keeping the Law will be the least in the Kingdom. Is that what you are striving for?

In Christ, we are bound to the commands of Christ: Love God, love others, for love fulfills the Law (Romans 13).

I am not concerned with my 'position' in the Kingdom. I will serve Him according to His will and not concern myself with any 'status' that may or may not earn for me.

I have a feeling that those of you striving to be 'first' in the kingdom will find yourselves last in that day, seeing those who loved others sacrificially without concern for themselves receiving the rewards that you covet.

-JGIG