|
Author
|
Topic: Who Were the Pharisees?
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by yahsway:
HisGrace, was that not a FALSE accusation against Paul that he defiled the Temple by bringing Gentiles into it? What do the scriptures say?
Yes, I agree. I was merely quoting a scripture in which the Jews accused Paul of defiling the Temple
This is the Paul I know from the Bible -A former Pharisee, rescued by the Holy Spirit from the life of wickedness, a hater of Jesus and saved my the mighty power of Jesus' blood and sacrifice of grace and mercy. No matter how you try to whitewash it, he was very evil as a Pharisee. If a person belongs to the Hells Angels biker gang and doesn't leave their club if they get converted, they are still a Hells Angel. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.
Acts 26:5,9-11 They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee "Indeed, I myself thought I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
This I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.
.
And I punished them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
~ Possibly Paul did take a vow, but I still don't see it as a Nazarite vow, if he did indeed shave his head on the purification ceremony. It perhaps was likened to such a Nazarite ceremony, but the vow was for a very brief period of seven days.
In Acts 24:5,14 the problems he had at the Temple are discussed.
" For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the NAZARENES.
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect,
Again -
Nazarene - relating to the town of Nazareth. Jesus was from Nazareth so early followers of Christ were called Nazarenes.
Nazarite - A Jew bound by a vow to leave the hair uncut, to abstain from wine and strong drink, and to practice extraordinary purity of life and devotion, the obligation being for life, or for a certain time. The word is also used adjectively
The teachings of Paul which I have been accustomed to -
Romans 2: 28,29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
Romans 4:15,16 But the law brings punishment on those who try to obey it. So that's why faith is the key! God's promise is given to us as a free gift. And we are certain to receive it, whether or not we follow Jewish customs, if we have faith like Abraham's.
Romans 6:15-18 So since God's grace has set us free from the law, does this mean we can go on sinning? Of course not! Don't you realize that whatever you choose to obey becomes your master? You can choose sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God and receive his approval.
Thank God! Once you were slaves of sin, but now you have obeyed with all your heart the new teaching God has given you. Now you are free from sin, your old master, and you have become slaves to your new master, righteousness.
Romans 7:4-6 So this is the point: The law no longer holds you in its power, because you died to its power when you died with Christ on the cross.
And now you are united with the one who When we were controlled by our old nature, sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced sinful deeds, resulting in death.
But now we have been released from the law, for we died with Christ, and we are no longer captive to its power. Now we can really serve God, not in the old way by obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way, by the Spirit
Romans 7: 10-13 So the good law, which was supposed to show me the way of life, instead gave me the death penalty. Sin took advantage of the law and fooled me; it took the good law and used it to make me guilty of death.
But still, the law itself is holy and right and good. But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my doom? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses God's good commandment for its own evil purposes.
~~Jesus commanded us to keep the 10 Commandments, but the above is talking about that old Levitical laws of condemnation and judgment.
IP: Logged | 
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
HisGrace, was that not a FALSE accusation against Paul that he defiled the Temple by bringing Gentiles into it? What do the scriptures say?
Why would the Jerusalem council consisting of James, Peter, the elders, Jewish believers in Jesus, ask Paul, also a Jewish believer in Jesus, to take the 4 men to the Temple if by some chance these 4 men were not Believers in Jesus as well?
This is what I am trying to get you to see. If Paul was against the Law in any way, or the Jerusalem council even, why would they have done this?
And furthurmore, if by some chance these 4 men were not Believers in Jesus, don't you think somebody in that Council, especially Paul, would have said something like, Hey wait a minute, let me tell you about Jesus, He can purify you ect...
Do you see what I am saying here? You say scripture doesn't tell us who these 4 men are, okay, I'll buy that. But what was more important, Their salvatuion thru Jesus, or going to the temple to perform purification rites, ect...?
Once again, If James, Peter and the others had come to the conclusion that the Torah(The Law) was actually finished, and that a new era, initiated by Jesus had now made the Torah(The Law) obsolete for Jesus's followers, here was the perfect time to make this absolutely clear.
Like I said before, What better way to declare this, than by confirming that Paul WAS telling the people to FORSAKE THE TORAH/LAW of Moses, and that he (Paul) had their (the Council) full approval.
I mean here was the perfect opportunity for Paul to tell the Jerusalem Council that there was NO need to do this and to proclaim in no uncertain terms that the Torah/Law was null and void, and that followers of Jesus were forever free from any necessary connection to the Torah. But he didn't did he?
Also, if you do read other peoples commentaries on scripture, do you not know that these people have (or at the very least should) study outside the scriptures for understanding of the time period in which certain things took place, the customs and culture of the day, what the Pharisees believed in verses what the Saducees believed in, ect..?
You keep saying you cannot find the word "Nazirite" in the New Testament and so you are of the opinon that since its not there, this is not what took place. But many who have studied the time lines, the practices and customs of the day would disagree with you.
Heres an example in the New Testament of a word that is not there and this is what it means.
The woman with the issue of blood came and touched the "Hem" of Yeshua's garment and was made whole, right? Do you know what the "Hem" of Yeshuas garment was? It was the "tzitzit", the tassel(s) that were on the garments that the Jewish men were commanded to wear.
Now, heres a commentary from Nelsons Bible Dictionary concerning the Nazirite vow:
"While no number of days for the vow is given in the OT, Jewish tradition prescribed 30 days or a double period of 60 days or even triple time of 90-100 days.
Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist were the only "Nazirites for life" recorded in the Bible. BEFORE they were born, their vows were taken for them by their parents. Among the hebrew people anyone could take this vow; there were no tribal restrictions as in the case for the priest. Rich or poor, man or woman, master or slave-ALL were free to become Nazirites."
Notice in Acts 21:23 it says they "have" taken a vow. They had already took the vow and the only thing we don't know is how long these 4 men had chosen their vows to last, whether 30, 60 or 100. But their vows were to be completed by having their heads shaved and participating in the purification ritual.
So once again the question is what other vows are mentioned of in the entire book of the Bible that has to do with a vow and heads being shaved? The only one I can find is the taking and completeing of the "Nazirite" vow. Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
The Bible doesn't tell us who these men were. In this ceremony that Paul attended it is very obvious to me that they were taking and not ending a vow of some sort. They had their heads shaved as part of this vow and went through a purification ceremony to prepare themselves for its duration.
Numbers 6:1 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
6 All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.
7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head.
8 All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD.
9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.
10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Eastons Bible Dictionary:
Nazarite
(Heb. form Nazirite), the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in #Nu 6:2-21 The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses. The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things,
1. abstinence from wine and strong drink,
2. refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and
3. the avoidance of contact with the dead.
When the period of the continuance of the vow came to an end, the Nazarite had to present himself at the door of the sanctuary with
1. a he lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering,
2. a ewe lamb of the first year for a sin-offering, and
3. a ram for a peace-offering.
After these sacrifices were offered by the priest, the Nazarite cut off his hair at the door and threw it into the fire under the peace-offering. For some reason, probably in the midst of his work at Corinth, Paul took on himself the Nazarite vow. This could only be terminated by his going up to Jerusalem to offer up the hair which till then was to be left uncut. But it seems to have been allowable for persons at a distance to cut the hair, which was to be brought up to Jerusalem, where the ceremony was completed.
This Paul did at Cenchrea just before setting out on his voyage into Syria #Ac 18:18 On another occasion #Ac 21:23-26 at the feast of Pentecost, Paul took on himself again the Nazarite vow. "The ceremonies involved took a longer time than Paul had at his disposal, but the law permitted a man to share the vow if he could find companions who had gone through the prescribed ceremonies, and who permitted him to join their company.
This permission was commonly granted if the new comer paid all the fees required from the whole company (fee to the Levite for cutting the hair and fees for sacrifices), and finished the vow along with the others.
Four Jewish Christians were performing the vow, and would admit Paul to their company, provided he paid their expenses. Paul consented, paid the charges, and when the last seven days of the vow began he went with them to live in the temple, giving the usual notice to the priests that he had joined in regular fashion, was a sharer with the four men, and that his vow would end with theirs. Nazarites retired to the temple during the last period of seven days, because they could be secure there against any accidental defilement" (Lindsay’s Acts).
As to the duration of a Nazarite’s vow, every one was left at liberty to fix his own time. There is mention made in Scripture of only three who were Nazarites for life, Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist #Jud 13:4,5 1Sa 1:11 Lu 1:15 In its ordinary form, however, the Nazarite’s vow lasted only thirty, and at most one hundred, days. This institution was a symbol of a life devoted to God and separated from all sin, a holy life.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BORN AGAIN:
HisGrace quotes helpforhomeschoolers quote:
I really do not like to study using commentaries, I am always cautious of them, desiring to know what the Bible says before having any influence in my brain of what man says it says
Yes, I agree with you, HFHS, there is an element of me who wants to first hear from God Elohim. It is a long time for me too since I looked into a commentary, the LORD is speaing to me plenty from the direct Word already. So I can appreciate that sentiment.
the God Elohim of Israel bless all who participate in this Internet church. God Elohim bless you. I am BORN AGAIN in the USA by the ![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif)
I sometimes use commentaries because they open the door to further understanding, and I then go on study the scriptures with a clearer perception. The Bible can be very complex and it is helpful to have insight from many different sources to be better educated in The Word.
I think God planned it that way so that we can share with each other our own personal discernment, thus helping us all grow with renewed spiritual food. That is why we go to church. That is why there is Bible study, and Christian Boards can be a useful tool in bringing believers up to new levels.
IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by yahsway:
HisGrace, you still have not answered my question from my earlier post about the 4 Jewish believers who did take the Nazirite vow and the fact that Paul went with them to pay their expenses for the sacrafical animals and such.
So, what say you?
"Either way, scripture still supports the fact that he did go with the 4 men and was himself purified with them. So, my question is this.
Who were the 4 men? Were they not also Jewish Believers in Jesus the Christ? I believe they were or the Jerusalem Council of James and Peter and especially our beloved Paul would have certainly preached the gospel to them dont you think? I mean, why would 4 Jewish believers in Jesus have to go and finish up taking their vows by cutting their hair, sacraficing and doing purification rituals at the Temple
Will get back to ya later Sister HFHS about the Feast. Shalom "
Nazarite Law -
The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num. l.c.; Jer. vii. 29}
Numbers 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
I am carefully trying to follow the script of Acts 21. As I have said before, the word Nazarite isn't mentioned in the NT, but still it is the assumption that they were taking a Nazarite vow.
The Bible doesn't tell us who these men were. In this ceremony that Paul attended it is very obvious to me that they were taking and not ending a vow of some sort. They had their heads shaved as part of this vow and went through a purification ceremony to prepare themselves for its duration.
(The Nazarite ceremony usually was for the Jews.) As part of this ceremony Acts 21:25 continues on by saying "As for the Gentile Chrisians, all we aks of them in what we already told them in a letter. They should not eat food offered to idols, nor consume blood, nor eat meat from strangled animals ant they should stay away from all sexual immorality.
