Nazarene Space

1 Paul, an emissary; not from the sons of men, and not by the hand of a son of man, but
by the hand of Yeshua the Messiah, and Eloah His Father, who raised Him from among
the dead,
2 And all the brothers that are with me, to the assemblies that are in Galatia:
3 Favor and shalom be with you, from Eloah the Father and from our Adon Yeshua, the
Messiah,
4 Who gave His nefesh for our sins, that He might deliver us from this evil world
according to the will of Eloah the Father;
5 To Him be the glory forever and ever, Amen.
(Gal. 1:1-5 HRV)

Who were the Galatians?  They were a colony of Gauls.  Gauls had migrated from an area just north of the Assyrian Empire across Europe to the area we know today as France.  The HRV appendix map 1 shows the Ancient WOrld as known to the Hebrews.  You will see the land we know today as France was Gaul.  These Gauls were also known as Celts... they migrated across the English channel into the Brittish isles... thus the Celts spoke "Gealic".  According to Obadiah 1:20 the House of Israel would migrate to a place called Tzarfat... this is the Hebrew word for "France" in fact Rashi's commentary on Obadiah 1:20 says that this refers to France.  These "Gauls" were GAL-aeens who had been exiled by the Assyrians to the land north of Assyria,  As they passed through the area known now as Turkey they created a colony there called GAL-atia.  If one compares the openning of James and 1Kefa there is an obvious parallel.  One will notice that "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" in James is said in 1Kefa to include "Galatia".

So this letter is addressed to a group of Gauls, of lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Ok I will post more later as we go line by line through Galatians.


We need more of you to step up to the plate.


Is this work worthy of your support? What other ministry provides this kind of teaching?


I cannot do this alone, the work of WNAE is made possible by supporters like you. Your tithes and offerings make all of this work possible.



You can donate by going to the chip-in counter at http://www.nazarenespace.com or donations can be sent by paypal to donations@wnae.org

Donations can also be made out to “Nazarene Judaism” and sent to:

Nazarene Judaism
PO Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053

Views: 1184

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

11 See these writings I have written to you by my hands.
12 Those who want to boast in the flesh, urge you to be circumcised: only so that they
might not be persecuted for the gallows of Messiah.
13 For not even those that are circumcised keep the Torah, but they desire you to be
circumcised, that in your flesh they might boast.
14 But for me, I will have nothing to boast about, but in the gallows of our Adon Yeshua
the Messiah: that by Him, the world was crucified to me, and I was crucified to the world,
15 For circumcision is nothing nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
16 And those who follow this path, shalom and mercy be concerning them and
concerning the Yisrael of Eloah.
17 Thus do not let [any] man pour trouble upon me, for I bear the marks of our Adon
Yeshua the Messiah in my body.
18 The favor of our Adon Yeshua the Messiah be with your spirit, my brothers.
Amen.
(Gal. 6:11-18 HRV)

“Those who want to boast in the flesh” that is those who claim that salvation can be earned through the Works of the Law and Under the Law teachings which teach that one can earn salvation in part through circumcision. “urge you to be circumcised” remember as we discussed earlier, circumcision should be voluntary not compelled or urged. In verse 12 Paul tells us that those Messianic Essenes that are compelling Galatians to be circumcised are doing so because of peer pressure from Main-Line Essenes (who do not accept Yeshua as the Messiah) back home. “Those who want to boast in the flesh” that is those who claim that salvation can be earned through the Works of the Law and Under the Law teachings which teach that one can earn salvation in part through circumcision. “urge you to be circumcised” remember as we discussed earlier, circumcision should be voluntary not compelled or urged.

“For not even those that are circumcised keep the Torah” Paul argues that these men themselves violate Torah in other areas, no one is righteous, not one. In fact the very Essenes pressuring the Messianic Essenes who are compelling the Galatians to be circumcised in order to earn their salvation, are themselves violators of Torah because Torah requires the acceptance of Messiah (Deut. 18:18-19).

Verse 15 “For circumcision is nothing nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” Is often quoted apart from its context. Here Paul is merely summarizing his argument laid out throughout the letter, that circumcision does not earn salvation. Paul’s topic is Salvation and in terms of salvation “circumcision is nothing nor uncircumcision, but a new creation”. This does not mean that we should not get circumcised, only that we should not be compelled to be circumcised in some misguided effort to earn our own salvation.

Folks we have gotten in $20 but still need to raise another $185 by the end of the day today to cover that utility bill.
Today is the day to step up to the plate and support this work.


