Spiritual Fulfillment of Torah

[Sojeru]

we shall have to resume this next year...
on the same date and time concerning this subject...OR
when there is time to focus on the studying of other festivals.


I was singing like a cricket because no one has said anything for a nice long while....

but again, this will have to resume when there is time to study other chaggim
for now, I am studying Ani L'dodi V'dodi Li
and Yom Ha Kippurim
and Rosh Ha'Shannah (Yom Teruach)

so I have many festivals to study right now...

I just remembered the forums and decided to put up a reminder...
but as to your call of challenge--
It will be answered-
you can find the answers yourself too- all on your own and not need me to give it to you.
Only if you'd prefer my flavor

Shabua Tov! Semana Alegre!

[hyssop]

Sojeru,

I look forward to speaking with you next year . . .

[Gabriel]

The Myth of Paul the Tarsian

[QUOTE=hyssop]<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE=1>Matt 5 (KJV)</font><HR>[17]<FONT COLOR=RED> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. </font>[18]<FONT COLOR=RED> For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.</font><HR></blockquote>

Paul of Tarsus created the Jesus cult out of pure myth on the road to Damascus.

Paul said in Pillipians 1:18

18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in PRETENSE, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Paul of Tarsus made a man-god and cared not that lying to promote his new church was OKAY.

Paul forgot to mention that Jesus was a man with the usual activity of men. He defecated, urinated, masticated, created flatus and when cornered by Pontious Pilat ordered that those who would deny his godship should be brought before him and slain.

Real nice....

[ZeevBenyamin]

Hi Gabriel and everyone,

I just joined this forum because of a search I did. These are very interesting forums. I'm not sure how things will go here for me.

Non-the-less, I see Gabriels insistance on his claim to paul, but, in truth there is no validity in it once measured against a "return method"; which only means that we have to put a persons claims and arguments back in the place of history where it took place. This means the idioms used, the language used, the culture used.
In this line of thought it's clear that Paul never taught about a man-god as was taught within Xtianity and fringe cults. The gnostics themselves, the fathers of Xtianity, never believed in this idea either. So we know it didn't begin with Paul on a historical basis at least.
The idea of diefying a man, in this case a teacher from Nazareth, came about long after the "gospel" writers. So now we have to understand what kind of Jesus Paul was talking about if not a "man-god", surely not that he was any kind of diety at all.

Now, about the entire balogna about Jesus being whatever any of those things you have said is of medieval malignancy against the Xtian church's take of confiscating Talmuds and burning them because of the church's misunderstanding of who the identity of two different Yeishu's were- as they mistakenly thought the Talmud was refering to the teacher of nazareth. It was the church's own curse for not applying what I have opened my reply with; they did not apply this so-called "return method"; which is only a rule of literature and very much an important rule of Judaism. Though we can see its not an important rule of Xtianity which is also permeating some in the Jewish ranks, unfortunately.

Also, by my speech, it is easy to convey that I favour Jewish authority. So I will state that now less anyone remain confused as to my view and take.

peace,

Zeev

[hyssop]

Welcome, Zeev.

I'm curious about for what you were searching to get you here out of the thousands of potential sites. But, whatever it was, we're glad to have you. Also, your choice for your first post was a good one: "Spiritual Fulfillment of Torah." It is upon this principle that the gospel was rooted. Do you understand what I mean by the term "spiritual fulfillment of Torah?"

1 Cor 15:1-4 summarizes it very well. All that happened to the Messiah in his death, burial, and resurrection was in accordance with the Hebrew scriptures, some of them written more than 1,400 years before Yeshua was born.

[ZeevBenyamin]

Well, The mitzvoth are all spiritual, so no, I really cannot understand as to what you are getting at exactly.
As I understand it, one does these spiritual enactments, laws, and so on and so forth in this world, because there is no way that one can do it afterward. In other words, this physical world is our work place preparing our home, after we're done in this work place we are exactly that which we have worked for.

So, I would have to say that your saying is a little to ambiguous for me to understand what you would like to transmit. Would you care to restate?

Also, I do not understand how what the teacher of Nazareth has done, this alleged "death, burial, and ressurection" has any over-wheliming importancein the subject "spiritual fulfilment of Torah".

I do see that if one lives in a most honorable way to G-d, his death has meaning. Also, if he is burried according to Biblical Jewish Law ( as defined in the Talmud) then this burrial is also a fulfilment of Torah- a Spiritual one at that; because there is no commandment in Torah that is done without its "spiritual" application, and ressurection, indeed is also a fulfilment of Torah; in showing G-d's reward to the just and generous. And these have been done many times over throughout Jewish History.

So, I must ask to further clarify my question concerning the relation of the death, burial and ressurection of the teacher of Nazareth to the idea of Spiritual fulfilment, What greater significance does this bear on the subject? As far as I can read in the plain English of the alleged gospels, and to be more accurate- since the idea of death, burial and ressurection are never insinuated in the 4 gospels- in the "new testament", the death burial and ressurection only has a bearing on those people of the world (i.e. non-Jews) and those estranged Jews (who have also become "of the world"), like Timothy, that come to the obedience of Torah (in their respective applications- to the Jew belongs the obedience to all of the Torah, while to the non-Jew are prescribed the laws that G-d established with Noah to ultimately progress reasonably into the laws of the circumcision).