Acts 21:26 goes onto to say that Paul went through the ritual with them at the Temple. Then he publicly announced the date the vows would end and verse 'sacrifices would be offered for them,'. It doesn't say that the sacrifices would be made by them of their long locks, which wouldn't have time to grow because it only lasted seven days. Like Samson, most Nazarites made a lifetime vow, or lengthy vow, which would give their hair much time to grow.
The seven days were almost ended when some Jews saw Paul in the Temple shouting "This is the man who teaches against our people and tells everybody to disobey the Jewish laws. He speaks against the Temple- and he even defiles it by bringing Gentiles in."
IP: Logged |
|
|
BORN AGAIN
unregistered
|
posted
bornagain sister HisGrace, you quote helpforhomeschoolers quote:
quote:Today, I found that if this is speculation, then it is speculation that has been being made from the first century. I found that Josephus understood this to be a Nazarite vow, and so did the 4 th Century Patriarchate of Constantinople, Chrysostom, who was from Antioch Syria, the church tht commissioned Paul, and then in contemporary time commentaries from Barnes, Gill, Henry, as well as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown all saw that this was a vow of the Nazarite.
HisGrace answered quote:
I thought you said you were cautious about the influence of man on your brain through commentaries.
Touché, sister HisGrace.
You two remind me of BORN AGAIN and wparr.
May the LORD YHWH bless us. BORN AGAIN
IP: Logged |
|
|
BORN AGAIN
unregistered
|
posted
HisGrace quotes helpforhomeschoolers quote:
I really do not like to study using commentaries, I am always cautious of them, desiring to know what the Bible says before having any influence in my brain of what man says it says
Yes, I agree with you, HFHS, there is an element of me who wants to first hear from God Elohim. It is a long time for me too since I looked into a commentary, the LORD is speaing to me plenty from the direct Word already. So I can appreciate that sentiment.
the God Elohim of Israel bless all who participate in this Internet church. God Elohim bless you. I am BORN AGAIN in the USA by the
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Sorry His Grace, I am done. You are right. You have always been right.
The Bible according to Hisgrace:
Paul never took a Nazarite vow; Aquilla Shorn his head; The Sadducees were agnostics. Paul was born a Pharisee; Jesus did not criticise the Pharisee for following the oral traditions that were apostate but for following the letter of the law; The Nazarites did not shave their heads....a crystal clear well established fact;After Christ had come, The Holy Spirit, through Paul preaches against the Torah, which is become old and legalistic.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot...Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are the annointed of god.
What was I thinking????
Please forgive me for thinking that I had any thing worth contributing to this discussion. I was temporarily suffering from an absence of memory. I forgot what season this is. I will work on that problem.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
quote:
HisGrace says:I looked in 7 versons of the NT and none of them had the word Nazarite/Nazirite in them. Saying that Paul was a Nazarite is purely speculative.
I believe that it is only speculative if you ignore the context in which the vow is used in the NT. It is only used there 2 times and both times the context shows clearly that it speaks of the nazarite vow.
Please show me those two times. quote:
I really do not like to study using commentaries, I am always cautious of them, desiring to know what the Bible says before having any influence in my brain of what man says it says,but today just for curiosity, I read some commentary and maybe you will appreciate this because you seem to appreciate men's opinions about what the Bibles says.
Nice try. Notice I said 7 versions of the NT, which means The Bible, not commentaries.
quote:
Today, I found that if this is speculation, then it is speculation that has been being made from the first century. I found that Josephus understood this to be a Nazarite vow, and so did the 4 th Century Patriarchate of Constantinople, Chrysostom, who was from Antioch Syria, the church tht commissioned Paul, and then in contemporary time commentaries from Barnes, Gill, Henry, as well as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown all saw that this was a vow of the Nazarite.
I thought you said you were cautious about the influence of man on your brain through commentaries.
quote:
HisGrace asks: Can you show some quotes in the Bible to support this view concerning Jesus?
From HFHS-Yes, I believe that I could show you several, but I wont; it would be a waste of both our time.
No need to rush - I'll wait.
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
HisGrace, you still have not answered my question from my earlier post about the 4 Jewish believers who did take the Nazirite vow and the fact that Paul went with them to pay their expenses for the sacrafical animals and such.
So, what say you?
Will get back to ya later Sister HFHS about the Feast. Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
Acts 24:5 5 For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
Thanks, I learned something. I knew that the Christians were considered a sect of Judaism until 70AD; but I never knew that they were called Nazarenes. I never knew that this term was ever used to refer to any except those that were from Nazareth.
quote:
HisGrace says:I looked in 7 versons of the NT and none of them had the word Nazarite/Nazirite in them. Saying that Paul was a Nazarite is purely speculative.
I believe that it is only speculative if you ignore the context in which the vow is used in the NT. It is only used there 2 times and both times the context shows clearly that it speaks of the nazarite vow. I really do not like to study using commentaries, I am always cautious of them, desiring to know what the Bible says before having any influence in my brain of what man says it says,but today just for curiosity, I read some commentary and maybe you will appreciate this because you seem to appreciate men's opinions about what the Bibles says. Today, I found that if this is speculation, then it is speculation that has been being made from the first century. I found that Josephus understood this to be a Nazarite vow, and so did the 4 th Century Patriarchate of Constantinople, Chrysostom, who was from Antioch Syria, the church tht commissioned Paul, and then in contemporary time commentaries from Barnes, Gill, Henry, as well as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown all saw that this was a vow of the Nazarite.
quote:
HisGrace says:We may say there go Mary and John, who has a new car, meaning John. I am not saying that Aquila is the one who had his head shaved, but I question this statment because it is the only 8-letter blurb in the Bible that would indicate that Paul did have his head shaved, if it were true. He emulated the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus never took any such vow, and I don't see anywhere else in the Bible that Paul took any vows
8 letter blurb! Again you show your cavalier attitude regarding the word. Here is what Jesus says about what you call an 8 letter blurb....
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
In this case, one of those words proceeded as a Greek word that gramatically speaking refers to Paul.
quote:
HisGrace says:The Pharisees certainly liked to throw the law up in Jesus' face as He knew it..
Well, at least you get part of the picture, the reason that he called them hipocrites is that they did not follow it.
Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
quote:
HisGrace asks: Can you show some quotes in the Bible to support this view concerning Jesus?
Yes, I believe that I could show you several, but I wont; it would be a waste of both our time.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
Please direct me to the scripture where Paul is called a Nazarene. I think that you find that it does not exisit. Nazarene is used once in the NT and it is used to refer to Jesus.
Acts 24:5 5 For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
From HFHS
quote:
Samson was a Nazarite, and his VOW was for life thus he never cut his hair. He is one of 3 who were Nazarites for life. Paul had taken the Nazarite vow at least twice that we know of from the scripture.
I looked in 7 versons of the NT and none of them had the word Nazarite/Nazirite in them. Saying that Paul was a Nazarite is purely speculative.
quote:
HisGrace says: In Acts 18:18 it says that Paul had been in Corinth for a good while. After Corinth he sailed to Syria with Priscilla and Aquila. The scriptures say "Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow." This begs the question was Aquila the one had had his head shaved?
From HFHS quote:
Why does it beg the question?
The participle is masculine and woud not refer to Priscilla. Aquila found in the sentence beside the participle (shearing/shorn), but since reference to Priscilla and Aquila is parenthetical (additional information and we know this is so because the two other participles (tarried, leaving) refer to Paul it shows very clearly at least to me that this one Shoring/have shorn does also does refer to Paul.
We may say there go Mary and John, who has a new car, meaning John. I am not saying that Aquila is the one who had his head shaved, but I question this statment because it is the only 8-letter blurb in the Bible that would indicate that Paul did have his head shaved, if it were true. He emulated the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus never took any such vow, and I don't see anywhere else in the Bible that Paul took any vows.
From HFHS - quote:
The Pharisee did not follow the Law, they followed the interpretations of the Law as set down by the Rabbi in the Oral Tradition or Oral Torah. Some Rabbi were good and others not.
The Pharisees certainly liked to throw the law up in Jesus' face as He knew it..
From HFHS quote:
Paul studied under Gamaliel who was a wise Rabbi and understood that the law was not inteded to oppress the people and add to their burden. When Jesus taught under the Law, often his view was one that upheld thought of the School of Hilliel
Can you show some quotes in the Bible to support this view concerning Jesus?
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Yahsway, are you saying that you believe that it was at Shavout when the 4 were making their vows? Forgive me, I am not clear why you would chose Weeks. Not questioning Weeks, just wanting to know more clearly your reasoning. As I said I have no idea what feast it was, so I am curious what your reasoning is that I might see something I missed. Do you know that there are more than 3 years (actually I think more than 4 as he was at Ephesus 3 years on his 3rd Journey) that separate the events in Acts 18: and the events in Acts 20; ?
I was looking at my study Bible and it comments that it was either Unleavened Bread or Pentecost, but does not say why. I was reading Chapter 18 again and noticed that it says that he was at Corinth for 1 year and 6 months. This is where cenchrea is and where Paul cut his hair. I know that this later journey to arrive at Pentecost... it is perfectly laid out by Luke to show the omer count to Shavout. I have somewhere a chart of that... I wonder if we could use that chart an the information from Chapter 18 to determine what feast it was. I will look for the chart. But please do tell me more clearly why you chose weeks, as I am sorry I did not follow.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
HisGrace, To say that Acts 18:18 is speaking of Aquila taking a vow and having his hair cut is taking the verse out of context. The chapter and verse, written by Luke I believe, is speaking of Paul. "He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow" is not implying this was Aquila. It is speaking of Paul. You must read this in its context.
Also, I believe the Feast was Shavout/Pentecost, heres why-
Acts 20:16
For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Shavout/Pentecost(or better said, the Feast of weeks).
Now if we back up in that same chapter and look at verse 6- But we (Luke and Paul) sailed away from Philippi AFTER the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in 5 days joined them at Troas, where we stayed 7 days.
So the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread Feasts was over, and the counting of the omer had begun and Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem for the Day of Shavout/Pentecost which we know was 7 Sabbaths plus 1 day=50
(Leviticus 23:15-16)
Now, I agree that there were NO animal sacrafices made for the Feasts of Weeks, this was a grain offering Feasts.
But that being said, there were animal sacrafices made at the Temple for the 4 men to perform and the wages(Acts 21:24 states "pay their expenses) that Paul was to pay for them was to buy the animals for the sacrafices along with unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, unleavened wafers annointed with oil and grain and drink offerings. This is done as as stated in Numbers 6:13-21
So again, we see that the 4 Jewish Believers in the Christ were to go and complete their Nazirite vows according to the scriptures and Paul was to go with them and pay their expenses and be purified With them.
And YES, the Jews in Acts 18:12-13 FALSlEY accused Paul, no different than when they FALSLEY accused Jesus of breaking the Laws of His Father. Remember it was Jesus who called them (Pharisees) hypocrits because it was they who did not Keep the Law correctly. They added to and took away and built fenses around God the Fathers Laws.
Now look who it was they were Falsley accusing Paul of being a lawbreaker to. Was it the Jewish Counsil/Sanhedrian? NO, it was to Gallio who was a Roman governor of Achaia.And look what this Roman governor said to their accusations:
verse 14 When Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, "If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you. But if it is a question of words and names and your own Law, look to it yourselves; fo I do not want to be a judge in such matters."
