"Torah" in a Christian forum means the books of the OT, as in the Tanakh, the first five books of the OT being the Pentateuch. Jesus, and Christians, rejects the oral traditions, not largely but outright:"Torah" in this context for me means the first five books of the OT, since Jesus largely rejected the oral Torah, like Nazarenes in Jerome's time said ("When Messiah came ... all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions").Please qualify that by Torah you mean "written Torah", the Old Testament, as I do.
In a Christian forum the Law is Mosaic Law, as "traditions" are of none effect. I'll edit my posts to make sure that I avoid the term Torah, and use the terms Tanahk for the OT and Pentateuch for its first 5 books for clarity, as there are no oral versions of them (I hope).And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:6-9 [KJV])
Jesus explains in Mark 7 that the Pharisees reject the commandment of God, that they keep their own traditions, the "traditions of men" , and John 8 adds they are "are of their father the devil".Jesus explains this in Mk. 7:9-13:
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:9 [KJV])
I see no approval of Paul's teaching in Acts, only penance for Paul. The author of Acts has a light touch: on the surface he must write to get Paul acquitted, but at the same time. he manages to condemn him to Christians (e.g. the Pythia).What you left out from Acts 21 above is how the "Jamesian church" responded to Paul's success among the Gentiles ("When they heard this, they glorified God"). In other words, they approved of Paul's Torah-free gospel for Gentiles, just like they do in Galatians.
You mistranslate the word Poor - the Ebion. The Jamesian church was not a mega-church, and rejected money it felt was unclean e.g. from Simon Magus and later Marcion,And where you see "costly penance," I see James making use of an important figure who was fresh into town with a collection of money for poor Christians (what were Paul's funds for if not for helping poor Christians like the ones in Acts 21?)
James was known for his simplicity, abstemiousness and piety. I suspect Marcion's heretical church was the first megachurch, which may be the precursor of about today's Marcionism2.0 megachurches.But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. (Acts 8:20-22 [KJV])
It is not the Jamesian church that moved to protect Paul from a lynch mob: it was 6 centuries of Roman soldiers and cavalry . Perhaps because he was a Herodian+Idumaean.and protecting him from thousands of zealous Jewish Christians by demonstrating his Torah observance (like he says he was willing to do in 1 Cor. 9:20).
The Crowleyism in Rom. 7:6 is anti-Shema and anti-monotheism and anti-Christian. Your arguments are duplitious introducing the Pharisees' oral law under the name of the Torah: I'll leave you to your duplicity.I am arguing that. Paul is interpreting the Torah in what he calls a "spiritual" way. If he was anti-Torah, he would have nothing to interpret, e.g., Rom. 7:7-14:I hope you aren't arguing that the Crowleyism in (Rom. 7:6) should be considered Torah observance - it's anti-Shema and the whole of Romans 7 is Marcian and anti-Christian.
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Sat Jan 13, 2024 8:41 am