So 1) please restate and clarify your meaning of "spiritual fulfilment of Torah"? Because in my understanding you have stated something superfluous and unneeded. To say the fulfilment of Torah is already concise and understandable enough.
2) please restate how or what an alleged death, burial and ressurection of any person at that has on any kind of fulfilment of torah other than how they are applied? Which it would seem that you are insinuating.

Thanks and good week to you,
Zeev

[hyssop]

Zeev,

Yes, I agree with you that all of the mitzvot are spiritual. They are also physical. There is a physical keeping of the Torah and a spiritual keeping (or "fulfillment") of the Torah. This may be a new concept to you, but I hope to be able to explain it through our upcoming conversation.

First of all, I'd like to describe what Paul meant regarding Yeshua's fulfillment of scripture. In 1 Cor 15:1-4, Paul explains to the Corinthians that the gospel that he preached unto them was based on this concept of Yeshua's fulfillment of scripture in his death, burial, and resurrection. Somehow, in Yeshua's death, burial, and resurrection, he was carrying out what scripture (in particular, the Torah) demanded.

John, too, mentions this when he recounts his and Peter's trip to the tomb on that historic Sunday morning. In John 20, he describes how he and Peter ran to the tomb to find it empty. They went into the tomb, and they saw the linen that was wrapped around Yeshua laying there empty. Mind you, it hadn't been unwrapped as someone would have had to do if they stole the body; it was still all wrapped up laying flat and empty, in a state that could have only happened by Yeshua simply sitting up, passing through the linen just as he did through the closed door in John 20:26. When they saw those linens, they knew that he had risen from the dead. How exciting must that have been! But, John makes a parenthetical statement after he wrote about what they saw. He was pondering those events as he was writing them down and then said in John 20:9 - "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." His point was that, had he known the scripture that demanded Yeshua's resurrection, he wouldn't have had to run to the tomb and see those linens in order to believe that Yesua was risen. Wow! To what scripture was John referring? Where is the fundamental gospel being preached that indicates this scripture --- and the others that Paul eludes to in 1 Cor 15:3-4?

Without getting too long-winded here, I'll give you an example or two of what I'm talking about. John mentions in John 19:36 that, in order to fulfill scripture, Yeshua's legs were not broken. Well, there are two scriptures that come to mind:
1) Ps 34:19-20 "v19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. v20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
2) Num 19:12 "They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it."

So, herein lies the difference between physically keeping the Torah and spiritually keeping the Torah. Yeshua is our passover lamb (1 Cor 5:7) and yet he was not a physical lamb; he was the spiritual lamb of G~d (John 1:29;36). The Torah (and David) demands that the passover not have its bones broken. Therefore, had we been witnessing the crucifixion and the soldiers breaking the legs of those on the crosses, we could have said with confidence that Yeshua's legs would not be broken. Fulfillment of scripture is a powerful thing! It is the foundation upon which the gospel is established.

[ZeevBenyamin]

I can't say that I agree with your reasoning. I see it too Xtian too digest in any sound Torah reasoning. I am not saying that I reject the verses of the "new testament" that you have quoted; however, I do say that I reject your interpretation and reasoning on how it fulfills anything based on Torah. To me it only sounds like an unpractical theorical belief that no messiah could take part of.

Since I have studied Jewish literature rather extensively, I have concluded, with a commitee the following concerning what you have mentioned. You see, though john or Paul may have written their treatise the way they have- we know that from evidence in the alleged gospels and epistles note:

1) the teacher from nazareth speaks about the gospels as something that the people should already know about. And the way he speaks about it assumes nothing of the idea of a death, burial and ressurection of any kind of man or diety.
2)John could in no way be writing in a literal application of the Torah the life of his teacher. There is evidence that supports this from the very beginning of the book of John- and he speaks in very lofty concepts- not at all literal for the simple-minded layman but he wrote it to the "mystic" for lack of a better term. His alleged gospel is very metaphysical.
3) Paul writes to a variety of audiences, and his letters are exactly what they are epistles. In Judaism, since Paul is supported in the "new testament' to being learned in the pharisaic traditions, i dont doubt that he used their system of the pen to write epistles. A Jewish Epistle is formed by using many different kinds of literary levels. Some are literal, some within a letter are allegorical, some in the same letter is metaphorical and some in the very same letter may be metaphysical. However, most of this writting is penned in an allegorical level. So the literal understanding may not be what's inteded in an Epistle.

It's exactly how Smadewel mentioned somewhere in this forum that we are to put things back into its original historical context ni order to correctly understand its message.

To this and my current learning I cannot agree that what you hold here is that which these writers meant to say, knowing what baggage they came from.

Thus, what I am meaning to say is that from a reading face-value the words of these writers and taking these face-value arguments as the intended meaning, i cannot see a fulfilment physically or spiritually, both which come hand in hand.

In the end, it seems that we read these books in two different languages unreconcilable to come to a common ground.

[hyssop]

Zeev,

I believe that G~d will soon lift the veil from Israel's eyes, and they will see and understand what John and Paul have written. Israel will see Yeshua as their Meshiach and will stand as a witness to tell the Xtians that they have forsaken Yeshua's message of repentance and righteous works. Until then, may G~d bless your efforts.