They knew full well that Paul had not broke any of the commandments of God. They were falsley accusing him just like they did Jesus. Jesus never broke the Torah commandments.
Now look at the last verse in Acts 22:30
The next day because he(Paul) wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews....
Now Paul is a smart man, and I believe if he was beaking Gods Laws, then he would know for certain why he was being accused.
Now look at chapter 23:1
Then Paul looked earnestly at the Council(this council is called the Sanheadran which consists of the Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees)said,
"Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day."
Then if you continue reading, he was being accused because He believed in the Resurrection of the dead. Now look at verse 9;
Then there arose a loud outcry. And the Scribes of the Pharisees party arose and PROTESTED saying,
"We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us NOT fight against God.
At every turn Paul was being falsley accused. He obey the Father laws, was accused of taking a gentile into the temple which he did not do,
Chapter 25 verse 8 while he (Paul) answered for himself. "Neither against the Law of the Jews, nor against the Temple, nor against Ceasar have I offended in anything at all.
There you have it. Paul has not broken the Law, nor defiled the temple, nor spoke out against the government.
If Paul was aginst the Laws of God, here was another good time for him to say so. If Paul was against paying the expenses for the completion of the Nazirite vow for the 4 men that the Jerusalem council told him to do, which included buying animals for sacrafice, then it would have been a good time for Paul to speak up against it, would you not agree?
Let me say this, when a Jewish man/woman today accepts Jesus as their Messiah, they do not stop being a Jew, they are Jewish believers. Some, not all keep to the Saturday Sabbath, nothing wrong with that. Some celebrate Passover(of course without sacraficing a lamb) because they understand who the sacrafical lamb is, Yeshua! Some still use their prayer shawls, kippahs, dancing in traditional Jewish Folk dance before the Lord. Nothing wrong with that. Some still abide by the Kosher laws of eating, again nothing wrong with that.
The Gentiles had only 4 requirements set out by the Jerusalem council.
God never intended Gentiles to become Jews. What He had revealed was that the Gentiles would attach themselves to Israel by faith in Jesus the Son of God, and that in their attachment to Israel they would be blessed in the covenant, bearing both the responsabilities as well as the privledges and blessings of the Torah. It is stated in the Torah that there would be one and the same Torah for both the native born and the resident alien.
But long-standing traditions do not go away easily. That the rulings of the Sages were being recieved as equal with God's Torah can be seen by the fact that when Paul refused to require them, he was accused of breaking Gods word.
In light of this confusion, nothing could have been more effective than for Paul to publicly live out the Torah by obeying its prescriptions for the Nazirite. There in the temple, all would see that Paul respected and obeyed the Torah and that the RUMORS about him were false.
So, in his submission to James and the elders, one can see Paul the Apostle for the Torah-obediant servant he actually was. Crefully distinquishing between MAN-MADE religion and genuine Faith. Paul in his writings repeatedly leads us as we read them, back to the divinely inspired Torah as the Foundation for Knowing and serving God.
Paul understood that the Spirit of the law brings life, but the letter of the law brings death. Now, thru the Messiah Jesus, one is not only able but willing to obey the Laws of God in Spirit and in Truth.
Paul understood that the Laws of God were just, pure and holy if used as he stated "lawfully".
The laws of God were never meant to save anyone, but were to show us how to live set-apart unto God and how to live with our fellow man.
Thats why Jesus told the multitude and his disciples that the Pharisees sat in Moses's seat, meaning they taught the Laws of God. He said whatever these Pharisees tell you to do from Gods laws, do them, BUT, do not do as they, the Pharisee do, because although they taught the Laws of God, they did as they interpreted the Laws from the Talmud and the Mishna, not from the Torah.
The Written Torah was clearly being seperated from the Oral Torah of the Sages. Paul had re-read the Torah with news eyes after his face to face encounter with Jesus, and the other Apostles also agreed that there was no divinely given instructions for Gentiless to become Jews. Though sanctioned by the sages, it was not Gods way.
Thats why I say that Paul, being a Jew, and also a Pharisee, could sit in Moses seat and teach the people from the Written Word that they had at that time which was the entire Old Testament.
It was from the foundation, the Law and the Prophets that Paul taught about Jesus. For it pointed directly to Jesus. There was no New Testament cannon to go by.
2 Timothy 3:14-
Paul says to Timothy:
"But you must continue in the things that you have learned and been assured of, knowing from who you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures(OLD Testament) which are able to make you wise for salvation thru faith which is in Jesus the Christ.
All Scripture (NO New Testament when this was written, Pauls letters were not considered scripture equal with Torah)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God the Father may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Here Paul is speaking of Torah, the instructions of God.
Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
HisGrace says:You really kill me with your great imagination sometimes. [cool_shades] . I couldn't see hair mentioned anywhere in Acts 18.
An you me with your seemingly complete inability to ever admit that you may have errored. I have never seen anything like it; it is truly astonishing!
Case and Point:
quote:
HisGrace says: It has been well established that the Nazarites didn't cut their hair.[QUOTE]
Scripture says: Numbers 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.
[QUOTE]HisGrace Says:Now lets take a serious look at Acts 18. First of all, I couldn't find the word Nazarite anywhere the New Testament. Did that go out for believers with Jesus' new covenant coming in? Paul is called a Nazarene in the NT, but never a Nazarite. It has been made crystal clear in the Word that Samson was a Nazarite.
Please direct me to the scripture where Paul is called a Nazarene. I think that you find that it does not exisit. Nazarene is used once in the NT and it is used to refer to Jesus.
Samson was a Nazarite, and his VOW was for life thus he never cut his hair. He is one of 3 who were Nazarites for life. Paul had taken the Nazarite vow at least twice that we know of from the scripture.
quote:
HisGrace says: In Acts 18:18 it says that Paul had been in Corinth for a good while. After Corinth he sailed to Syria with Priscilla and Aquila. The scriptures say "Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow." This begs the question was Aquila the one had had his head shaved?
Why does it beg the question?
The participle is masculine and woud not refer to Priscilla. Aquila found in the sentence beside the participle (shearing/shorn), but since reference to Priscilla and Aquila is parenthetical (additional information and we know this is so because the two other participles (tarried, leaving) refer to Paul it shows very clearly at least to me that this one Shoring/have shorn does also does refer to Paul.
quote:
HisGrace says: Chapter 18 is focusing on Paul's travels throughout the region; why would it all of a sudden say that he had his head shaved?. Nothing else is said about such a ceremony in Acts 18. Later in the chapter, verse 22 it talks about going to Caesarea " when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up and greeted the church, he went down to Antioch."
Yes, why indeed? Because it is significant to the story. Luke knew and anyone reading this text at the time it is written would have known that there is only one vow among the Jews that requires one to have his head shorn at the end of the separation period and toss it into the fire at the door of the congregation and that is a Nazarite Vow, and what better time to do this than during one of the pilgrimage feasts.. on that is so significant to the Christian faith that all the nations will come to Jerusalem to celebrate it in the Millennium! One of the greatest objections to the Gospel among the Jews was that they saw it meant that they would no longer be Jews and thus Paul when ministering to Jews became a Jew...
1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
What more fitting a way to demonstrate that Christ was not the abolishment of the Law but the fulfilment thereof, than to take himself the vow of the Nazarite.
Then the text continues... he landed in Ceaeseria, just outside Jerusalem, he went up the mountain to Jersalem, and he greeted the church there, and then he went down the mountain and back to antioch, which is where he was first commissioned from to go on this trip in the first place...why would he go there and tarry? Because surely they wanted to hear about his journey as it was the church there that had commissioned him and sent him out.
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
quote:
HisGrace Says:In Acts 18:12,13 it says When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law."
If Paul was a practising Pharisee, they would have left him alone. As shown in another thread, the devil gets really frightened whenever the Holy Spirit shows up. He was preaching against the old legalistic laws.
Oh, Hello! You do what even Gallio would not do! This was always the cry of the Jews against the Christians and against Paul! It was the cry of the Jews 3 years later when Paul is again in Jerusalem for Pentcost; it is the cry that took him before the Sanheidren and eventually Caesar!
And what was Paul's continual answer?
Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
quote:
HisGrace says: If Paul was a practising Pharisee, they would have left him alone. As shown in another thread, the devil gets really frightened whenever the Holy Spirit shows up. He was preaching against the old legalistic laws.
They did not leave him alone for the same reason they did not leave Jesus alone, they were afraid to lose their power among the people and that then Rome would rule them rather than letting them rule themselves under Rome.
Paul did not practice the error of the Pharisee. But Paul did not preach against the Law either. Paul understood clearly that he was not under the Law but was free to follow the Law, as Jesus is the Law both word and Spirit.
The Pharisee did not follow the Law, they followed the interpretations of the Law as set down by the Rabbi in the Oral Tradition or Oral Torah. Some Rabbi were good and others not.
Paul studied under Gamaliel who was a wise Rabbi and understood that the law was not inteded to oppress the people and add to their burden. When Jesus taught under the Law, often his view was one that upheld thought of the School of Hilliel, who was Granfather to Gamaliel who taught Paul, and was always in opposition to the school of Shammai.
What does Paul sy about being a Pharisee?
He says that if he were going to boast of his flesh he had much to boast of for he was a Pharisee of Pharisees... blameless, a student of the great Pharisee Gamaliel, but he did not boast in his flesh, but in Christ!
Phillipians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4 ¶ Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 ¶ Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
17 ¶ Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Paul clearly says that his heritage and education is gain to him... but only to his life in the flesh and thus he counts it all loss to gain Christ.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
I dont know which one. This is the end of his 2nd missonary journey. He is keeping this feast and returning to complete his vow, bringing the hair that was shorn in Cenchera.
You really kill me with your great imagination sometimes. ![[cool_shades]](graemlins/cool_shades.gif) . I couldn't see hair mentioned anywhere in Acts 18.
Now lets take a serious look at Acts 18. First of all, I couldn't find the word Nazarite anywhere the New Testament. Did that go out for believers with Jesus' new covenant coming in? Paul is called a Nazarene in the NT, but never a Nazarite. It has been made crystal clear in the Word that Samson was a Nazarite.
yahsway says -
quote:
okay HisGrace, then what other vow do you suppose would have anything to do with hair? From scripture if you please.
Acts 18:18
He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he HAD TAKEN a Vow.
That Paul cut his hair before returning to Jerusalem would indicate that the prescribed length of the vow (the Nazirite Vow) had been completed, or that he had become unintentionally defiled, which the requirment in these 2 cases is cutting of the hair.
In Acts 18:18 it says that Paul had been in Corinth for a good while. After Corinth he sailed to Syria with Priscilla and Aquila. The scriptures say "Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow." This begs the question was Aquila the one had had his head shaved?
Chapter 18 is focusing on Paul's travels throughout the region; why would it all of a sudden say that he had his head shaved?. Nothing else is said about such a ceremony in Acts 18. Later in the chapter, verse 22 it talks about going to Caesarea " when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up and greeted the church, he went down to Antioch."
Acts 18: 21 is talking about a feast, not a sacrificial ceremony.
Acts 18:21 “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem
In Acts 18:12,13 it says When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law."
