Best place to learn about and study The Torah?

[Mark C]

...he should be actively studying to avoid adding to or subtracting from anything in Scripture. The responsibility is very clearly presented in e.g. 2 Tim. 4:2; Preach the Word! Every man of God should have a plan; a methodology, in place to ensure he is not preaching anything other than the Word.

As noted, however, that is almost never the case. Obviously so in the case of that majority of 'xtianity' that adds prohibitions to marriage [arguably, 'forbidding to marry'] that He did not, and - NOW - removing those that He did.

I contend it's particularly so in "501c(3)" government-created (as opposed to Yah!) corporate tax-exempt non-living entitites that have their OWN rules, contrary to His. "You cannot serve two masters..."

But the only real solution, other than silence, is to know and understand His Word (and, I will contend, in the original language, when there is any doubt. And there usually is...)

I will frequently refer to 'connecting-the-dots.' MANY times, elements, phrases, even entire paragraphs, are repeated multiple times, or through multiple witnesses. Sometimes parables, stories, or examples are repeated, and ALMOST identical, except for a noted difference. In such cases the distinction may be the key point. But when that is the case, we must let the listener/student know that the connection is being drawn. (I try to use the term, hopefully humorously, 'Markology' to identify my opinion as distinct from Writ.)

Paul can be seen to say, "this is my opinion, not Yah's" when he offers what is specifically, and only, his own midrash.

But sometimes, He just plain "says what He says". Often, as Yahushua pointed out REPEATEDLY in His 'very first public address' it contradicts what we've "heard it said." And we'd better be able to discern that.

 

[frederick]

Paul can be seen to say, "this is my opinion, not Yah's" when he offers what is specifically, and only, his own midrash.

But he is not saying what he writes is somehow not the inspired Word of God. All Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16); it's breathed out by God, therefore it is all Truth. Just because Jesus didn't speak directly on an issue but Paul does; e.g. 1 Cor. 7:12ff, doesn't reduce the level of authority of what is written.

 

[Mark C]

But he is not saying what he writes is somehow not the inspired Word of God. All Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16); it's breathed out by God, therefore it is all Truth. Just because Jesus didn't speak directly on an issue but Paul does; e.g. 1 Cor. 7:12ff, doesn't reduce the level of authority of what is written.

No, read I Corinthians 7:6-16, for example. He is careful to make the distinction.

(He'd rather everyone be celibate, but it's HIS opinion, not Yah. The part that follows is "not I, but YHVH." Had it BEEN a Real Commandment, odds are none of us would be here...)

 

[frederick]

He is careful to make the distinction.

Yes, he makes the distinction, and commands are commands, but not all commands apply to everyone the same. Some are for men, some for women, some for slaves, etc. Noah was a righteous man and he was commanded to build an Ark; that doesn't mean all righteous men must build an Ark.

Perhaps I need to clarify, are you suggesting that what Paul wrote is not the inspired Word of God, or that there are parts of what he wrote that are of less authority than other parts? I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying however I very much do want to uphold the authority and inerrancy of all Scripture; it is all the breathed out Word of Almighty God.

 

[Mark C]

Perhaps I need to clarify, are you suggesting that what Paul wrote is not the inspired Word of God, or that there are parts of what he wrote that are of less authority than other parts?

Paul says it outright. He is NOT speaking for YHVH, he speaks for himself when he says he wishes all men were celibate. It's not a commandment. (And it's not for me, BTW.)

It's his opinion, he says so.

 

[frederick]

It's his opinion, he says so.

I might be missing something here so I'll ask again. Is this Scripture; is it the Word of God?

 

[Michael Moon]

I might be missing something here so I'll ask again. Is this Scripture; is it the Word of God?

I think what would be interesting is how Paul may have responded if he was asked if the letter he had sent was to be put on the same level as the Torah and the Prophets?

In most of Paul's writings he is either repeating or explaining Torah, or something about the Messiah. I don't believe Paul would have made the distinction that the statement was his opinion if he wasn't absolutely certain there was no command which states that it is better for all men to be celibate.

 

[Mark C]

[Any comment from me coming later: I have show deadlines...]

... I don't believe Paul would have made the distinction that the statement was his opinion if he wasn't absolutely certain there was no command which states that it is better for all men to be celibate.

Without question, True. There can NOT be any such command, else there would be no seed to inherit His promises. And you can't very well "be fruitful and multiply" as a celibate.

