Judy wrote: >>> As I pointed out in a response to David, Paul >>> was advised to go to the temple that time with >>> the four men who had taken a vow to keep the >>> zealous Jews from making a scene.
David Miller wrote: >> Stop speculating. ... Your speculation makes Paul >> sound deceptive and dishonest. Do you really >> believe that Paul was putting on a charade to >> deceive the Jews into thinking he believed something >> other than what he really believed and taught? Judy wrote: > I am not 'speculating' Yes you are. Your phrase, "Paul ... had taken a vow to keep the zealous Jews from making a scene" is YOUR speculation. The text of the Bible tells us why Paul took the vow, and it was to prove the lying rumors false. You are so steeped in your own philosophy and worldview that even though the Scriptures plainly state the reason, you contradict it in order to keep your own personal Christianized philosophy. Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS, WHEREOF THEY WERE INFORMED CONCERNING THEE, ARE NOTHING; BUT THAT THOU THYSELF ALSO WALKEST ORDERLY, AND KEEPEST THE LAW. This is the BIBLE reason and it contradicts your speculation. Show me your speculation in the BIBLE and I will apologize. If you can't show me your speculation in the BIBLE, then perhaps you should adjust your thinking on this matter and drop your philosophical bias. David Miller wrote: >> The elders told Paul that there were thousands of Jews >> who were zealous of the law. Many of these Jews heard >> a rumor (the same false rumor that you seem to believe) >> that Paul taught all the Jews that were among the >> Gentiles to forsake Moses. THIS WAS A LIE! Do you >> agree? Judy wrote: > No I don't agree. I wish Paul was here to set you straight on this. The BIBLE is plain but your philosophy has hindered you from seeing it. Judy wrote: > This incident happened earlier on see Acts 15:5b > "But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who > had believed, stood up saying "It is necessary > to circumcise them and to direct them to observe > the law of Moses" Note: It was not a FALSE RUMOR, > it was not a LIE. Your mistake is not distinguishing between Jew and Gentile, and perhaps you do not understand that the Jews in these passages do not have the evangelist and proselytizing mindset of Christians. Acts 15 deals with GENTILES NOT JEWS. The lie was that Paul not only taught Gentiles not to be circumcised, but that he taught JEWS not to be circumcised. The lie also was introduced that Paul himself had abandoned his Jewish customs. The truth was that Paul was a practicing Pharisee and that he had not abandoned the traditions and customs of Judaism. Paul kept the feast days, he continued participating in Temple sacrifice, he studied and taught Torah, and in every way lived as a devout keeper of the Torah. Judy wrote: > Paul did teach that it was not necessary to be > circumcized and to observe the Levitical Law and > this so-called 'rumor' was no lie. Paul only taught Gentiles who came into covenant with God through Jesus Christ not to become Jews through circumcision. Paul NEVER taught any Jew anywhere not to be circumcised or to forsake the Torah. Judy wrote: > No the Bible teaches that the leaders in Jerusalem > did not want an uprising among the believing Jews. No, the passage does not say that at all. That is YOUR speculation. The passage says that they wanted Paul to demonstrate to the believing Jews that Paul himself kept the law and taught other Jews to keep the law. Judy wrote: > Paul did the same thing with Timothy > in Acts 16:3. Timothy's father was a > Greek but Paul had him circumcised > to placate the Jews in spite of what > he believed and taught. Wake up! Look at the timing of WHEN THIS HAPPENED. This happened during the delivery of the letters from Jerusalem telling believers that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Paul was demonstrating that as a JEW, Timothy should be circumcised, but the GENTILES did not need to keep Torah. Paul affirmed that JEWS SHOULD KEEP TORAH, but also affirmed that Gentiles had a covenant with God through Christ apart from the law. Judy wrote: > It's called becoming all things to all men > for the purpose of winning some to Christ. > We must compare and interpret scripture in > the light of other scripture. Again, you grasp on one possible meaning because you approach the Bible from your own personal philosophy of life and cannot comprehend what the text literally reads. I have no problem with you saying that perhaps Paul wanted Timothy to have access to teaching in the synagogues, which he could have, his mother being a Jew, and if he