If Paul was a practising Pharisee, they would have left him alone. As shown in another thread, the devil gets really frightened whenever the Holy Spirit shows up. He was preaching against the old legalistic laws.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I dont know which one. This is the end of his 2nd missonary journey. He is keeping this feast and returning to complete his vow, bringing the hair that was shorn in Cenchera. If I had to guess I would say it is Tabernacles, because, it would be the last feast of the year, thus the "I must by all means keep this feast" if it were Tabernacles there would be no other opportunity to make a feast this year.
I think that it is important to note here what Paul Message was in keeping any feast and to note also, that he did not go every pilgramige to Jerusalem. But Paul's message was I think...."I am free to keep the feasts.", just as the Gentiles were free not to keep the circumcision. Paul taught the Gentiles in Corinth that in the Christian life, we keep the feast of unleavened bread perpetually:
1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
I almost forgot one more thing. Pauls trip to Jerusalem was to keep the Feast as he said in Acts 18:21 but took leave of them saying "I must by all means Keep this coming Feast in Jerusalem;... hmm, why is Paul still keeping Feast days if they have been done away with?
Can you help me out here HFHS to which Feast Paul was going to keep. I know that there are 3 in which the Jewish men by the law had to attend in Jerusalem. Which one was it?
Thanks and Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
okay HisGrace, then what other vow do you suppose would have anything to do with hair? From scripture if you please.
Acts 18:18
He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he HAD TAKEN a Vow.
That Paul cut his hair before returning to Jerusalem would indicate that the prescribed length of the vow (the Nazirite Vow) had been completed, or that he had become unintentionally defiled, which the requirment in these 2 cases is cutting of the hair.
Either way, scripture still supports the fact that he did go with the 4 men and was himself purified with them. So, my question is this.
Who were the 4 men? Were they not also Jewish Believers in Jesus the Christ? I believe they were or the Jerusalem Council of James and Peter and especially our beloved Paul would have certainly preached the gospel to them dont you think? I mean, why would 4 Jewish believers in Jesus have to go and finish up taking their vows by cutting their hair, sacraficing and doing purification rituals at the Temple?
Just a little food for thought. Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
I can show you that unless you were a Nazarite for life your head got shaved at the completion of your separation!
Numbers 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.
Numbers 6:19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:
As we have seen before the Nazarite law says "The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num. l.c.; Jer. vii. 29)
The Nazarite law and Numbers 6 are speaking about upon the completion of the vow; Acts 18:18 is talking about having a vow.
Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
(Possibly this scripture could be referring to Aquila with the shorn head.)
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
What better way to declare this than by confirming that Paul was telling the people to forsake the Torah of Moses, and that he had their full approval?
Here was the perfect opportunity to repudiate the need for Torah once and for all- to proclaim in no uncertain terms that the Torah was Null and void, and that followers of Yeshua were forever Free from any necessary connection to the Torah.
But instead of sending that message they proclaim just the opposite. The same Apostles who had penned the statement of the Council exempting the Gentile believers from the Rabbinic ceremony of proselytizing now go to the greatest lengths to demonstrate the Ongoing Value and Relevance of the Written Torah.
So it is determined that Paul not only go with these 4 men, but that he also go and be purified himself.
By doing so Paul sends the clearest statement possible that the Torah is not only Alive and Well, but that he, as a genuine follower of Jesus the Christ and His appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, joyfully lived by its ordinances.
Amen! That is exactly what Paul said right here:
Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Hello... this is the message of the Gospel!
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
The problem was Not that the Pharisee followed the Law too closely, the problem was that the Pharisee followed the Rabbinical teachings of what the law according to their interpretations said. This is why they were accompanied always by the scribes.
If they had followed the Law it would have led them to Jesus.
Roman's 3:1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
HisGrace, How was Jesus's teachings different than that of His Fathers?
We know that the Pharisees built fences arounf Gods laws and added to and took away by their Oral interpretations of the Torah such as the Mishna and the Talmud. But wasnt that what Jesus was agains? Their hypocricy? He was not against the law, I'll show you
Matt 23:13 Jesus said to the multitude and to His disciples
"Therefore whatever they (Pharisees, Scribes) tell you to observe, that observe and do, BUT dod not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Jesus would give the True interpretation to the Laws moral precepts)Example:
Matt 8:12 Jesus said
"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to do, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Paul states in Romans 7
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
SIN not the Law is to blame. Gods law, reflecting His righteous moral principles is holy. The law does not have the power to make us righteous, only Yeshua does. But Yeshua obeyed His Fathers laws and never taught men to not obey them.
Yes Yes Paul was spreading the good news of Jesus the Christ, but he certainly was not telling people they did not have to obey Gods laws. He most likely told them that their obediance to those laws was not going to save them, but as you can see in Acts 21 Paul is observing the customs he grew up with.
If James, Peter, and the others had been of the opinion that the Torah (and by the way, Torah means Gods Laws, Instructions,)was finished, and that a new era, initiated by Jesus the Christ, had now made the Torah obsolete for His followers, here was the perfect time to make this absolutely clear.
What better way to declare this than by confirming that Paul was telling the people to forsake the Torah of Moses, and that he had their full approval?
Here was the perfect opportunity to repudiate the need for Torah once and for all- to proclaim in no uncertain terms that the Torah was Null and void, and that followers of Yeshua were forever Free from any necessary connection to the Torah.
But instead of sending that message they proclaim just the opposite. The same Apostles who had penned the statement of the Council exempting the Gentile believers from the Rabbinic ceremony of proselytizing now go to the greatest lengths to demonstrate the Ongoing Value and Relevance of the Written Torah.
So it is determined that Paul not only go with these 4 men, but that he also go and be purified himself.
By doing so Paul sends the clearest statement possible that the Torah is not only Alive and Well, but that he, as a genuine follower of Jesus the Christ and His appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, joyfully lived by its ordinances.
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I can show you that unless you were a Nazarite for life your head got shaved at the completion of your separation!
Numbers 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.
Numbers 6:19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
yahsway, I have no idea who Tim Hegg is, but as I read his article I noticed that his focus is entirely on the traditions of the Torah and what a great beloved "Pharisee" Paul was. The Pharisees of the Bible were enemies of Jesus. If our focus isn't on Jesus and his saving power message, His cruel death on the cross is all for naught.
Here are some of Tim Hegg's quotes:
quote:
Also, Paul appreciated his training at the feet of Gamaliel, even to the very end of his life.In Acts 22:6 here is Paul, in a real life situation, and he puts to practice what he learned from his mentor, and he declares himself to be a Pharisee, not as a Ploy to save his skin, but as an open confession of his belief in the Resurrection.
Also, Gamaliel's own Zeal for the Torah was passed on to Paul as he confesses (Acts 22:3), and we know from the chapter earlier that he, like James, lived according to its precepts (Acts 21:24)
It is very easy to lose our focus on Jesus' message, because we can't deny that the Pharisees were a very religious sect and knew every minute detail of the law, but were very radical.
In looking at Acts 22 Paul is saying that yes indeed he did get thorough training in the ways of the Pharisees at the feet of Gamaliel, and became very zealous in their teachings, but persecuted the followers of the Truth for not following its old traditions.
Vrs. 4,5 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison,
as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
quote:
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the Traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
This is talking about Jesus' teachings -
1 Cor. 11:1,2 (KJV) Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
quote:
2 Thess 2:15 So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
This is the tradition of Jesus' teachings .
2 Thess.2:12-15 (KJV)That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
quote:
2Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethern, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you Keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the Tradition which you recieved from us.
Here Paul is using Pharisaic language and perspective commending not only the written Scriptures but also the oral (by word of mouth) contained in "traditions" which the Apostle had given the congregations.
"Which you received from us," meaning the message which Paul has been spreading regarding Good News of Jesus Christ.
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
You beat me to it HFHS, Good Post.
The fact that Paul was maintaining a Nazirite vow while in the diaspora, and that he cuts his hair at Cenchrea, should not be considered a breach of the Torah requirement to offer the sacrafice at the Temple at the conclusion of the vow.
It was understood that when a Nazirite vow was taken outside of the Land, he would cut his hair at the end of the vowed period, and upon returning to the Land would complete the ceremony with the prescribed sacrafice.
Again, great post!
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
However... Paul most certainly had taken a Nazerite Vow!
Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
It has been well established that the Nazarites didn't cut their hair. The above scripture says 'a vow.' Can someone please show me proof positive where it refers to Paul as a Nazarite.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
When they accused him of being part of a sect, they were speaking of the sectof Christians as Christians in the time before 70 AD were considered a sect of Judaism.
However... Paul most certainly had taken a Nazerite Vow!
Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Nazarite
(Heb. form Nazirite), the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in #Nu 6:2-21 The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses. The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things,
1. abstinence from wine and strong drink,
2. refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and
3. the avoidance of contact with the dead.
When the period of the continuance of the vow came to an end, the Nazarite had to present himself at the door of the sanctuary with
1. a he lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering,
2. a ewe lamb of the first year for a sin-offering, and
3. a ram for a peace-offering.
After these sacrifices were offered by the priest, the Nazarite cut off his hair at the door and threw it into the fire under the peace-offering. For some reason, probably in the midst of his work at Corinth, Paul took on himself the Nazarite vow. This could only be terminated by his going up to Jerusalem to offer up the hair which till then was to be left uncut. But it seems to have been allowable for persons at a distance to cut the hair, which was to be brought up to Jerusalem, where the ceremony was completed. This Paul did at Cenchrea just before setting out on his voyage into Syria #Ac 18:18 On another occasion #Ac 21:23-26 at the feast of Pentecost, Paul took on himself again the Nazarite vow. "The ceremonies involved took a longer time than Paul had at his disposal, but the law permitted a man to share the vow if he could find companions who had gone through the prescribed ceremonies, and who permitted him to join their company. This permission was commonly granted if the new comer paid all the fees required from the whole company (fee to the Levite for cutting the hair and fees for sacrifices), and finished the vow along with the others. Four Jewish Christians were performing the vow, and would admit Paul to their company, provided he paid their expenses. Paul consented, paid the charges, and when the last seven days of the vow began he went with them to live in the temple, giving the usual notice to the priests that he had joined in regular fashion, was a sharer with the four men, and that his vow would end with theirs. Nazarites retired to the temple during the last period of seven days, because they could be secure there against any accidental defilement" (Lindsay's Acts). As to the duration of a Nazarite's vow, every one was left at liberty to fix his own time. There is mention made in Scripture of only three who were Nazarites for life, Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist #Jud 13:4,5 1Sa 1:11 Lu 1:15 In its ordinary form, however, the Nazarite's vow lasted only thirty, and at most one hundred, days. This institution was a symbol of a life devoted to God and separated from all sin, a holy life.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by yahsway:
Sorry HisGrace, but you are wrong. The 4 men were taking a Nazirite Vow, and this included the shaving of their heads.You need to do a study on the taking of a Nazirite Vow. Its has nothing to do with coming from the region of Nazareth.
And scripture says that the Jewish Believers/Elders told Paul-
"Take them AND be Purified WITH them, AND pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things
of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, BUT, that you YOURSELF ALSO walk Orderly AND KEEP THE LAW.