 

[Maddog]

I might be missing something here so I'll ask again. Is this Scripture; is it the Word of God?

Yes I believe it is scripture but not as a Command but rather behavior as a good idea. It seems to be similar to the encouragement in Proverbs to not be a borrower as the borrower is slave to the lender. Given the tumultuous times I think are coming, even more so the admonition to get out of debt quickly as the inflation will rock anyone's financial boat. Paul did see their world beginning to crash down and the single life is a much simpler faster-to-move life. History teaches God's children were indeed scattered like a dandelion plume in the wind.

 

[Mark C]

I might be missing something here so I'll ask again. Is this Scripture; is it the Word of God?

Is this a trap? (Like - 'is it lawful to pay taxes?' ) Do you suggest I claim Authority from the Holy, Universal, Catholic One-and-Only Bride Designated Church to declare what is or is not 'Scripture'?

So I will restate what I know, and can (or have) demonstrated:

It is True that it is his [Paul/Shaul, NOT YHVH's] opinion. It is NOT a commandment from Yah. (And it can NOT be: consider the implications.)

But...but...but.. "Is it SCRIPTURE?"

I still contend that words matter. Particularly His. "Law" is a poor translation of the Hebrew word 'torah' for this reason. His "teaching and/or instruction," is far better. When the Hebrew original language means things - like 'statutes, judgments, or commandments' -that have the 'force of law,' He uses words like chuqqim, mishpatim, mitzvot. Parables, histories, or stories of the lives of the patriarchs, for example, are instruction for us But they are NOT statutes, judgments, or commandments, and are not "law".

And neither is Paul's opinion that we should be celibate. (BTW - at the risk of a rabbit invasion - neither is his opinion about head covering, which is NOT explicitly in haTorah - although it IS an interesting study. (Numbers 5, for example).

Which leads to related but 'non-dogma' points: The Hebrew word 'midrash' is often used to describe discussion.

"Connecting the dots."

"Your mileage may vary."

The Hebrew word 'halacha' (aka 'how to walk), sometimes conflated with 'oral torah,' or Tradition -- where "THEY" will TELL you 'how to walk' -- was what I contend Mark chapter 7 (among others) was all about.

Imbued by mere men with the 'force of law' [nomos from the oft-quoted Greek] (as BOTH the 'whore church' and 'whore synagogue' have done routinely) they become more malevolent; they became the 'traditions of men' [or 'the elders'] that Yahushua Himself called "hypocrisy" and said "make the commandments of Yah of no effect."

BTW - does your bible contain the line in Mark 7:19 at the end of what He actually said to add, "thus he declared all foods clean."? Is THAT 'scripture'? (It's not even true -- unless you understand what is, and is NOT, 'food'.)

Finally, just who, and under what authority, declares what is, and is not, 'scripture'? Shaul wrote that letter to Timothy BEFORE any romanized 'church' took it upon itself to declare anything of the sort (whether at Trent or before) - but he still knew what he meant. At least when he was inspired to write it. Chanuch (Enoch) was claimed to be in and out (of 'scripture' - actually, TNK, Torah-Naviim [prophets]-Ketuvim [writings] ) before Yahushua taught (and it was referenced in Jude). And things like Judith and Tobit, or Maccabees, etc, etc, were either in - or out. And maybe you've noticed that even the 'ten commandments' are not the same in 'catholic' and 'protesting catholic' renderings. And, yes, there's more. But the point is made.

Shaul's midrash to Timothy that you quoted says that whatever is declared to be 'scripture' is 'given by inspiration of Elohim', and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for" -- gotta love this, because it's 'by definition' -- "instruction in Torah-obedience".

That, hopefully, is what I'm attempting to do here. And to quote.

So here's a relevant question: Is a markedly error-ridden English translation of His Word, demonstrably including "additions to" and "subtractions from" what He actually Wrote, included in that term "all scripture"?

[I would suggest those, too, are at best 'suggestions'...it's just that the translators, except where they knowingly put in italics to show words added, aren't as thoughtful to warn us about it as Paul was, and we should be.]

Note that when Shaul himself penned those words about "all Scripture" -- and given that he was so careful elsewhere to distinguish between his OPINION and the 'word of Yah' -- the romanized church had not yet, by its own authority, 'canonized' them, or Proclaimed them to be 'Scripture'. Since he had already warned also about "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached":

...there is no shortage of irony in the fact that that same 'lawless entity' that claims 'authority' to not only 'canonize' writings, but add to and subtract from 'em to boot - then proceeded to IGNORE so much of what WAS in fact already Written in the Scripture to which Shaul referred.