You can donate by going to the chip-in counter at http://www.nazarenespace.com; or donations can be sent by paypal to donations@wnae.org

Donations can also be made out to “Nazarene Judaism” and sent to:

Nazarene Judaism
PO Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053

---Would you be willing to change that assumption? Could or should Yahweh place a "tare" in the Bible for our benefit and His? If I could provide compelling evidence that Yahushua is referring to Paul when referring to what the enemy would do by planting "tares" among the "wheat", fulfilling the Word of the Messiah, would you be willing to discuss that "evidence"?


greg what do you exactly mean, that Paul sowed tares? can you please expound further if that is the case?

thanks ahead

Greg Olson said:
Hi James,

Would you consider discussing the "greater" assumption you are making about Galatians? Your premise is that Yahweh would not place a "tare teaching" in the Bible.

We know of Yahushua's parable of the wheat and tares, however, it is never considered by theologians, Christians, or most Messianics that it would be desirable and possible for Yahweh to intentially allow the enemy to plant "tares" into the Bible to test us.

Although I believe "Yahweh's Word" from his own mouth is infallible, I believe it is unreasonable to believe Paul, Saul, David, or any other man is infallible in their ability to interpret and explain the Word of Yahweh to us. As such, your premise in your writing about Galatians assumes that Paul is a true and infallible apostle of the Word and not a "Balaam" apostle. Would you be willing to change that assumption? Could or should Yahweh place a "tare" in the Bible for our benefit and His? If I could provide compelling evidence that Yahushua is referring to Paul when referring to what the enemy would do by planting "tares" among the "wheat", fulfilling the Word of the Messiah, would you be willing to discuss that "evidence"? Please let me know.

Greg
Second-guessing the words of the Bible and presuming to know better than it is the true "greater assumption", and it is completely false.
Were we to doubt the words of Paul, then we could doubt that the prophets wrote down the words of YHWH correctly, and that they were recorded faithfully through the years.
We could doubt Moses transcribed the words of YHWH and the 10 commandments correctly.
The same principle that makes Paul infallible, is the same principle that makes YHWH and ANY part of His word (the Bible) infallible.

Job thought he knew better than God, that he could judge God and His words - but he could not.

Yaqov / James 4:11
"When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it."

YHWH has preserved His people through the ages, and though small and vulnerable, they have never been destroyed, and never been invaded/attacked outside of His plan.
YHWH did not allow a single bone in Yeshua's body to be broken, outside of His plan and timeframe.
YHWH has preserved and protected His words.
Greg,

I have to disagree -- seeing the Bible as perfect is in fact a sign of faith in God's direct action of preserving and maintaining it's security and sanctity, and it thus glorifies Him, and we therefore praise Him for this action He has performed.

Paul, as well as Yeshua, are allowed to paraphrase Scripture, and they did so often - Paul "dropping the 'my' in a quote" is not really a good argument.
You could have mentioned the apparently conflicting accounts of King Shaul's and Judas Iscariot's death, in which case I would have to quote:

Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

I take this to mean YHWH purposely obscures certain matters, I think you agree with me on that one, but I certainly do not see the Bible as less perfect, nor do I find anything to indicate we are legitimately allowed to second-guess Scripture and believe we can pick and choose what to believe, presuming to know better than the inspired, inerrant word of God.

Greg Olson said:
Christian,
You identify some valid dynamics of the mind if one holds the Bible as an idol and believes it is "perfect". The Bible has contradictions, such as Paul dropping the pronoun "My" in Hab 2:4. In those cases in which man has changed Yahweh's Word or has done a midrash that is inaccurate, then we ignore the tares in the Bible and eat only the wheat. I hold the actual Word of Yahweh as infallible, as well as His Son. Yahweh expects us to use His Spirit to discern where man has changed His Word. Yahweh is glorified by contrasting imperfect man (tares) with His perfect Word (wheat). To proclaim the Bible is perfect brings glory to man and not Yahweh. It turns the Bible itself into an idol that is worsipped. Greg Christian said:
Second-guessing the words of the Bible and presuming to know better than it is the true "greater assumption", and it is completely false.
Were we to doubt the words of Paul, then we could doubt that the prophets wrote down the words of YHWH correctly, and that they were recorded faithfully through the years.
We could doubt Moses transcribed the words of YHWH and the 10 commandments correctly.
The same principle that makes Paul infallible, is the same principle that makes YHWH and ANY part of His word (the Bible) infallible.

Job thought he knew better than God, that he could judge God and His words - but he could not.

Yaqov / James 4:11
"When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it."

YHWH has preserved His people through the ages, and though small and vulnerable, they have never been destroyed, and never been invaded/attacked outside of His plan.
YHWH did not allow a single bone in Yeshua's body to be broken, outside of His plan and timeframe.
YHWH has preserved and protected His words.
From my Hebraic Roots Commentary on Matthew at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

22:37 You shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your nefesh and with all your might (Deut. 6:4) The Greek wrongly quotes this passage with “all your mind” in place of “all your might” while the Hebrew and Old Syriac Aramaic read correctly with Deut. 6:4. The Greek may have misread the Aramaic word (found in the Old Syriac) CHET-YUD-LAMED-KUF ”your might” as HEY-VAV-NUN-KUF ”your mind”. However the Peshitta Aramaic also has “your mind” but the Aramaic word it uses is RESH-AYIN-YUD-NUN-KUF ”your mind”. ...