himself was circumcised and kept the Torah. But there are other reasons involved also. For example, Timothy was in between in the dispute, being half Jewish by lineage. Would Timothy come as a Greek or as a Jew? It appears that Timothy decided to come to others as a Jew who believed in Christ just like Paul was doing. Judy wrote: > So why circumcise Timothy? Because he was a Jew who was not circumcised because his father was a Greek. David Miller wrote: >> Note that when Paul got to Rome, he said: >> >> Act 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three >> days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: >> and when they were come together, he said unto them, >> Men and brethren, THOUGH I HAVE COMMITTED NOTHING >> AGAINST THE PEOPLE, OR CUSTOMS OF OUR FATHERS, yet >> was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the >> hands of the Romans. >> >> If Paul was teaching that Jews should not be >> circumcised, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN LYING HERE >> BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING AGAINST THE >> CUSTOMS OF THE JEWISH FATHERS. Judy wrote: > This is what I am saying David. Paul went along with > some things to appease the Jews so he would have > opportunity to speak to them and they would listen > to the message of the cross, not being offended > by him personally. You make Paul out to be a liar and a hypocrite by taking this position. Either Paul was being truthful when he said that he kept the customs of the Jewish fathers or he was lying. You claim that he was doing this in pretense and then lying about it in order to avoid the persecution that would arise from his doctrine. I strongly disagree with you here. What you say is blasphemous against the honorable ministry of Paul. Paul said, "I am a Pharisee" and the Scriptures indicate that he kept the moedim, and that he entered the Temple where Gentiles were not allowed to go, in order to offer an animal sacrifice unto God, and Paul plainly states that he did nothing against Judaism or the custom of the Jewish fathers. I believe Paul and the Bible over your Christian philosophical speculations. Judy wrote: > Paul DID teach the Jews that their old system > was defunct and that circumcision was irrelevant > in Christ; there were Jews living in Galatia: > ... Gal 6:12-14 Circumcision is something Jews do when the babies are 8 days old. Clearly the dispute involved Gentiles in Galatia, not Jews. You are reading your own bias into the passage when you think that Paul was teaching Jews to abandon their Torah observance. Why would Paul teach others to do what he himself had not done? Your teachings here attempt to make Paul a modern Christian, extracting him out of his historical and cultural setting, all for the purpose of bolstering your own philosophical viewpoint. Abandon your philosophy, and the reading of these texts will take on a whole new meaning to you. Judy wrote: > Not my own tradition or speculation David - the > clear teaching of God's Word without the philosophical > cloud hanging over my head. I do not brag and would hope > that you don't find truth offensive. I don't find TRUTH offensive. What I find offensive is your pretense that you are void of philosophy in your life just because you have not studied history and philosophy. Go back over this text carefully and this post. Dwell on it for 3 days before responding. Pray about this. If you can get out from under the philosophical cloud hanging over your head, you will see that you have been wrong about this text. The whole key for your right dividing the Word of God here is distinguishing between Jew and Gentile in regards to the declaration of Acts 15. You need to read Acts 15 in light of its reiteration in Acts 21:19 ff. Judy wrote: >>> Yes but I don't know that being vegetarian is >>> doctrinally wrong, it's a matter of personal >>> conscience. David Miller wrote: > Your implication here is that Torah is > doctrinally wrong! Surely you do not > mean to say that, do you? Judy wrote: > I am not saying the Torah is doctrinally wrong; > what I am saying is that the Levitical priesthood > and the covenant of circumcision through Moses > had been superceded by a new covenant with better > promises and the circumcision was/is now one of the > heart. I think we all agree on that. The problem is that when vegetarianism was brought up, you seemed to put it in an entirely different class because you seem to think that vegetarianism is not doctrinally wrong. I'm glad to see that you do not consider Torah observance to be doctrinally wrong either. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