 

[frederick]

Is this a trap?

No, but I was hoping for a simple Yes or No as I'm still unsure of what you hold to regarding the inspiration of all Scripture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Is this a trap? (Like - 'is it lawful to pay taxes?' ) Do you suggest I claim Authority from the Holy, Universal, Catholic One-and-Only Bride Designated Church to declare what is or is not 'Scripture'?

So I will restate what I know, and can (or have) demonstrated:

It is True that it is his [Paul/Shaul, NOT YHVH's] opinion. It is NOT a commandment from Yah. (And it can NOT be: consider the implications.)

But...but...but.. "Is it SCRIPTURE?"

I still contend that words matter. Particularly His. "Law" is a poor translation of the Hebrew word 'torah' for this reason. His "teaching and/or instruction," is far better. When the Hebrew original language means things - like 'statutes, judgments, or commandments' -that have the 'force of law,' He uses words like chuqqim, mishpatim, mitzvot. Parables, histories, or stories of the lives of the patriarchs, for example, are instruction for us But they are NOT statutes, judgments, or commandments, and are not "law".

And neither is Paul's opinion that we should be celibate. (BTW - at the risk of a rabbit invasion - neither is his opinion about head covering, which is NOT explicitly in haTorah - although it IS an interesting study. (Numbers 5, for example).

Which leads to related but 'non-dogma' points: The Hebrew word 'midrash' is often used to describe discussion.

"Connecting the dots."

"Your mileage may vary."

The Hebrew word 'halacha' (aka 'how to walk), sometimes conflated with 'oral torah,' or Tradition -- where "THEY" will TELL you 'how to walk' -- was what I contend Mark chapter 7 (among others) was all about.

Imbued by mere men with the 'force of law' [nomos from the oft-quoted Greek] (as BOTH the 'whore church' and 'whore synagogue' have done routinely) they become more malevolent; they became the 'traditions of men' [or 'the elders'] that Yahushua Himself called "hypocrisy" and said "make the commandments of Yah of no effect."

BTW - does your bible contain the line in Mark 7:19 at the end of what He actually said to add, "thus he declared all foods clean."? Is THAT 'scripture'? (It's not even true -- unless you understand what is, and is NOT, 'food'.)

Finally, just who, and under what authority, declares what is, and is not, 'scripture'? Shaul wrote that letter to Timothy BEFORE any romanized 'church' took it upon itself to declare anything of the sort (whether at Trent or before) - but he still knew what he meant. At least when he was inspired to write it. Chanuch (Enoch) was claimed to be in and out (of 'scripture' - actually, TNK, Torah-Naviim [prophets]-Ketuvim [writings] ) before Yahushua taught (and it was referenced in Jude). And things like Judith and Tobit, or Maccabees, etc, etc, were either in - or out. And maybe you've noticed that even the 'ten commandments' are not the same in 'catholic' and 'protesting catholic' renderings. And, yes, there's more. But the point is made.

Shaul's midrash to Timothy that you quoted says that whatever is declared to be 'scripture' is 'given by inspiration of Elohim', and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for" -- gotta love this, because it's 'by definition' -- "instruction in Torah-obedience".

That, hopefully, is what I'm attempting to do here. And to quote.

So here's a relevant question: Is a markedly error-ridden English translation of His Word, demonstrably including "additions to" and "subtractions from" what He actually Wrote, included in that term "all scripture"?

[I would suggest those, too, are at best 'suggestions'...it's just that the translators, except where they knowingly put in italics to show words added, aren't as thoughtful to warn us about it as Paul was, and we should be.]

Note that when Shaul himself penned those words about "all Scripture" -- and given that he was so careful elsewhere to distinguish between his OPINION and the 'word of Yah' -- the romanized church had not yet, by its own authority, 'canonized' them, or Proclaimed them to be 'Scripture'. Since he had already warned also about "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached":

...there is no shortage of irony in the fact that that same 'lawless entity' that claims 'authority' to not only 'canonize' writings, but add to and subtract from 'em to boot - then proceeded to IGNORE so much of what WAS in fact already Written in the Scripture to which Shaul referred.