Also From my Hebraic Roots Commentary on Matthew at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

27:5 and hanged himself with a halter.

On the surface there is an apparent contradiction between Matt. 27:5 and Acts 1:18

And he cast the thirty pieces of silver into the Temple, and hanged himself with a halter.(Matt. 27:5)

This is he who purchased for himself a field from the reward of sin and fell on his face upon the ground and burst from his middle, and all his bowels poured out.(Acts 1:18)

To begin with, it is important to note that it was not customary to detach the body of a hanged man down from a tree before burial, as the following passage from the Talmud tells us:

Our Rabbis taught: [Then thou shalt hang him on] a tree: this I might understand as meaning either a cut or a growing tree; therefore Scripture states, Thou shalt surely bury him: [thus, it must be] one that needs only burial, so excluding that which needs both felling and burial. R. Jose said; [It must be] one that needs only burial, thus excluding that which requires both detaching and burial. And the Rabbis? — Detaching is of no consequence.
(b.San. 46b)

This section of Talmud is debating whether an execution by hanging was to be carried out on a “growing tree” or a “cut” tree (gallows). Certain Rabbis argued that gallows are implied because the Torah refers to burial of the man, but does not mention felling the tree or detaching the man from the tree. The Rabbis pointed out that “detaching is of no consequence” meaning that it was non necessary to detach the corpse from the “tree” before burial.

In fact, due to purity laws discouraging contact with a corpse, rather than detach the corpse at all, it was the custom to cut the tree down, corpse and all. Maimonides comments on this custom saying that the tree was cut down and buried with the body:

In order that it should not serve as a sad reminder,
people saying: “This is the tree in which so and so
was hanged.”
(Maimonides, Sanhedrin, XV, 9)

Y’hudah (Judas) hanged himself with a halter (Mt. 27:5). By the time his body was discovered, his belly was either distended or bloated. Following the normal custom, the tree in which he hanged himself was cut down, with his body still attached, with intent of burying them both together. When the tree was cut down he fell on his face upon the ground and burst from his middle, and all his bowels poured out (Acts 1:18).
Galatians only summarizes the story, certainly does not give us enough info to second guess Paul.

Greg Olson said:
James and whoever,

When we read about Paul publicly accusing Peter of wrongdoing in Galations chapter 2, should we accept his testimony on the basis of his letter alone without hearing Peter's side of the situation? Don't we need more than one witness to condemn someone of wrongdoing? Peter did not agree with Paul and his accusation, otherwise, Paul would have written, "Peter agreed with me."

Secondly, Paul reads "motive" into Peter's heart for withdrawing from the Gentiles, accusing him of "fearing" what others might think of him, a subjective conclusion from Paul, but Peter does not confirm his conclusion. Rather, Peter just walked away from Paul, apparently, in silence. If that is what happened, what do we do with the accusation of Paul? Do we believe it?

Isn't Paul technically "talebearing" contrary to Torah and breaking the laws of love? What if Peter withdrew because the brethren (the Jews) told him the food they were eating was sacrificed to idols, but Paul didn't take the time to know the real reason for Peter withdrawing, but misjudged him, since Paul didn't have a problem with eating food from the marketplace that was offered to idols?

If we believe Paul's accusation without another witness, and without hearing Peter's side of the story, are we not breaking Torah for listening to a talebearer?
Also our reading it is harmless to the fact. The event occurred in public as well as the rebuke, none of it was ever private information. I believe Kefa acknowledged and repented, thus Paul had acted properly in stoping a Sin that was occurring rather than allowing it to continue so he could address it privately later, damage was being done.



James Trimm said:
Galatians only summarizes the story, certainly does not give us enough info to second guess Paul. Greg Olson said:
James and whoever,

When we read about Paul publicly accusing Peter of wrongdoing in Galations chapter 2, should we accept his testimony on the basis of his letter alone without hearing Peter's side of the situation? Don't we need more than one witness to condemn someone of wrongdoing? Peter did not agree with Paul and his accusation, otherwise, Paul would have written, "Peter agreed with me." Secondly, Paul reads "motive" into Peter's heart for withdrawing from the Gentiles, accusing him of "fearing" what others might think of him, a subjective conclusion from Paul, but Peter does not confirm his conclusion. Rather, Peter just walked away from Paul, apparently, in silence. If that is what happened, what do we do with the accusation of Paul? Do we believe it?

