Paul was chosen by Jesus, he was permanently changed in that moment. Interesting how people to claim Paul was "stealing" Jesus' message and changing it for himself, they look at his life as Pharisee as all he ever was, apparently no one is ever allowed to change.
One could argue that he always knew his Lord, he just didn't know that the same was this Jesus he was persecuting. Jesus made that clear to him on the road to Damascus, long time ago.....
Same could be true of any Jewish person today, it's always possible. I once had this discussion with a Jewish person in rabbinical school & at some point she realized that this Jesus I spoke about could be the Messiah. I guess there are 2 versions of the Messiah in their tradition. Most of the time they speak of the Davic Messiah who is a victorious figure but she explained that there is also mention of what she called a "Machiac ben Yo-off. (or something like that) who is a more tragic figure, like Jesus
She charged me not to tell anyone that she said that though. I guess there is fear in their community about that.
Inspoken’s comment is exactly where I was going with mine.
Thank you for the clear wording.
In synagogues, they refuse to teach Isaiah 53, because it gets too obvious, and they “don’t want people to get confused.”
Don’t worry, though, it’s definitely not only Jews who can be stiff-necked. It’s very much a human condition.
The conflict between Judaism and Christianity is a very interesting one. It shouldn’t exist, but Satan is astoundingly good at deception. He’s got both sides off course. We truly all have to humble ourselves and look to the scriptures.
You want it to get really fun? The Muslims claim that the Torah is authoritative and claim Jesus is the greatest prophet. Should they be on our side, too? No idea! There may be a huge conversion movement to Christianity underway within their ranks, though, if some things I’ve seen are real. One big thing that keeps them from converting is Trinitarian doctrine, which may or may not be correct, but are we actually correct about the scriptural basis for it, or is it a doctrine of men?
First and foremost, please don’t understand anything I’m saying as a denial of Trinitarianism. I personally see accepting Yeshua as atoning sacrifice and doorway to grace, and acceptance of Trinitarian Doctrine, as two entirely separate things. Nor do I see non-claimance of Trinitarianism as definitive truth as denial of it. I suspect it’s one of those things that, if it is correct, we may only learn once we know in full.
What I am pointing at, however, is it’s state of potentially being a stumbling block, which we also aught not be placing. Neither John 1:1-18 (which is a verse I truly love),
nor Luke 3:21-22, nor Matt 28:19, nor 2 Corinthians 13:14, nor even other verses such as Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, Matthew 16:27, John 12:50 confirm, infallibly, the “coequal” or “coeternal” or “consubstantial” aspects of the Trinitarian doctrine, which as best as I know it was not taught as truth until the Council of Nicea in 325.
It’s not that it may not be true, it’s that it’s not firmly based in scripture in both Old and New Testaments, and thus is a doctrine of men. Worth noting is that since Christianity adopted it, Jews also commonly hold it against Us when it comes to accepting Moshiach.
Matthew 18:7.
We know that the doctrine was not in the earliest church, because we know it was explicitly created later, and we should be of utmost caution in approaching Revelation 22:18 / Deuteronomy 4:2.
Again, this is not a claim that it’s wrong, necessarily, it’s a strong caution and questioning of our authority to assert it, inerrantly.
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace
1 Corinthians 14:33
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD
Leviticus 19:14
It creates stumbling blocks within other groups who acknowledge the Old Testament as authoritative, and it creates confusion within those who are not of the faith (something that is regularly caveated with “it has to be taken as a divine mystery” should probably not be taught as dogmatic truth), both of which are commanded to be avoided, while not creating anything fruitful toward godly outcomes.
It’s also worth noting that Hinduism also worships a holy trinity of Mahavedi - Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva - the Generator, Operator, and Destroyer. Are we absolutely certain that the concept of a trinity didn’t stem from that?
Don’t take my word for any of this. I do not believe I can claim that the trinity is false, or blasphemy, of idolatry. Certainly not with doubtless confidence. My point is only that this concept needs to be humbly and dispassionately, but intensely, examined, before proclaiming it as definitive Truth, especially given some of the outcomes we do see from doing so. Do let this turn on an alert light that sparks further investigation against the scriptures with a childlike, earnest heart.
We should always test everything and hold fast to what is good. Peace to you.