So this is an excellent example of the pitfalls of education. You have too much knowledge and it’s sown all of these doubts in your mind. You can’t identify what is or is not scripture anymore. So what do you believe and why? I don’t care how learned you are in biblical languages you will have to translate them at some point, even if only in your head. If all of your learning has led you to say that you have no idea what the Word of God is, then what the hell was all of the learning for? Weren’t you trying to know God’s Word better?

I recognize that I have an over abundance of the mindless, obstinate, unprofitable and rebellious cunning of my social class. And that can sometimes lead me to revolt against experts and elites for no other reason than pride and sheer stubbornness, but what exactly are you an expert in if you can’t even identify what is or is not in your field of expertise?

 

[FollowingHim]

Which is why seminary kills the faith of some people. They learn "higher criticism" and then don't know what to believe any more.

We have a tendency to see all the holes in the things that we study deeply, while retaining a faith in the correctness of the things we have not studied. This is why seminary-trained pastors often believe in theistic evolution, because they have been taught to doubt scripture, but retain a faith in evolutionary science as they don't know as much about it. On the other hand, Christian scientists are more likely to believe in creation, as they see all the flaws in evolutionary theory, but retain a faith in the authority of scripture as they haven't been taught to pull it apart and are more likely to just read it at face value.

 

[Mark C]

You can’t identify what is or is not scripture anymore. So what do you believe and why? I don’t care how learned you are in biblical languages you will have to translate them at some point, even if only in your head. If all of your learning has led you to say that you have no idea what the Word of God is, then what the hell was all of the learning for

To whom are you talking? Because it sure doesn't look like you READ what you quoted.

Because if you can't see "what I believe and why" - it's because you don't READ.

So don't claim to know what's in my MIND, too!

If you can't see what I just WROTE and understand the point - try reading. Like "Paul said this is MY OPINION." Do you know what you have to OBEY or not?

Did you claim to find "doubts"? Then why aren't you CELIBATE? Do you DOUBT the Command of Paul?

If all of your learning has led you to say that you have no idea what the Word of God is...

Did you actually claim to have READ that? Or even found it in there somewhere? Then you probably have a future working for the New IRS.

Since frederick, too, seems to be incapable of following a non-binary "yes or no" sound-bite response to a non-sequitor (hey, when did did you quit berating your wife?) - here goes:

I believe Jacob went to Bethel. Because the Bible says so. I believe Paul would prefer you men to be celibate. Same reason.

Now what?

 

[Mark C]

Which is why semitary [sic] kills the faith of some people. They learn "higher criticism" and then don't know what to believe any more.

I had to correct a typo in there, Samuel.

While I generally agree, I think the problem is more like what Yahushua pointed out so often:

Whether it's dealing with 'hypocrites' (Matthew 23, Mark 7, et al) or "you have heard it said," but - I'll tell you what's actually Written...
(Matthew 5, the repeated rhetorical device)
...the problem seems to have more to do with preferring what Men Who Know More than Yah SAID He should've said to what He actually Wrote.

Even to the point of not even being able to recognize OPINION for what it is when the author comes right out and says so.

And if one of 'em declares something 'Scripture' (even a bad translation, ridden with 'cultural biases' and even outright fraud) sometimes people just continue to lap it up. (Proverbs 26:11)

 

[Mark C]

PS> I realize clearly that part of the reason I get so frustrated with "xtian baggage" -- particularly on a site like this one -- is that it seems hard for me to swallow how so many people can say, "Eureka! I SEE it! The 'church' LIED to me about MARRIAGE!...

...but SURELY, they wouldn't lie about His Sabbaths, His moedim, or what He said is food, and what is not."

Would they?

Oh, yeah, make sure to go get your 5th DNA-mod "booster," too.

 

[FollowingHim]

And if one of 'em declares something 'Scripture' (even a bad translation, ridden with 'cultural biases' and even outright fraud) sometimes people just continue to lap it up. (Proverbs 26:11)

I do understand your concern about us relying on the decisions of the Roman Catholic church. However, I don't believe this is the case with the New Testament books. The New Testament was not established solely by edict from the Catholic church, but rather formed through consensus over the first few centuries. Only a small number of books were in dispute, and yes those were established by church councils eventually - but they were not the Pauline letters.

The vast majority of the New Testament was accepted and used throughout the church by about 200AD. The books in dispute were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (ultimately accepted), along with 1 Clement, the Didache, Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (ultimately rejected). Frankly, all of these are worth reading, including the ones that were rejected - there are good reasons they were accepted for so long. I don't mind someone disputing the precise line drawn here between which should be in or out, because it was contentious and different opinions may well be reasonably held.

But the letters of Paul were universally accepted from the early days of the church, so were not established by edict.

If any books could be said to have been imposed by edict of the Catholic church, it is the more Hebraic books that they imposed - the very books that you yourself would be least likely to dispute @Mark C! If they hadn't defined what books were in the New Testament, we might not have Hebrews or James in the Bible!

Which goes to show that in the very early days of the established Church, they truly were genuinely trying to follow the right track. The rot set in over time, but it would be very wrong to reject the early church's opinions just because a millennium later their successors had become corrupt.

 

[FollowingHim]

Having said all THAT - yes, when Paul says something is his opinion, it's his opinion. Because the statement that it is his opinion is in scripture, so we should believe it. Ignoring the clarification that it is said by himself, not the Lord, and just accepting the statement itself, would be cherrypicking.

But having said that too - it is also reasonable to assume that his opinion is correct. Given that this is Paul we're talking about: he outranks any of us in scholarship, in access to first-hand sources, and in direct contact with Jesus himself. So I'd be very hesitant to decide he is wrong and I know better.

 

[frederick]

Having said all THAT - yes, when Paul says something is his opinion, it's his opinion. Because the statement that it is his opinion is in scripture, so we should believe it. Ignoring the clarification that it is said by himself, not the Lord, and just accepting the statement itself, would be cherrypicking.

But having said that too - it is also reasonable to assume that his opinion is correct. Given that this is Paul we're talking about: he outranks any of us in scholarship, in access to first-hand sources, and in direct contact with Jesus himself. So I'd be very hesitant to decide he is wrong and I know better.

It was Paul who wrote 1 Cor. 7 and who also wrote 2 Tim. 3:16. He knew what he was writing and that it is all God breathed Truth.

 

[Mark C]

I do understand your concern about us relying on the decisions of the Roman Catholic church. However, I don't believe this is the case with the New Testament books.

Good grief. I didn't say it was, and don't believe that anyway. I was making a different point, about an OPINION, in response to a (yes, there really IS such a thing; here's the proof!) stupid question.

Bad translations, however, are a recurring theme. And should be.

...Which goes to show that in the very early days of the established Church, they truly were genuinely trying to follow the right track. The rot set in over time, but it would be very wrong to reject the early church's opinions just because a millennium later their successors had become corrupt.

I respectfully disagree, albeit strongly. The rot began at or before Nicea in 325 AD, and became open tyranny only about 4 decades later. I suspect you know the history, including what later happened to those who tried to "keep His Sabbath, His feasts," as commanded, "throughout your generations," and "in all your dwelling places." Unless, perhaps 'the one, true, universal Church" killed you for it.

Polygyny was outlawed by edict only a few decades after the glorious and healthy doctrine of priestly celibacy was mandated. (There's a Success Story for you.) Both arguably to maintain a 'Church' monopoly on power and a continuing dynasty.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by the time Shaul/Paul wrote his second letter to the people in Corinth - before the millenia, before Nicea, before the end of the first century even, he was ALREADY warning specifically about what happened: If someone comes to you and "preaches another jesus whom we have NOT preached," or a different spirit, or different gospel, DON'T FALL FOR IT. Oops...

Oh, yeah:

Having said all THAT - yes, when Paul says something is his opinion, it's his opinion.

Agreed. Said so. More than once.

But having said that too - it is also reasonable to assume that his opinion is correct. Given that this is Paul we're talking about: he outranks any of us in scholarship...I'd be very hesitant to decide he is wrong and I know better.

I'm still waiting for one, JUST ONE, 'man' here on this site who wants to argue trivia in lieu of dealing with the real issue...
...to declare his celibacy.




PS> "real issue?" Things like whether or not you believe the rest of Scripture. From Sabbath to His moedim to (uh oh!) food. Lots of folks are already "dead men walking" for ignoring what He wrote about "the life is in the blood," for example, and letting Big Bro mess with your DNA.

Unless you're talking the MonkeyPox Crowd (and Schlong Fever...) celibacy isn't a matter of life and death...

And read Deuteronomy 28:60-61, please, anyone else, and ponder what "diseases that are NOT Written in this Book" might mean, before any more knee-jerk responses that take Paul (and those who knew His Word) out of context.

Whether I waste any more time on this topic will depend on whether I see a serious interrogatory that actually reflects reading for comprehension.