Isn't Paul technically "talebearing" contrary to Torah and breaking the laws of love? What if Peter withdrew because the brethren (the Jews) told him the food they were eating was sacrificed to idols, but Paul didn't take the time to know the real reason for Peter withdrawing, but misjudged him, since Paul didn't have a problem with eating food from the marketplace that was offered to idols?

If we believe Paul's accusation without another witness, and without hearing Peter's side of the story, are we not breaking Torah for listening to a talebearer?
"When we read about Paul publicly accusing Peter of wrongdoing in Galations chapter 2, should we accept his testimony on the basis of his letter alone without hearing Peter's side of the situation? Don't we need more than one witness to condemn someone of wrongdoing?"

Double standard.

Why should we trust that Samuel was justified in killing king Agag?
Shouldn't we hear king Agag's story?

And why should we trust that Yeshua was without sin?
OF COURSE the bible is going to say that.
Same principle.
Why would you trust that Peter was a chosen, righteous apostle to begin with?
The same faith that makes us believe Paul was.

Greg Olson said:
Christian,
Agag was not an Apostle who lived with the Messiah, but Peter was.
Greg


Christian said:
"When we read about Paul publicly accusing Peter of wrongdoing in Galations chapter 2, should we accept his testimony on the basis of his letter alone without hearing Peter's side of the situation? Don't we need more than one witness to condemn someone of wrongdoing?"

Double standard.

Why should we trust that Samuel was justified in killing king Agag?
Shouldn't we hear king Agag's story?

And why should we trust that Yeshua was without sin?
OF COURSE the bible is going to say that.
"Although the New Testament writings are helpful in many instances, they are not to upstage the Tanakh. We find the gospels were written *after Paul* started writing down his doctrines in epistles. The historical evidence suggests that the authors were not the Apostles themselves."

What size is your NT canon?
Do you discount all the epistles as being fully inspired?

I see you're familiar with Paul's epistles being the earliest NT writings we have today?
Paul was the ringleader of the Nazarenes, and we therefore must adhere to him.
Paul's letters are canonical, and will remain so.
Paul teaches us to keep the Torah, and to have faith in the Messiah, for this is the way, and the truth, and the life.

Dismissing Paul based on the justifications given so far, seem to me to be appealing to a principle of being able to know better than the Scriptures, a very dangerous path.
James, this teaching was awesome. Can you let us know when you have a booklet ready? I'm going to compel my wife read it. Or perhaps I should let her do it out of love :)
When I, myself, act compassionately, fairly, openly, and appropriately in such a situation, hasn't the story served its purpose?

Greg Olson said:
James,

It's an assumption that Peter agreed with Paul. It assumes Yahweh doesn't put "tares" in the Bible to test us. The text does not say Peter repented of anything. The conclusion is based on one witness, Paul. To think Peter would withdraw from the table based on the reasons Paul gives, in my opinion, is unreasonable and boarders on the absurd. Based on Paul's emotional reactions to make judgments based on feelings, and not facts, which is clear from his writings, he more likely misjudged Peter, rather than Peter committing such a gross error/sin that he claims. So the issue is that if Peter just walked away, then what Paul did was talebearing and our reading his accusations about Peter is much more than "harmless".

Greg

James Trimm said:
Also our reading it is harmless to the fact. The event occurred in public as well as the rebuke, none of it was ever private information. I believe Kefa acknowledged and repented, thus Paul had acted properly in stoping a Sin that was occurring rather than allowing it to continue so he could address it privately later, damage was being done.



James Trimm said:
Galatians only summarizes the story, certainly does not give us enough info to second guess Paul. Greg Olson said:
James and whoever,

When we read about Paul publicly accusing Peter of wrongdoing in Galations chapter 2, should we accept his testimony on the basis of his letter alone without hearing Peter's side of the situation? Don't we need more than one witness to condemn someone of wrongdoing? Peter did not agree with Paul and his accusation, otherwise, Paul would have written, "Peter agreed with me." Secondly, Paul reads "motive" into Peter's heart for withdrawing from the Gentiles, accusing him of "fearing" what others might think of him, a subjective conclusion from Paul, but Peter does not confirm his conclusion. Rather, Peter just walked away from Paul, apparently, in silence. If that is what happened, what do we do with the accusation of Paul? Do we believe it?

Isn't Paul technically "talebearing" contrary to Torah and breaking the laws of love? What if Peter withdrew because the brethren (the Jews) told him the food they were eating was sacrificed to idols, but Paul didn't take the time to know the real reason for Peter withdrawing, but misjudged him, since Paul didn't have a problem with eating food from the marketplace that was offered to idols?

If we believe Paul's accusation without another witness, and without hearing Peter's side of the story, are we not breaking Torah for listening to a talebearer?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service