Paul was chosen by Jesus, he was permanently changed in that moment. Interesting how people to claim Paul was "stealing" Jesus' message and changing it for himself, they look at his life as Pharisee as all he ever was, apparently no one is ever allowed to change.
One could argue that he always knew his Lord, he just didn't know that the same was this Jesus he was persecuting. Jesus made that clear to him on the road to Damascus, long time ago.....
Same could be true of any Jewish person today, it's always possible. I once had this discussion with a Jewish person in rabbinical school & at some point she realized that this Jesus I spoke about could be the Messiah. I guess there are 2 versions of the Messiah in their tradition. Most of the time they speak of the Davic Messiah who is a victorious figure but she explained that there is also mention of what she called a "Machiac ben Yo-off. (or something like that) who is a more tragic figure, like Jesus
She charged me not to tell anyone that she said that though. I guess there is fear in their community about that.
Inspoken’s comment is exactly where I was going with mine.
Thank you for the clear wording.
In synagogues, they refuse to teach Isaiah 53, because it gets too obvious, and they “don’t want people to get confused.”
Don’t worry, though, it’s definitely not only Jews who can be stiff-necked. It’s very much a human condition.
The conflict between Judaism and Christianity is a very interesting one. It shouldn’t exist, but Satan is astoundingly good at deception. He’s got both sides off course. We truly all have to humble ourselves and look to the scriptures.
You want it to get really fun? The Muslims claim that the Torah is authoritative and claim Jesus is the greatest prophet. Should they be on our side, too? No idea! There may be a huge conversion movement to Christianity underway within their ranks, though, if some things I’ve seen are real. One big thing that keeps them from converting is Trinitarian doctrine, which may or may not be correct, but are we actually correct about the scriptural basis for it, or is it a doctrine of men?
First and foremost, please don’t understand anything I’m saying as a denial of Trinitarianism. I personally see accepting Yeshua as atoning sacrifice and doorway to grace, and acceptance of Trinitarian Doctrine, as two entirely separate things. Nor do I see non-claimance of Trinitarianism as definitive truth as denial of it. I suspect it’s one of those things that, if it is correct, we may only learn once we know in full.
What I am pointing at, however, is it’s state of potentially being a stumbling block, which we also aught not be placing. Neither John 1:1-18 (which is a verse I truly love), nor Luke 3:21-22, nor Matt 28:19, nor 2 Corinthians 13:14, nor even other verses such as Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, Matthew 16:27, John 12:50 confirm, infallibly, the “coequal” or “coeternal” or “consubstantial” aspects of the Trinitarian doctrine, which as best as I know it was not taught as truth until the Council of Nicea in 325.
It’s not that it may not be true, it’s that it’s not firmly based in scripture in both Old and New Testaments, and thus is a doctrine of men. Worth noting is that since Christianity adopted it, Jews also commonly hold it against Us when it comes to accepting Moshiach.
Matthew 18:7.
We know that the doctrine was not in the earliest church, because we know it was explicitly created later, and we should be of utmost caution in approaching Revelation 22:18 / Deuteronomy 4:2.
Again, this is not a claim that it’s wrong, necessarily, it’s a strong caution and questioning of our authority to assert it, inerrantly.
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace 1 Corinthians 14:33
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD Leviticus 19:14
It creates stumbling blocks within other groups who acknowledge the Old Testament as authoritative, and it creates confusion within those who are not of the faith (something that is regularly caveated with “it has to be taken as a divine mystery” should probably not be taught as dogmatic truth), both of which are commanded to be avoided, while not creating anything fruitful toward godly outcomes.
It’s also worth noting that Hinduism also worships a holy trinity of Mahavedi - Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva - the Generator, Operator, and Destroyer. Are we absolutely certain that the concept of a trinity didn’t stem from that?
Don’t take my word for any of this. I do not believe I can claim that the trinity is false, or blasphemy, of idolatry. Certainly not with doubtless confidence. My point is only that this concept needs to be humbly and dispassionately, but intensely, examined, before proclaiming it as definitive Truth, especially given some of the outcomes we do see from doing so. Do let this turn on an alert light that sparks further investigation against the scriptures with a childlike, earnest heart.
We should always test everything and hold fast to what is good. Peace to you.