Please show me in the Bible where it says they were taking a Nazarite vow.
Judges 16:17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man.
from jewish encyclopedia.com
Nazarite -
One who lives apart; one who has made a vow of abstinence; in the former sense used as early as Sifra, Emor, iv. 3; Sifre, Num. 23.
Nazarite Laws.
—Biblical Data:
Three restrictions are imposed upon the Nazarite, according to Num. vi.: he may not take wine, or anything made from grapes; he may not cut the hair of his head; he may not touch the dead, not even the body of his father or mother. If a Nazarite has become unclean by accident, he must offer a sacrifice and begin the period of his vow anew. He is "holy unto the Lord" (Num. vi. 8), and the regulations which apply to him actually agree with those for the high priest and for the priests during worship (Lev. x. 8 et seq., xxi.; Ezek. xliv. 21). In ancient times the priests were persons dedicated to God (Ezek. xliv. 20; I Sam. i. 11), and it follows from the juxtaposition of prophets and Nazarites (Amos ii. 11-12) that the latter must have been regarded as in a sense priests. Young men especially, who found it difficult to abstain from wine on account of youthful desire for pleasure, took the vow. The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num. l.c.; Jer. vii. 29}
Numbers 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
Sorry HisGrace, but you are wrong. The 4 men were taking a Nazirite Vow, and this included the shaving of their heads.You need to do a study on the taking of a Nazirite Vow. Its has nothing to do with coming from the region of Nazareth.
And scripture says that the Jewish Believers/Elders told Paul-
"Take them AND be Purified WITH them, AND pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things
of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, BUT, that you YOURSELF ALSO walk Orderly AND KEEP THE LAW.
verse26
Then Paul took the men, and the next day having been purified WITH THEM, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification at which time an offering should be made for EACH(including Paul) of them.
Paul was not just hanging out there with the 4 men waiting on them while they were going thru the purification process. Scripture says that Paul was Purified with them.
Yes chapter 24 states that he was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (or The Way). But I am not referring to what was said about Paul here.
I am referring to the very FACT that Paul went to the Temple with the 4 men, took a Nazirite vow along with the purification rites. This is what scripture says.
Chapter 24:17-
Now after MANY YEARS (this many years is also important if you will just think about that)
I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia FOUND ME PURIFIED IN THE TEMPLE........
Now for many years Paul has been out preaching the gospel to the Gentile Nations, and has gone back to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings to his people in Jerusalem, the Jewish believers in Jesus that lived in Jerusalem had heard that Paul was speaking against the laws of Moses, telling people to forsake Moses and that they should not circumcise their children or walk according to their customs (traditions).
So the elders in a sense tell Paul to show the people that these RUMORS were not so. And Paul did just that. The reason he was aressted at the Temple because it was mistakenly thought that he had brought a Gentile into the Temple.
As I said before, Paul, the Pharisee of all Pharisees, believeing in the Law and the Prophets, believing in the Messiah Yeshua as His Lord and King. Still a Jew (ethnic) still a Pharisee(denomination)and even still, a Born again Child of the Most High God. How awesome is that!!!
I am Irish (ethnic)am Pentecostal(denomination) and am also a Born Again Child of the Most High God!!! Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by yahsway:
But we must back up to chapter 24, what was Paul doing at the temple? He says that after many years he came to bring alms and offerings to his nation, while in the midst of a purification ceremony where he, Paul was taking a Nazarite vow, he was arrested.
In Chapter Paul is accused of belonging to what they called the 'sect', known as the Nazarenes, not Nazarites. There is a difference- Jesus was a Nazarene.
Nazarene - relating to the town of Nazareth. Jesus was from Nazareth so early followers of Christ were called Nazarenes.
Nazarite - A Jew bound by a vow to leave the hair uncut, to abstain from wine and strong drink, and to practice extraordinary purity of life and devotion, the obligation being for life, or for a certain time. The word is also used adjectively.
quote:
Now after you read this, ask yourself this question. Do I see a Pharisee or Christian or possibly both?
Acts 21:15
"You see brother, how many myrids of Jews(thats a lot folks) there are who have believed, and they are all Zealous for the law;
"Therefore do what we tell you: We have 4 men who have taken a vow. "Take them and be purified WITH them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed about you are nothing, But that you (Paul) yourself also walk orderly and KEEP the Law.
Note: Pay their expenses was a PIOUS and charitable way for an Israelite(especially a Pharisee)to Associate himself with those who had taken a Nazirite Vow. This involved 30 days of Ritual Purification, including shaving the Head.
Now if Paul did this, and scripture says he did, he certainly was not doing it just to appease the people would he. I mean, if he thought for one minute he should not do this ritual because he was no longer a Pharisee but a Christian saved by grace and the laws have been done away with, would that not be hypocritical on his part?
Let's put Acts 21 into its proper context. "Here's our suggestion. We have four men here who have taken a vow and are preparing to shave their heads. Go with them to the Temple and join them in the purification ceremony, and pay for them to have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that the rumors are all false and that you yourself observe the Jewish laws."
~First of all, it doesn't say that they were taking a vow to become Nazarites. Nazarites didn't shave their head. It also says that they wanted Paul to join in the purification ceremony AND pay to have the heads of the four men shaved. It doesn't say that Paul was going to shave his own head. Neither does it say that Paul was going to take any vows.
Paul agreed to take part in the purification ceremony the next day. Some Jews saw him in the temple and stirred up the people by shouting -
Acts 21:28,29 "Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)
~Paul immediately was dragged out of the temple, with the gates being closed behind him. They tried to kill, he was beaten, arrested and bound with chains.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Good post Yahsway; might I also add that while the Sadducee may have been haughty, and stoic, demanding the literal interpretation of the Torah, even to include the ideas of an eye for an eye, the Sadducee were not agnostics!
The Sadducee are said to have signed their documents as High Priest of the MOST HIGH.
The Saducee unlike the Pharisee believed in following the Written Torah alone and rejected the rabbinical teachings and consequintly the Babylonian Talmud or Oral Torah. (this was a good thing)
They rejected the other texts of the OT (this was a bod thing and is probably why they denied the Spirit Life or Life to Come, seeing it as superstitious and not believed by their forefathers) They did not believe in an after life, but that when we died we simply died and the soul perished with the body.
It is true that they for the most part as a sect did not see for themselves a Spirit realm, they certainly did believe that God existed and they did keep the Written Torah.
However, modern archaelogical information tells us that even among the Sadducee there was division and some did accept the other Hebrew Scriptures and the concepts of an afterlife and the immortaility of the scriptures.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
No HisGrace, he is simply stating that from his youth, all the Jews knew him and knew that he lived his life as a Pharisee and they could testify to that fact, if they were so willing to testify in his defense, that he was of a certain sect of Pharisees (there was about 7 different sects at that time) that believed in the resurrection of the dead. You could still be a Pharisee and believer in Jesus the Christ. Why there are Baptist that are believers in The Christ, there are Lutherns, Presbyterians, Catholics, Methodist, ect.. who are believers of the Christ.
And now he stands there in front of King Agrippa being judged for his Pharisical belief in life after death. verse 6 And now I stand and am judged for the Hope of the promise made by God to our fathers. (Old Testament)
verse 8- why should it be thought incrediable that God raises the dead?
But we must back up to chapter 24, what was Paul doing at the temple? He says that after many years he came to bring alms and offerings to his nation, while in the midst of a purification ceremony where he, Paul was taking a Nazarite vow, he was arrested.
Here is something very interesting about Paul from Scripture. Now after you read this, ask yourself this question. Do I see a Pharisee or Christian or possibly both?
Acts 21:15
And after those days we packed and went up to Jerusalem. Also some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us and brought with them a certain Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to lodge.
And when we had come to Jerusalem the brethren recieved us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles thru his ministry.
And when they heard it they glorified the Lord. and they said to him,
"You see brother, how many myrids of Jews(thats a lot folks) there are who have believed, and they are all Zealous for the law;
"but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcize their children nor walk according to the customs.
"What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.
"Therefore do what we tell you: We have 4 men who have taken a vow. "Take them and be purified WITH them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed about you are nothing, But that you (Paul) yourself also walk orderly and KEEP the Law.
Note: Pay their expenses was a PIOUS and charitable way for an Israelite(especially a Pharisee)to Associate himself with those who had taken a Nazirite Vow. This involved 30 days of Ritual Purification, including shaving the Head.
Now if Paul did this, and scripture says he did, he certainly was not doing it just to appease the people would he. I mean, if he thought for one minute he should not do this ritual because he was no longer a Pharisee but a Christian saved by grace and the laws have been done away with, would that not be hypocritical on his part?
Paul states that not only was he a Pharisee, but he is a Pharisee of Pharisees. Very learned in the scriptures but so much more since meeting His Savior Yeshua the Messiah. Shalom
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
~In the above portion of scripture Paul is saying that, being born a Pharisee, he believed in angels, spirits and the resurrection of the dead, as opposed to the Sadducees, as agnostics, didn't believe in any of this. He had given up his old Pharisee lifestyle, because later in this same chapter we see that they were plotting to kill him for following Jesus' teachings.
In the following scripture he speaks about how he 'was' a Pharisee in the past.
Acts 26:4-7 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers:
Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
Paul affirms that he was a Pharisee, and that his lineage was likewise Pharisaic. He makes this public declaration while on Trial for His faith. hmmmmm interesting. Here are some excerpts from the book "The Letter Writer" Pauls background and Torah perspective by Tim Hegg. Enjoy!
Yet since the word Pharisee today is often used to denote a "hypocrite", many are reluctant to describe the beloved Apostle by such a pejorative term.
Yet Paul considered himself a Pharisee even after he had come to faith in Yeshua.
Also, Paul appreciated his training at the feet of Gamaliel, even to the very end of his life.In Acts 22:6 here is Paul, in a real life situation, and he puts to practice what he learned from his mentor, and he declares himself to be a Pharisee, not as a Ploy to save his skin, but as an open confession of his belief in the Resurrection.
Also, Gamaliel's own Zeal for the Torah was passed on to Paul as he confesses (Acts 22:3), and we know from the chapter earlier that he, like James, lived according to its precepts (Acts 21:24)
It is not surprising then that we find Paul, at the very end of his life, confessing that he worshiped God "The way my Forefathers did" (2 Timothy 1:3)
also, Paul gives value to tradition as was characteristic among the Pharisees. While he followed His Savior Jesus in doing away with traditions that stood contrary to the written Torah, Pauls letters are recognition of the value of tradition and even the necessity of it within the community of faith.
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the Traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thess 2:15
So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethern, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you Keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the Tradition which you recieved from us.
Here Paul is using Pharisaic language and perspective commending not only the written Scriptures but also the oral (by word of mouth) contained in "traditions" which the Apostle had given the congregations.
It is often taken for granted that all pious Jews of the 1st century believed in the resurrection, this is not true. But Paul and the other Apostles who affirmed the doctrine of the Resurrection shows a general alignment with Pharisaism. Also the belief in Divine Providence was a doctrine known by the Pharisees.
Paul as seen through the book of Acts as well as by his epistles shows marked characteristics of being a Pharisee just as he said. He did not cease being a Pharisee when he came to faith in Yeshua, for he never considered Pharisaism to be something negative or contrary to genuine faith.
