Re: Continuation of the 'Shaul/Sheol?' Discussion

Subject:

Comments:
: : : Shalom Aleichem, Br. Lou : : : Shalom everybody... : : : Did anybody picked on HaMelech Shlomo BenDavid, yet! : : : The testimony of his lifestyle is not something to look forward to in a national leader... Yet, he wrote part of the Tanakh!... : : : Should we disqualify his writings...? : : First, there is no question that Shlomo was an authorized King, as there is with Shaul being an authorized apostle recognized by those WE KNOW are authorized apostles. : : Second, is there any evidence that what Shlomo taught was contrary to the Torah? Some say that Ecclesiastes has some hair-raising "wisdom" in it, but I think that work's intent is to contrast worldly wisdom with Torahic wisdom, so it is probably simple quoting out of context. : ------------------------ : Let me see if I understand you... you can have a Torah breaking personal testimony, but if you don't say anything against the Torah it is OK. Well what is that Shaul/Paul actually said against the Torah? : Deu. 27:26 * "Cursed is the man WHO DOES NOT UPHOLD THE WORDS OF THIS LAW by carrying them out." Then all the people shall say, "so be it!" : Rom. 3:31 * Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, WE UPHOLD THE LAW!/WE KEEP THE TORAH! : I believe that we should list all that Shaul/Paul said in favor and against the Torah... to see the balance... maybe the translation or Greek text copy is at fault! We don't have the originals to compare... : ========================== : : The primary point of the Shaul debate is whether the man was what he represented himself to be OR NOT. All we have to tell us "Yes!" is Shaul's own words, the words of his disciples and secretaries (like Lukas), and 1 Peter, a work held in doubt by quite a number of leading Church authorities before Athanasius in 367 A.D. : ------------------------ : Can you accept Hebrews not knowing who wrote it? : You must take into consideration a few other "irregularities" in the NT according to your train of thought... : Kefa/Peter was assigned the position of feeding the sheep... then comes Yaakov/James who in the lifetime of Yahushua didn't want to know anything about him and takes over the presidency of the early kahal/assembly. Under what school was Yaakov trained? Why was Kefa receiving orders from all the others? Why was Kefa not taking the initiative on his own to go to Samaria? Why was Kefa displaced from the "Acts" account? Was Kefa's lack of leadership that created a vacuum filled in by Shaul/Paul and other Torah "educated" persons... : It is said that "IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT" (Acts 15:26)... Is the sacred Ruach subject to ethical debates on whether something is good or bad that it can only "figure out" that something SEEMED good... instead of assuming a positive leadership role? We must have a faulty translation here, or most likely someone is not writing the truth. : At any rate... do you recognize Yaakov/James leadership role? : I'm undergoing a lot of changes in my Scriptural knowledge and convictions lately... Except for the sacred name and the Torah, I'm not dogmatic about any of my points... I know that Shaul wrote a lot of good things about the Torah and the Goyim/Gentile relationship to the kingdom of Yahweh. Shaul pointed out that HEART circumcision was more important than phisical circumcision... Like in Yahushua's (Joshua) days... before getting into the promised land all of us will be circumcized anew in our hearts, where it counts... Any problem with this? So u can be circumcized all you want but the heart's circumcision is what counts... and only Yahweh can see that. That is what Shaul was teaching... am I right? This point alone can clear Shaul's position about circumcision. What else? : ========================= : : If this dead man was not who he said he was, then why should we pay attention to the teachings of a liar, be they in harmony with the Torah OR NOT? (Do we need him? That would be like needing a vitamin supplement (Paul) for your Nutritious Dinner (YaHUshua).) : ------------------------ : If I get it right... I can accept the word of a confirmed adulterer and murderer, like King David... or and idolater like King Shlomo, but not the word of a little puffed up Pharisee like Shaul/Paul... I see. : ======================= : : And that is the secondary point of this debate, did Shaul teach things contrary to the Torah? : : To be fair, the standards of measurement must be applied correspondingly in all cases; otherwise, the comparison is invalid. : : To answer your question, though, the Mashiach DID say that it was the Torah and the Prophets that is the "narrow gate," NOT the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets... But I am not implying that the Son did not quote from the Writings, but that maybe they are not part of the narrow gate, just a spiritual dessert? : : --------------------- : I can help you here with Isa. 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. : I can see a lot good things about Shaul/Paul... I can still quote him to the Christians as a bone fide Torah keeper. I don't believe that to be called oneself an "apostle" is a crime unless he claims to be one of the 12. I'm not sure if he does. So please, make a complete list... we need to have this information all in one place... because I probably forgot some important objection made elsewhere about Shaul's teaching and be wrong in my judgement. I know i erase a lot of email well over a hundred of them after I returned from a trip. : I still don't see a clear cut case against him to stand in court. Practically everything I read so far can be explained in the light of the Torah... and the rest is probably translator or copist error... Shaul's personal conduct of being puffed up shouldn't be taken into consideration. I don't think so. : Shalom... : Lou : ======================= : : --Shalom Aleichem, : : Br. Clif

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: