Controversy....here we go!

[fiberaddict]

I do a LOT of thinking while milking. Sometimes it's heavy, sometimes it's fluff....lately, it's been heavy.

It was sparked by something I read - I *think* in TorahClass, but I'm not sure - that said, basically, that the New Testament letters were never meant for publication, let alone being raised to the same level as the Tanakh (Old Testament). I read that, and paused, because...that's a heavy thought.

Then I read something else that said the NT letters were arranged longest to shortest, *just like the Prophets*. Um. No. In the Tanakh, the Prophets - heck the whole thing except for Torah! - is arranged *differently*. I think it's by date - which makes a heck of a lot of sense. The NT was arranged by the Catholic Church.......

So I've been thinking. And.....my thoughts are going to be very controversial to most. Comments WILL be welcomed - I don't delete anything except spam, so feel free! - but please keep it civil, OK? If you wouldn't say it in my physical living room, don't say it in my virtual one, OK?

:Deep breath:

What is Scripture? That's an easy one: Scripture is the Tanakh. It's what Christ meant when he said Scripture, it's what the Disciples meant. It's what is quoted in the NT, it sets up God's laws and explains how humans can meet with and have a relationship with God. It IS Holy.

The NT? The first 4 books are accounts of how Yeshua fulfilled the Scriptures, written by people contemporary with Him, and people who actually KNEW Him. Acts is the history of the early church, and shows that God didn't change between the OT and NT (Sapphira and Ananias, for example.) The rest? Personal letters from the Disciples and Paul to the early churches. Human advice......and I have come to the conclusion that they should NOT be raised to the same level as Scripture. Oh, and Revelation, which is from John, the LAST Disciple who actually walked with Yeshua...it's regulated to the end of the Bible. I kinda get that, as it's the last prophecy to a Disciple, and it's about the End Times....but it's dismissed in the modern church and not taught, while Romans is THE most important part of the NT (or seems to be.)

And Paul.....why is he so revered in the Christian world? He never met Yeshua - in fact he persecuted His followers! - and (and this is where I think most of the "worship" comes from) he was a Pharisee - a renowned Talmud scholar. Talmud is NOT Scripture, even though a lot of Jews hold it on the same level. Talmud is basically commentary (calling it Oral Torah doesn't cut it...Scripture doesn't mention Oral Torah, and what I've read of it (honestly not much)...it's just human commentary.)

I have the feeling that when Paul converted, he was immediately given "rock star" status...because of all his education. He was well versed in every aspect of Jewish law - and he quickly became the leader of the fledgling Christian church (and the Catholic Roman Church claims he was the first Pope (I think - I know they claim he was Christ's heir to the leadership of the church.)

Um. I have a MAJOR problem with this. Paul didn't KNOW Christ, some of what he wrote is in opposition to Torah (his view on circumcision, for example. Circumcision is a perpetual commandment per Torah. Paul says, no....you don't need the physical sign anymore, even though Torah says it's forever. I just....nevermind.)

Also - WHO arranged the Christian Bible? KJV, NIV - all of them are arranged the same way, which is different from the way the Jews have it. Ask yourself.....why? And again - who? (hint: the Catholic Roman Church, again.) Why did they choose THESE letters out of all the ones they had? And why did they cut those that they did? (There's at least 1 more Gospel out there that humans considered Not "Real".) Why is Paul given so much weight, and the Disciples that actually walked WITH Yeshua are given 2nd billing? And how much of what Paul wrote comes from Talmud instead of God?

Paul seems to add to Scripture an awful lot......and his words are taken to be - pardon the phrasing - Gospel Truth. I have a problem with that - and have for years.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this...but this is what I've been ruminating on lately. There's still a lot of stuff floating around...but I *needed* to get this out. Scripture is what we should be going by and studying; the NT is good reading, but I don't think it should be placed above Scripture. And, really - without Torah, you really don't understand the NT. You NEED that foundation before moving on...and most Christians don't have a good foundation. I have to ask myself why that is.....(I have a feeling I know, but......without anything to back it up, I won't mention it.)

Comments

I know, I know

[(Anonymous)]

I personally don't get it - but I have been doing some other study lately...I was on my Roku (oh yeah it was a father's day present for my husband...but..)
And I found on the Hebraic Roots network a teaching from Wildbranch about Paul. And after being called a Paul basher - I had to look it up and watch the silly video. I didn't want to fly off the handle - I want to examine all the options.

And here is some interesting things I found. (note: I am only half done with the study) The greek mindset had rooted so deep into the mindset of the first century people - the greek mindset being - gods are fickle and change their mood, the body is evil and the spirit is good. The gods do not care about your flesh because it is not your spirit - separation of religious commitment and worship has no place in the secular world. The OT God was a grumpy guy - but the NT guy is nice.
So here is a tip on how Paul got to be such a bad guy: Marcion of Sinope.
"Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of still only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, being a shorter and earlier version of the gospel which later became known as the Gospel of Luke, and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle, whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's dualism."

So basically an abundance of greek thinking was trying to be overcome by Paul - but still what the early church understood is not what we understand. The obvious references to daily activities - I think are lost and abused by modern interpreters. At the time it was clear - but WAY more greek thinking was passed down to our culture than Hebraic concepts. I want to write about this after I milk. But I am only 3/4 done with my study and I want to get to the end also so I don't go off half cocked.
I think my preliminary conclusion is this: Paul was not a bad guy - he did not know how his words would be manipulated. He does sound arrogant but I recently learned that is due to his home town of Tarsus. Which didn't mean much to me at first - but here is something about that city :Tarsus, a rich city on a well established trade route - on the south eastern section of what is now Turkey,once help over 200,000 books in it's library. It remained the civil and religious metropolis of a Roman Province, and was a grand city with palaces, marketplaces, roads and bridges, baths, fountains and waterworks, a gymnasium on the banks of the Cydnus, and a stadium.

So when Paul seemed to be being arrogant - maybe it was because he was from this super city. Like - look it here guys I come from the seat of World culture! I am RICH! I have knowledge - which would have raised his credentials in the eyes of the Greeks he was speaking to.

But I do agree with you about elevating his works to gospel - very dangerous. Mostly because we don't understand that the point of his books were to keep the greeks from arguing things to death - the greeks had a thing for seeing all sides of an issue but never reaching a conclusion. ~a

Re: I know, I know

[(Anonymous)]

and there I go blogging your comments - sorry about the typo's the comment box is too small to see it all at once... the library HELD books - not help books - sheesh.

Re: I know, I know

[fiberaddict]

I don't mind AT ALL! It helps me learn!

I don't think Paul was a bad guy.....but early Roman church leaders have elevated his words to a place I don' think they belong. And now I need to get on the Apple TV and hunt for Hebrew Roots....:lol:

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree, but won't argue - an interesting view, anyway. :) I think if we start cutting up the Word, we're going to cut pretty deeply indeed.

FWIW it's Peter who was the "First Pope", not Paul. Not sure about "leadership of the church" but I can ask a Catholic if you want? - H