That he(Paul) would describe himself as a "Pharisee" even while being tried for his faith in Jesus (Acts 23:6, and note the present tense "I am a Pharisee") proves this.
Paul as a Pharisee, being a pious Jew, had come to a genuine faith in Yeshua as his Messiah, and who had been called by Yeshua to be His apostle to the Gentiles.
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BORN AGAIN:
Acts 23:6
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called into question? ![[1zhelp]](graemlins/1zhelp.gif)
Paul was born a Pharisee. We all are born as sinners, including Paul - saved by grace.
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
But Paul was a Pharisee, and he was a good guy.
Perhaps that was because he studied under Gamaliel? I believe that Jesus set the record straight between the school of Hilliel over the school of Shammai on many issues?
Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BORN AGAIN
unregistered
|
posted
sister SoftTouch writes to her Christian sister helpforhomeschoolers quote:
WOW Linda, I was composing my reply when you posted your... Amazing!
sister SoftTouch, was that Amazing? You shall see this and greater than this since you are a bornagain Christian.
BORN AGAIN in the USA
"there shall be no more weeping and no more wailing" ![[crying]](graemlins/crying.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
BORN AGAIN
unregistered
|
posted
the majority of the Pharisees were bad guys. ![[BooHoo]](graemlins/boohoo.gif)
But Paul was a Pharisee, and he was a good guy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Acts 23:6
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, and the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called into question?
God bless, BORN AGAIN in the USA by the
IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
The Pharisees were well versed in all of the old Mosaic laws and they delighted in trying to sabotage Jesus' great message of love and living for the kingdom with their craftiness. They even influenced the disciples of John with their legalism.
Matthew 9:14,15 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
~The following is another and self-righteous instance where the Pharisees pridefully cited that they followed the old Mosaic traditions.
Luke 18:11,12 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
~They attempted to condemn Jesus regarding the Mosaic law of the sabbath.
Matthew 12:1,2 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
Amen HisGrace, it certainly was THEIR legalistic mumbo jumbo, not Gods. Thats why I like HFHS post, It showed where the Pharisees mostly used the Talmud and Mishna to go by, Not unlike the Catholics who go by their Catechisim instead of the Scriptures of God and certain Protestant denominations also.
The pharisess added to and took away from the Laws of God. Yeshua rebuked them for this. Here is a good example from Yeshua.
Matt 15:1-
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus saying,
Why do Your disciples transgress the TRADITION of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment (Law) of God because of your tradition?
For God Commanded, saying, Honor your father and your mother; and, He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death."
"But you say, Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever profit you might have recieved from me is a gift to God" -
then he need not honor his father or mother. Thus you have mand the commandment (law) of God of no effect by your Tradition.
Yeshua was rebuking them for their Oral Traditions (Not Gods laws) These traditions by the Pharisees were considered equally binding as the written Law of God. Yeshua charged them with actual disobedience of Gods Commandment throug their slavish adherence to the Oral law.
Paul understood this as he also said that the Law of God was just, pure and holy if used lawfully.
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Where was the joy and peace? The Pharisees were so pre-occupied with nipping at Jesus' heals with their legalistic mumbo jumbo, that they seemd very unhappy and discontent within themselves. Obviously they weren't finding fulfillment in their own religion.
They remind me of Acts.7:51 You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
IP: Logged |
|
|
yahsway
Advanced Member
Member # 3738
|
posted
HFHS, Thankyou Thankyou for your post on the Pharisees and their intepretation of the Laws of God. It certainly was the Oral Traditions of the Sanhedrian that Yeshua was coming against.
Yeshua never came against His Father laws. And it is so true that we have so many in the church today who still continue to do the same as the Pharisees. No wonder we have over 3500 different denominations. Not much has changed really has it?
Shalom and be blessed
Posts: 1238 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Many may have this image of large crowds gathering around Jesus, who would be amazed at the signs and wonders he performed. However, Jesus experienced much doubt and unbelief from the Sadducees and Pharisees during his whole ministry Even his own disciples doubted him at different times. What a frustrating feeling he must have had, when he had the greatest message that was ever bestowed on mankind and so many were rejecting him.
He was constantly coming up against doubters and Jewish leaders, who accused him of being nothing but a fraud. They even accused him of being of the devil. John 7:20. The crowd replied. "You're demon possessed. Who's trying to kill you?" Many wanted him arrested and were plotting to kill him right from the first of his ministry.
The only message he was trying to convey is that he was the light of the world, sent by his Father, and his salvation was available for anyone who would believe. John 7:28 While Jesus was teaching in the Temple, he called out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I come from. But I represent one you don't know, and he is true. I know him because I have come from him and he sent me to you." ![[Bible]](graemlins/bible.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by SoftTouch:
quote:
Originally posted by HisGrace:
Jesus admonishes them -
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
No, that was John the Baptist who admonished the Pharisees and Sadducees...
Sorry - Here is an example in Jesus' words.
Matthew 12: 22-48 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Have you ever read any of the Talmud Deb? It is truly facinating and gives us a whole new perspective on the NT and the things that Jesus came teaching. Many of thed things Jesus spoke of were issues where there was disagreement between the leading Rabbi of the time.
Here this is a discussion on the Sabbath:
quote:
REGULATIONS CONCERNING BORROWING, CASTING LOTS, WAITING FOR THE CLOSE OF THE SABBATH, AND ATTENDING TO A CORPSE.
MISHNA: A man may borrow of an acquaintance jugs of wine or oil (on Sabbath), provided he does not say to him: "Lend (them to) me." A woman may also borrow bread from her acquaintance. If the man is refused (by his acquaintance), he may leave his upper garment (as a pledge) with the lender, and settle his account after Sabbath. Thus, also, in Jerusalem, the custom was, if the eve of Passover fell on a Sabbath, a man might leave his upper garment with the vender, take his paschal lamb, and settle his account after the holiday.
GEMARA: Rabha bar R. Hanan said to Abayi: "What is the difference between saying: 'I want to borrow' and 'Lend me'?" Answered Abayi: "The difference is, if a man says, 'I want to borrow,' he usually returns what he has borrowed and the lender will not be compelled to write it down; but if he says, 'Lend (trust) me,' the lender generally writes down what he has lent." Said Rabba again: "During the week it makes no difference, the lender is not particular whether one says, 'I want to borrow,' or 'Lend me.' He writes it down just the same-, then why should a distinction be made on Sabbath?" And Abayi answered: "The saying of 'I want to borrow,' on Sabbath, is a reminder to the lender that the sages said, that one must not say 'lend me,' and thus prevents him from writing it down."
The same said again to Abayi: "Let us see! The sages said, that everything done on a festival which can be done in a different manner from that on a week-day should so be done. Now, why do we not see women, who go for water with jugs, perform that work differently from their manner on a week-day?" He answered: "Because that would be impossible! For how should they do? Shall we say, that one who carries a large jug should carry a small one? That would necessitate her going twice. Or that one who carries a small jug should carry a larger
p. 343
one? Then she would have a heavier burden to carry. Should she cover it with a cloth? Then she might wring it. Should she cover it with a lid? Then she might have to untie it. Hence it is impossible." 1
"A woman may also borrow bread from an acquaintance," etc. From the Mishna we see, that only on Sabbath a woman must not say, "Lend me," when borrowing bread, and on weekdays that would be permitted. Would this not be against the decree of Hillel, who prohibits this on account of possible usury (as explained in Tract Baba Metzia)? Nay; we can say that the Mishna is in accordance with Hillel's decree, but here it refers to such places where bread has a fixed value, while Hillel refers to places where bread has not a fixed value.
"If the man be refused," etc. It was taught: "A loan on a festival is, according to R. Joseph, uncollectable by law, and Rabba say it is collectable." R. Joseph says, that it is uncollectable, because otherwise the lender will write it down; and Rabba says, if we say that it is uncollectable, the lender will not trust the borrower and the latter will not have the means of celebrating the festival. Is this not a contradiction to our Mishna, which teaches, that if the man be refused trust, he may pledge his garment, etc.? If the loan be uncollectable, the pledging is quite right; but if it be collectable by law, why should the borrower pledge his garment? The lender can sue him by law? The lender might say, that he does not care to be troubled by lawsuits and judges. R. Ivia would take pledges, and Rabba bar Ula would trick the borrower (by in turn borrowing something from him after the holiday and holding that for a pledge).
MISHNA: A man may count the number of his guests and also of his extra dishes verbally, but not from a written list. He may let his children and household draw lots at table (as to who is to have one dish, and who is to have another), provided he does not intentionally stake a larger portion against a smaller one. They may also draw lots for the holy sacrifices on a festival (as to which priest is to have one sacrifice and which is to have another), but not for the eatable portions of the sacrifices (to whom one piece belongs, and to whom another piece belongs).
GEMARA: Why should a man not read from a written list
p. 344
[paragraph continues] Said R. Bibhi: "Lest he might strike out a guest's name or an extra dish from the list." Abayi said: "This is a precautionary measure against reading of business papers on Sabbath." What is the point of difference between them? If the list is engraved on the wall! In that case there is no fear of striking out a name, but the precaution against reading business papers still remains, and the Amoraim differ in this case with the Tanaim in the following Tosephta, as we have learned: "A man must not look into a mirror on Sabbath (lest he trim his hair with scissors), but R. Meir permits looking into a mirror which is attached to a wall." Now, why may a man look into a stationary mirror; because by the time he goes to fetch scissors, he will be reminded that it is Sabbath? Why not say, that the same is the case with another mirror, which he holds in his hand? By the time he lays down the mirror and goes for scissors, he will also be reminded that it is Sabbath? The mirror prohibited to be used by the first Tana of the Tosephta is one that is attached to an instrument which can be used to trim hair, and that is in accordance with the dictum of R. Na'hman as stated by Rabba bar Abuha in his name: "Why did the sages prohibit the use of an iron mirror? Because a man might use it to trim his superfluous hair."
The rabbis taught: An inscription at the foot of pictures of beasts or men must not be read on. the Sabbath; and gazing, on the picture of a man is prohibited even on week-days, because it is written [Leviticus xix. 4]: "Ye shall not turn unto the idols." With what tradition do you supplement this verse, that you may infer therefrom the prohibition to gaze at a picture? Said R. Hanin: "Ye shall not turn to the idols which your imagination alone hath created."
