johntheapostate

When I read the Epistles I get the impression That Paul interprets Hebrew scripture in a manner that would be unacceptable to Christians if the same standard of interpretation where to be applied to the New Testament.

In my opinion there are scores of passages that Paul has misquoted, misinterpreted and mangled to conform to his belief.

Does the validity of the Christian doctrine rest on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of Hebrew scripture? Perhaps the Jews were justified in rejecting Christianity.

I have not received a credible explanation of the validity of Paul's interpretation of the word seed in Galatians in other threads so I will start a new one.

I cant comprehend the validity of annulling thousands of years of Jewish history on what I believe is a flawed interpretation. Here is a repost of what I wrote:


Paul was militantly insistent that his was the only correct interpretation of scripture and he condemned anyone who disagreed with him. The fundamentalist attitude that there interpretation is the only valid path to salvation is a direct reflection of Paul

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 " Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you have received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved , if you hold firmly to the word I preached you. Otherwise you have believed in vain.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4 " But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 " For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising then , if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. There end will be what there actions deserve." ( I am almost certain that these false apostles were representatives of the Jewish church sent to correct the incorrect teachings of Paul. So while Paul demonises those sent from the mother church for trying to impose an Orthodox practice of belief, he considerer's himself righteous for perverting them in the first place)

Galatians 1:6-9 " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ,and turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said , so now I say it again. If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! " ( Again I am almost certain that these false teachers where direct representatives of the Jerusalem church)


In my opinion I am perfectly justified in holding Paul as accountable to a literal interpretation of Hebrew scripture as he insists his gospel must be.

Having said that may I direct your attention to Galatians 3:16 " The promise was spoken to Abraham and his seed. The scripture does not say, and to seeds, meaning many people, But to seed meaning one person, who is Christ."

On Paul's interpretation of one word rests the justification for erasing thousands of years of Jewish history. The covenant promises the law everything. With his interpretation of the word seed Paul transfers everything promised to the Jews to the Christians On this interpretation rests the justification for all the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Christians.

Lets see if Paul is justified in completely altering the course of history on his interpretation of one word

Lets consult my NIV study Bible. Oh, my Bible has translated seed in the pertinent passages as descendent's. How can this be. Ah on further study it appears that the word seed in the original language of the Hebrew texts can be interpreted in the plural as well as the singular, coincidentally the same way that it can be used in the English language. How odd that Paul, a Jew did not know this.

As I have the KJV as well, I will see how it has interpreted the passages.

Genesis 17:6-10" And I will make thee exceeding fruitfull, and I will make nations of thee, and kings will come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in THEIR GENERATIONS for an EVERLASTING covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherin thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an EVERLASTING possession and I will be THEIR God. And God said unto Abraham. Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in THEIR generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee. EVERY man child among you shall be circumcised."

And to show that although Abraham would be the father of many nations God was only going to extend his special covenant to the Israelites.

Genesis 17:19 " And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an EVERLASTING covenant and with his seed after him"

After Abraham had proved willing to sacrifice Isaac, God had these words for him.

Genesis 22:16-17 "By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son. That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and the sand which is seashore, and thy seed shall possess "the gate of his enemies."

Why does god say Isaac is Abraham's only son when we know that Ishmael was also Abraham's biological child?


" the gate of HIS enemies" On this one word "his" rests the justification for Paul's entire doctrine for seed meaning one and not many. But according to many Christians we are not to base an interpretation of doctrine on the basis of one verse, never mind the interpretation of one ambiguous word. Yet it is exactly such interpretations of Hebrew scriptures on which rests the validity of Christianity. My NIV, which in my opinion has its faults but still shows more integrity when interpreting Hebrew scripture has interpreted the passage this way.

Genesis 22:17 " your descendants will take possession of the cities of there enemies"

There are many more verses showing that seed was plural rather than singular but I think that I have illustrated my point.

As a matter of fact, Paul was actually well aware of the plural nature of the word seed. Romans 4:18 " Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be"

In both Galatians and Romans Paul is writing about the same passages of scripture. When it suited him to exclude the Jews he insisted that seed was singular, when it suited him to include all the Gentiles he insisted that seed was plural.

Its just another case of someone twisting scripture to reflect his own opinion.

Toto

I don't know if johntheapostate did this or Amaleq13, but the text in the above post seems to be duplicated.

Early Christians felt that they had a special technique, guided by the spirit, of reading Hebrew Scripture, that uncovered the real meaning, especially in finding prophecies of the Messiah.

To an outsider, this appears to be "fundamentally flawed," and it probably is by any standard other than early Christians'. But it was a deliberate technique. You won't persuade any Christian that it was wrong by pointing out the misinterpretations.

There were also Jews who read their scriptures as allegory or symbolic and not as straight history.

I don't think that many of us here would fault the Jews for rejecting Christianity.

Amaleq13

I just removed the quote tags so it must have already contained the duplication. All is now as it should be.

johntheapostate

Thanks for fixing my goof up

johntheapostate

Philippians 2:5-11 Paul attempt to show that although Jesus had humbled himself to die as a man on the cross, he was by nature an equal of god.

“ Your attitude should be the same as that of Jesus Christ: Who being in very nature God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.�

Here Paul shows that although Jesus was the equal of god he had not selfishly held on to that status but had willingly become human to sacrifice himself on the cross.

“ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name that is above every name�

Paul shows that Jesus regains his stature

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father�

This verse is a rip- off of Isaiah 45:23 and with the context surrounding it Paul appears to be on very shaky ground.

Isaiah 45:21-25 “ Was it not I the Lord? And there is no God apart from me a righteous God and a Savior, there is none but me.

Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked.

Before me every knee shall bow, by me every tongue will swear They will say off me, In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength. All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.

Did Paul consciously rip-off the text of Isaiah and insert Jesus in the place of god, knowing full well that in the context of the verse the author had gone to great lengths to emphasize the singularity of god and that there was no credible justifications for contorting the meaning of one on some concept of the trinity which can not in honesty be extracted from the text and was foreign to the Jews and had not been formulated by the Christian church at the time Paul wrote his letter at any rate.

It is interesting that contained in the chapters surrounding this verse there is a determined effort by its author to emphasize the singularity of god. Here are some others that I found in the vicinity.

Isaiah 42:8 “ I am the Lord, that is my name. I will not give my glory to another�

Isaiah 43:10-11" Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I even I am the Lord and apart from me there is no savior�

Isaiah 44:6" I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is no God�

Isaiah 44:24 “ I am the Lord who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.�

Isaiah 46:4 “ To whom will you compare me or count me equal?�

Isaiah 46:9 “ I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me.

Isaiah 48:11 “ For my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another�

Isaiah 48:12 “ Listen to me O Jacob, Israel who I have called, I am he, I am the first and the last�



There is no other place in the Hebrew scriptures that contains as many passages affirming the singular nature of god as the section of Isaiah from which Paul plagiarized.

And contrary to the doctrine of Paul concerning the word seed god is shown as affirming his promises to all the Jews.

Isaiah 45:25 KJV " In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory"

Isaiah 45:25 NIV “ But in the Lord all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exalt�

Was Paul a liar?

Metacrock

Not true. paul doesn't misquote anything. He probably uses some other text than the Masoretic. But Paul was a Rabbi. Rabbis live in their own little worlds. They are very deep and complex, but very closed to non Rabbis, especially gentiles. We are out of touch with the wrold of Paul as a whole, much less the Rabbinical world of Paul. I think Paul's funcky understanding is mirrored by what we know if his Teaher Gamaliel. I dont' think his view was all that cut off from the jewish maintstream.





No! Modern Judaism is out of touch with the Judaism of the first century was about.






O yea you did.As I recall Layman and Nomad gave it a shalacking about four years ago. Was that you? Maybe someone else.





He doesnt' condemn anyone for disagreeing. he says "if on any point you disagere, God will show you in time." I think that's a fair minded thing to say.




Sounds to me like you are saying "Christians never have the right to believe their beliefs." Of course you have no sympathy with chritianity, so the probelms Paul was facing are not real problems to you. Thus you cannot understand or appreciate the improtance of what he had to say. But if you consider that in Galations he frees women to be equal, frees slaves to be equal,condmens racial projudice and implys that social action is an imparative for the Chruch, then perhaps you will see what that centeral point about the Gospel being based uopn grace is so crucial.


.



No actually he doestn' do that Because he says itsl still imprtant to be a Jews. He says being a Chrsitian is a matter of being grafted into Ireael, not replacing it.





Not altering it if he's right, if Jesus was Messiah.










Probably because they were all using the LXX. Paul might use the LXX because the early Christians used it. So you have to look at the Greek.

Besides just because you see that the word can be either p or s doesnt' mean there aren't situations in which it can be sepcified. Mabye it depends upon the use of the defitnate article or something?





But he doesnt' sayJews are not entitaled to the blessing. He certainly does not. He says Chruch is grafted in along with Israel.

Metacrock

JTA:

So what? your theory seems to be that Paul was anti-semetic. Just being at odds with the Jerusalem chruch doenst' prove that! They did't understand Paul's message so they were suspcious of him and he had an ax to grind.

If I were forced into a corner in my political opinions today, some might come away thiking that I'm anti-American, although I have lived in Texas all my life. So it's one's own right to fight and argue with one's own people!

johntheapostate

I don’t know if Paul was a Rabbi. And I don’t think much of mystical interpretations of scripture. I don’t see how anyone can justify their flights of fancy to the exclusion of anyone elses. Christianity has presented itself in my situation as a rational logical choice based on a literal interpretation of Hebrew scripture and I don’t much care to debate it, if every inconsistence can be explained by the pathetic excuse that I simply do not understand the “real meaning� that is not apparent in the plain reading of the text.




Which Judaism is it out of touch with, the Pharisees ,the Sadducees, the Essence, the Zealots. Which one was the correct interpretation of Judaism



I have only been in this forum for a short while, so I am not familiar with any debates in the past.