"He may let his children and household draw lots," etc. It says, "his children and household": we must assume, that strangers are not to be included; if not, why not? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: A party of men eating on a festival, where the portions distributed to each are exactly alike in size and quantity, are guilty of the following prohibited acts; viz.: measuring, weighing, counting, borrowing and lending 1 (all of which acts are prohibited on a festival). According to Hillel's opinion, they are guilty of usury also. If that is so, why
p. 345
should it be allowed for his children and household? Here the reason is as related by R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh, who said: "It is allowed to borrow or lend from and to one's children and household and charge interest, in order to exemplify the evils of usury." If that is so, why is it not allowed, according to the Mishna, to stake a larger portion against a smaller? As a matter of fact, it is allowed; but the Mishna is defective and should read: "He may let his children and household draw lots at table, and even stake a larger portion against a smaller." Why so? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh above: He may let his children and household draw lots, but not strangers. Why so? As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel above: A larger portion must not be staked against a smaller one even on week-days for strangers. Why so? On account of Kubeia. 1
"They may also draw lots for the holy sacrifices," etc. What is meant by "but not for the eatable portions"? (Why should that not be done? The eatable portions of the sacrifices must be eaten on a festival.) Said R. Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob: "That prohibition is only applicable to the eatable portions of the sacrifices left over from the preceding day. Is this not self-evident? I would say, that because it is written [Hosea iv. 4]: 'And thy people are contentious equally with the priests,' that the priests are contentious, and hence they should be permitted to cast lots for the eatable portions of the sacrifices (for the sake of peace); therefore we are taught, that the sacrifices of the day may be drawn for, but not those of the preceding day."
The same R. Jacob said: "A man on whose account another man has been punished, either through divine or human judgment, is not admitted into the abode of the Holy One, blessed be He." Whence is this adduced? Shall we assume that it is -from the verses [I Kings xxii. 20-22]: "And the Lord said, Who will persuade Achab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gil'ad? And one said, In this manner, and another said, In that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and placed himself before the Lord and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, Thou wilt persuade him, and also prevail: go forth and
p. 346
do so." And it was asked who the spirit was, and R. Johanan said, it was the spirit of Naboth; and Rabh said that by saying, "Go forth," the Lord meant to expel the spirit from within His abode. Perhaps the reason for expelling the spirit was because it is written [Psalms ci. 7]: "He that speaketh falsehoods shall not succeed before my eyes." Therefore we must say that the basis for R. Jacob is the following. It is written [Proverbs xvii. 26]: "To punish the just with a fine even is not good." (This is explained to signify, that even punishment through a just man is not good.) What is not good is certainly evil, and it is written [Psalms v. 5]: "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: evil cannot abide with thee"; and this means, that "because Thou, God, art righteous, evil cannot remain in Thy abode."
"They may draw lots," etc. How do we know that the word "Choloshim" 1 means lots? It is written [Isaiah xiv. 12]: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O morning-star, son of the dawn! how art thou hewn down to the ground, crusher of nations!" ("Crusher" is expressed by the word "Cholesh," and the inference is made from the supposition that lots were cast which nation was to be crushed first.)
It is written [Daniel iv. 33]: "And additional greatness was added unto me." What was that additional greatness? Said R. Jehudah in the name of R. Jeremiah bar Aba: "From this we can infer, that he (Nebuchadnezzar) rode a male lion and twisted a snake round the lion's head, to verify what is written [Jeremiah xxvii. 6]: 'And also the beasts of the field have I given him to serve him.'
MISHNA: One must not hire laborers on the Sabbath, nor may he commission another man to hire them for him. One must not stand at the extreme limit of the "techoom" 2 and wait for dusk (the end of Sabbath), in order to hire laborers (beyond the techoom), or gather fruit beyond it; but if watching fruit beyond the techoom, he may await the dusk at its extreme limit, and in that case bring the fruit back with him. Abba Saul laid down the rule: "Whatever I am permitted to prepare for the day following the Sabbath, on the Sabbath, I may get ready for at dusk."
p. 347
GEMARA: What is the difference between a man and his neighbor? The Mishna teaches he should not hire laborers on Sabbath nor commission another man to hire them for him? Is this not self-evident? His neighbor is also a Jew. Said R. Papa: "That refers to a Gentile neighbor." R. Ashi opposed this, and said: "The prohibition to commission a Gentile to do something on a Sabbath is merely rabbinical, for the sake of the Sabbath rest (Shbhuth), 1 and to hire laborers on the Sabbath is also prohibited only by rabbinical law. How then can one rabbinical law be supplemented by another of the same character? Hence I may say, that the Mishna refers to a Jewish neighbor and should be explained thus: A man must not commission him to hire laborers on Sabbath, but he may say to him, 'Come to me after dusk and we will do something together.' The Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehoshua ben Kar'ha, as we have learned elsewhere: A man must not say to his neighbor, 'I would like to see thee after dusk for the purpose of talking business,' and R. Jehoshua ben Kar'ha says he may do so, and Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan taught, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jeshoshua ben Kar'ha."
Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan said again: "What reason did R. Jehoshua ben Kar'ha have for saying so? Because it is written [Isaiah lviii. 13]: 'By not following thy own business, and speaking vain words.' It is not allowed to speak, but surely thinking is permitted!"
R. A'ha bar R. Huna asked Rabha concerning the following contradiction: "How can we say, R. Johanan states, that though it is not allowed to speak it is allowed to think; did not Rabba bar bar Hana say in the name of R. Johanan, that everywhere it is allowed to think, excepting in a bathhouse and a toilet-room, for where it is not allowed to speak of the Law it is also not allowed to think of it?" "In that case it is different, for it is written [Deuteronomy xxiii. 15]: 'Therefore shall thy camp be holy,' and a bathhouse and a toilet-room cannot be holy; hence thinking of the Law in those places is not allowed." Speaking of other things except the Law is not permitted (on Sabbath). Did not R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna both say, that it is allowed to count up charitable disbursements on Sabbath; and R. Elazar say, that one may figure out amounts to be distributed among the poor (on Sabbath); and R. Jacob bar Idi say
p. 348
in the name of R. Johanan, that all things pertaining to the saving of human beings or the affairs of the community maybe discussed on Sabbath, and that it is allowed to go to the schoolhouses and call meetings for deliberation upon the community's business; and R. Samuel bar Nahmeni say in the name of R. Johanan, that even halls may be visited for the purpose of calling business meetings together; and the disciples of Menasseh say, that betrothal of daughters may be discussed and the advisability of choosing a profession for a child may be deliberated upon, on the Sabbath? The passage cited in the Law states, that "following thy business" is prohibited, but affairs sanctioned by Heaven may be discussed (and all the above affairs are pleasing to the Lord).
R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "Accounts concerning which advice is requested by others and which have no bearing upon one's own business may be figured on the Sabbath." The following Boraitha is cited in support of this: "Accounts of disbursements in the past and of future expenditures must not be calculated on the Sabbath; but such as are of no importance, and concerning which advice was asked, may be calculated. Is the following Boraitha not contradictory to the one cited? Accounts which are of no importance at all may be calculated on Sabbath, but not such as are of importance." How so? A man may say to his neighbor, "I have hired so much labor to cultivate a certain field," or "I have expended so many Dinars on such a dwelling," but be must not say, "I have expended so much and must expend so much more." (The contradiction arises from the fact that in the previous Boraitha it is prohibited to calculate disbursements made in the past, while in the last Boraitha it is permitted.) But according to your opinion, why not cite the contradiction occurring in the previous Boraitha itself; viz.: Firstly, it is said that disbursements of the past must not be calculated, and then, that accounts of no value may be figured? This presents no contradiction at all (neither in the previous Boraitha itself, nor from one to the other). If the disbursements of the past have already been made and nothing is owing, then the accounts of same are of no value and may be spoken of on the Sabbath; but if any amount of such expenditures is still due, then it becomes an important account and must not be discussed.
"One must not stand at the extreme limit of the 'techoom,'" etc. The rabbis taught: It once happened that the fence of the
p. 349
field belonging to a pious man was broken, and noticing it on a Sabbath, he was about to mend it, when he recollected that it was Sabbath; so he left it. A miracle occurred, and kaffir-corn began to sprout in the place of the broken fence and furnished him and his family with their sustenance. R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "A man may say to his neighbor, 'Tomorrow I intend to go to a certain town.' Why may he say this? Because, if there are huts on the road to that town at distances of seventy ells apart, he may even go on Sabbath; hence, though there be no huts on the road, he may say that he intends going on the morrow."
An objection was made, based upon our Mishna; viz.: "One must not stand at the extreme limit of the techoom and wait for dusk in order to hire laborers or gather fruit." It would be quite right, if the hiring of laborers only was concerned; for a thing which must not be done on Sabbath must not be waited for at the techoom; but as for gathering fruit, if there were walls around the town, that would be permitted? Why, then, should it be prohibited to wait at the techoom until dusk? This may refer to fruit which was still attached to the ground (and could not be gathered on Sabbath even if the town had walls). How can this be said? Have we not learned that R. Oshea taught: "One must not wait at the techoom to bring straw and chaff." It would be correct concerning straw which is still attached to the ground; but how can this apply to chaff? This may refer to chaff which is used to mix with loam, and hence was designated for building purposes.
Another objection was made! Come and hear: We have learned in the succeeding Mishna, that nightfall may be awaited at the techoom in the case of a bride and corpse; hence for other purposes one must not await nightfall at the techoom. It would be quite right if it said, in the case of things pertaining to a bride, for instance to cut off a myrtle-branch; but what things can be done pertaining to a corpse? Only the bringing of the coffin and the shroud? Why, then, should a man not be allowed to bring things which are the equivalent of the necessaries pertaining to a corpse? for if there were walls surrounding the town, he would be allowed to bring them. Why, then, should he not be permitted to wait at the techoom for the purpose of bringing them? Because the case may be, that things (as shrouds) pertaining to the corpse were not already prepared, but must be cut.
p. 350
"But if watching fruit beyond the techoom, he may await the dusk," etc. May he do this even if he had not yet recited the Habhdalah prayer? Why! R. Elazar ben Antignous said in the name of R. Elazar ben Jacob, that a man must not transact his business at the close of Sabbath, before reciting the Habhdalah prayer. And if it be that he said the Habhdalah prayer while reciting the evening prayer, did not R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel say, that even if a man included the Habhdalah prayer in the evening prayer, he must say it again over the goblet of wine? Should it then be said, that he said the prayer over the goblet also; how could he have done that in a field? This case refers to the time of wine-pressing (when it is possible to obtain a goblet of wine even in the field); such is the explanation of R. Nathan bar Ami to Rabh. Said R. Aba to R. Ashi: "In the West (Palestine) we simply say the benediction, 'Blessed be he, etc., who distinguishes between holy and ordinary days,' and go right to work." And R. Ashi said: "When we were in the house of R. Kahana, he would pronounce the same benediction, and we would go and chop wood."
"Abba Saul laid down the rule," etc. Concerning what clause of the Mishna does Abba Saul lay down this rule? Shall we assume that he refers to the first clause of the Mishna, which decrees, that one must not stand at the extreme limit of the techoom and wait for dusk, and thus applies his rule? Then, instead of saying, "Whatever I am permitted to prepare," etc., he should have said in the negative, "Whatever I am not permitted to say to another man he should do for me, I must not wait at the techoom to do myself." If we assume, however, that the rule refers to the latter clause of the Mishna, namely, "but if watching fruit, he may await the dusk," etc., then Abba should have applied his rule to the contrary; viz.: "Whatever I am permitted to wait for at the techoom, I may tell another man to do for me." Abba Saul applies his rule to the latter clause of the Mishna, and he refers to the following dictum of R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel, viz.: "A man may say, to his neighbor: 'Watch my fruit which is in your vicinity, and I will watch such of yours as is in my vicinity.'" This is commented upon by Abba Saul, addressing the first Tana as follows: "You certainly admit that a man may say to his neighbor, 'Watch my fruit in thy vicinity and I will watch thine in my vicinity.' Now, say, 'Whatever I am permitted to tell my neighbor to do, I am also permitted to wait for at the techoom
p. 331
to do it myself.'" What does Abba Saul intend to supplement by laying down a rule? He means to add what was taught by the rabbis, as follows:
One must not wait at the techoom to bring home a stray animal; but if it is seen from the limits of the techoom, it may be called, so that it will come to within the techoom by itself. To this Abba Saul applied the rule, that if one may call to the animal, he may also wait at the techoom limits until dusk and bring it in himself. A man may also wait at the techoom limits to forward what is necessary for a bride; and also what is necessary for a corpse, to bring a coffin and shrouds for him; and we may say to him: "Go to a certain place and take it; and if thou dost not find it in that place, go to another place; and if thou canst not buy it for one hundred Zuz buy it for two hundred." R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah said: "One must not specify the amount the necessaries are to be bought for, but merely say, 'If thou canst not get it for little money, get it for more.'"
MISHNA: One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter. If a Gentile brought mourning fifes on the Sabbath, an Israelite must not play (mourn) on them, unless they be brought from the vicinity. If a coffin had been made and a grave dug for him (on the Sabbath), an Israelite may be buried therein; but if it was done on purpose for an Israelite, he must not at any time be buried therein.
GEMARA: What does the Mishna mean by saying, "unless they be brought from the vicinity"? Rabh said: "By that is meant a place within sight, where one is positive that it was within the limits of the techoom." Samuel said: "Even if it is not positively known that they came from within the limits of the techoom, but where it is presumed that such is the case, the fifes may be used." Our Mishna seems to be in accord with Samuel's explanation, because it says in the next clause, "If a coffin had been made and a grave dug for him, an Israelite may be buried therein," and it does not say positively that the two things were done for a Gentile; hence we see, that where an object is doubtful, we may presume that it is allowed. Thus in the case of the fifes, if there is a doubt as to whence they were brought, they may nevertheless be used by an Israelite. We have learned in a Boraitha, however, a support to Rabh's opinion; viz.:
p. 352
A city which contains both Israelites and Gentiles, and there is a bathhouse there which is heated on the Sabbath, if the majority of the inhabitants are Gentiles an Israelite may go there immediately after sunset on the Sabbath. If there are more Israelites than Gentiles there, the Israelite must wait the length of time required to heat water afresh before going to the bathhouse; and the same is the case in a city where there is an equal number of Jews and Gentiles. (This is a support to Rabh, because, though it is doubtful whether the bath was heated for a Jew or a Gentile, still, the Israelite must wait.) R. Jehudah. said: "If the capacity of the bath be limited (so that water be heated quickly) and a notable man be present, the Israelite need not wait." What is meant by a notable man? Said R. Jehudah in the name of R. Itz'hak the son of R. Jehudah: "If there was a man present who had ten servants, who could heat ten jars of water at the same time, an Israelite might go and bathe himself." 1
"If a coffin had been made and a grave dug for him," etc. Why should we not wait until the length of time in which a new grave can be dug elapses? Said Ula: "This refers to a paved way, where a grave is seldom dug for an Israelite (hence it must have been dug for a Gentile)." What can be said in reference to the coffin? Said R. Abuha: "If the coffin lie on the same grave."
MISHNA: One may do all that is necessary for a corpse (on Sabbath), anoint and wash it, provided he does not dislocate its limbs. The pillow may be moved from under its head; the corpse may be put on sand, in order to keep it (from putrefying) the longer; its jaws may be tied, not for the sake of bringing them together more closely, but to prevent them from dropping lower. In like manner, a beam that had been broken may be upheld by a stool or bedstead, not in order to make it erect again, but to keep it from breaking still more.
GEMARA: Did not R. Jehudah. in the name of Samuel say, that it once happened that a disciple of R. Meir, while entering behind his master into the bathhouse, wished to rinse off a place for his master to sit down, and his master would not permit it; so he wanted to grease the steps with oil, but the master said that the floor must not be oiled? Hence we see, that a thing which must not be handled must not be anointed or
p. 353
washed. How then is it permitted to wash and anoint a corpse? If the floor of a bathhouse be allowed to be washed, there is fear lest another floor will be washed also (and thus smoothen any holes which may be in the floor); but a corpse and a floor cannot be confounded, and it is allowed to wash and anoint a corpse out of respect to the dead.
What is meant to be supplemented by "all that is necessary for a corpse"? They meant to add what was taught by the rabbis; viz.: One may bring vessels for cooling the corpse, or iron vessels may be put on the belly of the corpse to keep it from swelling, and one may stop up any holes in the corpse to keep the air from entering."
MISHNA: One must not close the eyes of the dead on the Sabbath, nor (even) on the week-day, while he is expiring. Whoever closes the eyes of a dying person the instant he expires, is equal to the man who sheds blood ('like a murderer).
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Who closes the eyes of a dying man is like a murderer, for it is the same as a candle which is about to go out. If a man lays a finger on the flame, it immediately becomes extinguished, but if left alone would still burn for a little time. The same can be applied to the case of an expiring man; if his eyes were not closed, he would live a little longer, and hence it is like murder.
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "One who wishes that the eyes of a corpse should close, should inject wine into the nostrils of the corpse and anoint the eyelids with a little oil, and then pull the big toes of the feet, when the eyelids will close of themselves."
We have learned in another Boraitha: "One should violate the Sabbath even for a child of one day, if it still have life; but for a corpse, even be it that of David, King of Israel, the Sabbath must not be violated." The reason for this is: For a child of even one day, the Sabbath should be violated, saith the Thorah, in order that it may keep many Sabbaths in the future; but David, King of Israel, when dead, can keep no more commandments. This is in accord with the saying of R. Johanan; viz. It is written [Psalms lxxxviii. 6]: "Free among the dead," etc. which means, that when a man is dead, he is free from keeping any commandments.
We have also learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Elazar said: A child of a day need not be guarded from the attacks of cats and dogs, but even when Og the King of Bashan is dead he
p. 354
must be guarded, as it is written [Genesis ix. 2]: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth," etc. Hence, as long as a man lives, the beasts are in dread of him; but as soon as he is dead, the fear is destroyed.
We have learned in another Boraitha: R. Simeon ben Elazar said: As long as thou canst, practise charity: as long as thou hast the opportunity and as long as it is in thy hands. For Solomon said in his wisdom [Ecclesiastes xii. 1]: "But remember also thy Creator in the days of thy youthful vigor, while the evil days (meaning old age) are not yet come, nor those years draw nigh of which thou wilt say, I have no pleasure in them." By that is meant, the days of the Messiah, because at that time there will be neither rich nor poor: all will be rich (and no opportunity for charity will present itself). This differs with the teaching of Samuel, who says, that there is no difference between the present time and the days of Messiah, only that one is subject to the government at the present time, while then it will not be so, as it is written [Deut. xv. 11]: "For the needy will not cease out of the land."
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazar Hakappar said: A man should always pray for deliverance from poverty, although if he himself will not eventually come to poverty, his children or his grandchildren will, as it is written [Deut. xv. 11]: "For the needy will not cease out of the land, therefore do I command thee," etc. (The Hebrew term for "therefore" is "Biglal," and the school of Ishmael taught that Biglal is the equivalent of Galgal, meaning a "wheel," thus inferring, from that word, that poverty is like a wheel, always turning from one to the other.)
R. Joseph said: "There is a tradition extant, that a diligent young scholar will never become poor." But we see that he sometimes does become poor? Still, we have never seen one so poor that he had to beg his bread from house to house.
Said R. Hyya to his wife: "If thou seest a man about to beg bread from thee, hasten to give it to him, that he might at some other time do likewise for thy children." Said she to him: "Art thou cursing thy children?" "Nay; I am simply quoting the verse above, as interpreted by the school of Ishmael, that poverty is a wheel continually turning."
We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbon Gamaliel the Great 1
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
SoftTouch
Advanced Member
Member # 2316
|
posted
WOW Linda, I was composing my reply when you posted your... Amazing! ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
--------------------
Psalm 119:104Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Posts: 3465 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
SoftTouch
Advanced Member
Member # 2316
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by HisGrace:
Jesus admonishes them -
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
No, that was John the Baptist who admonished the Pharisees and Sadducees...
A little known fact is that many of the letter of the law that these religious leaders sought to 'uphold' were the Oral Traditions. These were 'laws' that were added in the "Talmud" (the Jewish book of oral traditions) which was written after the Babylonian captivity and this is when Kaballah entered into Judisim. Kaballah is Mystery Babylon (witchcraft/gnosticism/new age junk). I can see Why the Lord would call them a brood of vipers and tell them that they knew the way to salvation, but they didn't enter in, nor did they allow anyone else to. And yes, they were 'full of themselves' and 'exalted themselves' as righteous, but they had preverted God's Holy Word when they mixed it with Mysticism from Babylon.
--------------------
Psalm 119:104Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Posts: 3465 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Have you ever read the Talmud? It is a collection of all the oral teachings of rabbi... their interpretations, additions to and customs developed from reading the scripture and judging issues of daily life; it is amazing to read. The rabbi were not unlike our denominational leaders today...every one had an opinon, and few of them could agree on anything.
Instead of sticking to the scriptures alone, the pharisee used the scribes to research not only the scriptures but the plethora of rabbinical opinion and then the Pharisee made their decisions in the Sanheidren Court and in other situations where they were called to lead based on this research, choosing the opinions of the Rabbi that most closely suited their own ideas and understandings. One might agree with the teachings of another and neither being what the scripture teaches!
Sometimes I think that we misunderstand and think that Jesus admonished them for following the scripture. He did not! He admonished them for following the teachings of men above the teachings of the scripture and for not living themselves according to the scripture.
He also admonished them for thinking that their inheritance in the life to come was based on their circumcision and genealogy as the natural children of Abraham.
Indeed! The Pharisee do live still today and so their leaven of hipocracy, but I would venture that few who claim to see them among us really do.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
HisGrace
unregistered
|
posted
Pharisees: A Jewish religious party composed of the synagogue rabbis and their followers. They formed one of about two dozen Jewish religious groups during the 1st century.
We first hear about the Pharisees in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are only mentioned about a half dozen times in Acts and then only once again in Philippians.
"In the New Testament the Pharisees appear as Jesus' most vocal critics. Their insistence on ritual observance of the letter rather than the spirit of the law evoked strong denunciation by Jesus.
They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4).
From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people."
Jesus admonishes them -
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Bitter enemies of Jesus -
Matthew 9:34
But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."
Matthew 12:14
But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
They were immoral-
Matthew 23:13
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to go in.
Luke 11: 39 Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.
Prideful and legalistic-
Luke 6:7
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath.
Very Self-righteous -
Luke 18:11,12 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' -
~Paul was a converted Pharisee. He once opposed Jesus and went from town to town dragging people from their houses and threw them in jail, and many of them were put to death.
In Acts 26 he tells of how Jesus appeared to him in a vision and he was blinded on the road to Damascus. It led to his conversion and Jesus appointed him as his servant and witness to tell the Jews and Gentiles alike throughout the world of that day.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