I suppose that he intended some deep Rabbinic truth other than condemnation in his words “Let them be eternally condemned�



I believe his philosophy was equality after the future resurrection, but the status quo in the present reality



Paul is clear that that god had reserved among the Jews a remnant who would accept Jesus and were considered among the elect, the rest he hardened and would be considered as per the previous chapter as “objects of wrath fitted for destruction�

Romans 11:1-2 “ I ask then, Did God reject his people his people. By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people whom he foreknew.�

Romans 11:5-8 “ so to at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace,then it is no longer by works, if it were grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened�

Here Paul informs his readers that although Israel as a nation had not obtained salvation there remained a remnant chosen by god at his good pleasure and that the remainder god himself had hardened against the gospel.

Romans 11:11-12 “ Again I ask, Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all Rather because of there transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

Here Paul shows that there transgression was the process by which salvation had come to the Gentiles. Their transgression was their refusal to accept Jesus as their Messiah. Which is the very distinctinction between a Jew and a Christian.

Romans 11:17-21 “ If some of the branches have been broken off and you though a wild olive shoot have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches, If you do consider this. You do not support the root but the root supports you. You will say then, Branches were broken off so I could be grafted in. Granted but they were broken off for unbelief and you stand by faith�


o Here Paul does say that the unbelieving Jew is a branch that has been broken off of the tree. I don’t know if one can still be a Jew if one is willing to accept Pauls doctrine. It is interesting that Paul blames the Jews for unbelief but earlier he goes to great lengths to show that it was God himself who had hardened the unbelievers. Which again shows that Paul believed one could be held accountable for actions initiated by god

Romans 11:23 “And if they do not persist in unbelief they will be grafted in for God can graft them in again�

Here Paul makes accommodations for those broken branches to be grafted back in, but only if they don’t persist in unbelief. Again I am note certain that a Jew can accept all of Paul's doctrine and still be considered a Jew.

Romans 11:28 “ As far as the gospel is concerned they are enemies on your account, but as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the patriarchies�

Paul shows that the Jew is an enemy of the gospel, so to become a friend of the gospel worthy of salvation he must give up the thing that makes him Jewish. So persisting in being Jewish really is not a viable option..For salvation they must accept Jesus and I don’t think that would be a wise decision as I have shown that he has usurped the place of god on very weak justifications.

Paul must have been feeling a little more generous toward the Jews when he wrote his letter to the Romans as compared to his letter to the Galatians as he acknowledges their special relationship to god on account of the patriarch, while in his letter to the Gelatin he denies the validity of that relationship. It would be interesting to know if his doctrine progressed from an acknowledgment of the Jews relationship with god in Romans to his attempt to delegitimise that relationship in Galatians or the other way around, but I am not sure if his letters are in chronological order in the Bible or if they have been arranged to show a progression of thought that emphasizes the position that was favored by the church at the conception of the canon



I believe I have shown that Paul portrayed Jesus in a manner that in all honesty is unjustifiable by the Hebrew text and so would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Jews. If I believed that God had sent the Messiah to the Jews as a fulfillment of his covenant promises, I think that he would have done so in a way for it to be possible for them to recognize him



I believe that I have shown clearly enough for any reasonable person to comprehend that Paul was less then honest in his interpretation of seed, and I don’t believe that a appeal to the Greek could shed a clearer light on it. But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate.

In Galatians Paul does not indicate anywhere that he does not want his readers to think that he is not serious in his translation of the word seed. In Romans Paul does make allowances for their special relationship with god, but he still insists that their salvation depends on the acceptance of his gospel. Therefore this blessing involves the acceptance of a doctrine that would in effect render a Jew a non Jew. So this blessing does not apply to anyone who remains a Jew as defined by their traditions.

johntheapostate

In the end Paul opposed everything that defined being Jewish therefore he was certainly anti something even if he was a member of the ethnic group

You seem to confused about the distinction between an ethnic group and a religion. By your logic I would not be considered as anti Christian by the fact that I had been born into a Christian home and had professed Christianity at one point in my life.

Metacrock

No seroius scholar doubts it, why do you? he says he was. There's no reason to think otherwise.






doesn't matter what you think, that kind of interp was valid and accepted within the community that Paul was in. That's what matters,with whom was the commuicating, not do peple 2000 years latter like what he said?






You ever read the Talmud? Ever read any Midrashim?








Modern Judaism is out of touch will all of the above, even the Pharisees from whom the Talmudists evolved. They basically sawed off the heterodox limb and refussed to calim kin to them. But the Keraites are the decendents of the heterodox today.







I can show you passages in the Talmud where they put curses on any reader who denies that the Serffering Servant is the Messiah. Paul was not saying "let all Jews be condmened." He's saying let those who counterfit the Gospel and pervert the basis of God's grace be condmened. His statment applies more to alledged "Christians" than to Jews.






to don't rememeber to what you are refurring. But the first century Jews expecetd the Messiah to do what Jesus did; come as an unknown improverished Rabbi be rjected by his people, suffere, disappear (die?) then return in glory and triumph. Starting about 300's the Jews began to dump all the first part and only talk about the final return. That was to distance themselves from Christian cliams.