HARZKP813 you said...

Did Paul the Apostle believe the Talmud? No. The Talmud did not exist yet. Paul lived in the first century. The Mishnah was compiled around 200 AD and the Talmud centuries after that.

Did Paul abuse chickens? No. That accusation comes from much later polemics and rituals that appeared long after the first century. It has nothing to do with Paul.

Did he clip coins? No. Coin clipping was a medieval crime where people shaved precious metal from coins. Historically it was often Christians who were caught and punished for it. In medieval England many of the people prosecuted for coin clipping were Christians, even though Jews were often scapegoated for the crime. None of that has anything to do with a first-century Jew like Paul.

Did Paul bow to Molech or Baal? No. Paul explicitly condemned idolatry.

Romans 1:22–23 (Amplified Bible) “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God for an image [worthless idols] in the shape of mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and reptiles.”

The Greek word used for idolatry is εἰδωλολατρία (eidōlolatria), meaning the worship of idols.

Did he wear the “Star of David”? No. That symbol did not become widely associated with Jewish identity until the medieval period, more than a thousand years after Paul lived.

Did Paul “cry victim”? No. Paul openly identified himself as Jewish while following Yeshua.

Romans 11:1 (Amplified Bible) “I say then, has God rejected and disowned His people? Certainly not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”

The Greek word he uses is Ἰσραηλίτης (Israēlitēs), meaning a member of Israel.

Did Paul push mass immigration, LGBT ideology, or modern political movements? No. Those are modern issues. Paul’s letters deal with first-century questions like circumcision, Torah observance, and Gentiles being grafted into Israel.

Did he push miscegenation? No. Paul spoke about unity of Jews and Gentiles in the Messiah, not modern racial categories.

Was he pro-usury? No. Paul taught believers to live honestly and not exploit others.

AND PAUL GIVES A DIRECT WARNING TO GENTILES WHO START RAILING AGAINST JEWS.

AND PAUL GIVES A DIRECT WARNING TO GENTILES WHO START RAILING AGAINST JEWS.

AND PAUL GIVES A DIRECT WARNING TO GENTILES WHO START RAILING AGAINST JEWS.

Romans 11:17–18 (Amplified Bible) “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive [shoot], were grafted in among them… do not boast against the branches… it is not you who supports the root, but the root that supports you.”

The Greek word sir for root is ῥίζα (rhiza), meaning the source or origin. LOOK IT UP!!

So every accusation you listed either comes from a completely different historical period or has nothing to do with what Paul actually taught. Enjoy your day.

HARZKP813 you seem confused.

That list you threw out is just a stack of old stereotypes that fall apart the moment you look at reality.

Jews do not “believe the Talmud over everything.” Most Jews today are secular and many do not even study it.

“Clipping coins” is a medieval myth that got attached to Jews even though the people actually caught doing it in Europe were often Christians.

The “Star of David” is just a cultural symbol that became common centuries after the biblical period.

Accusing Jews of worshipping Baal or Molech is nonsense. Judaism is strictly monotheistic and has condemned those idols for thousands of years.

The idea that Jews are pushing modern Western political movements like LGBT activism, mass immigration, or anything else as some unified agenda is just conspiracy thinking. Jews are politically all over the spectrum like any other population.

And the usury stereotype exists because medieval laws often banned Christians from lending money with interest while allowing Jews to do certain financial jobs. That created resentment and myths that stuck around long after the laws disappeared.

So the list you posted is not evidence of anything. It is just recycled accusations that have been floating around for centuries.

Paul was aware of the oral tradition now encoded in the Talmud, and it can be fairly said, at least as a general rule, that anything from the Mishna portions would have been upheld by him, even though he might not have agreed with every single majority opinion. In his day, this counts as contemporary belief in the "talmud" (not "Talmud").

Nobody abused chickens, as Jewish ritual slaughter has always been recognized as designed to prevent abuse. Paul did pay for animal sacrifices long after his conversion, Acts 20. The modern waving of chickens is likely similar to the waving of breast meat, Lev. 7, so would not be regarded as abusive, unless one wishes to say the practice has gone beyond its original limits and become emotionalist and excessive.

Name the coin-clippers. The first listed coin debaser was Nero by 5% in 64 AD. The first actual clippers listed were Thomas and Anne Rogers, 1690.

Paul didn't bow to Moloch or Baal, and Judaism has always condemned this even as Jews of various generations fell into it. Since it's a serious crime, it should not be charged lightly, and joining modern efforts to detect it accurately is welcome.

Paul didn't know the hexagram, which was introduced in Israel ca. 300 AD (Gershon Scholem). Incidentally, he also didn't support the star of Remphan/Chiun, which was known to Amos is the 700s BC and therefore couldn't be the hexagram (I'll spare you my dissertation on what it was). The predominant Jewish symbols then were the menorah, the olive tree, the prayer shawl, the lion, etc. Paul probably wore the prayer shawl as Jesus did (with tassels and perhaps blue stripes), and probably at times had worn phylacteries containing Bible verses (which Jesus didn't reject if they weren't ostentatious). At that time of course there was no negative symbolism associated with black cubes so the symbol was untainted.

Paul did share with other prophets (and with those with a high moral sense) a strong sensitivity to injustices against himself, but he modeled turning those into occasions to demonstrate submission to Christ. Feel free to name individuals who use victimization to imbalance justice against unnoticed victims.

In Greece, Paul upheld national boundaries and rights of self-determination for all nations (Acts 17:24-28). So he'd likely oppose the imposition of immigration onto nations as it was regularly deprecated in the OT. There is a line of argument by which Jews agreed with Cyrus's remigration of them into Judah when Samaritans lived there already (some of which might have had earlier native roots), so this view of Paul might be debatable.

Paul would have agreed with Jesus that three classes of "eunuchs" could not receive all the Jewish commands relating to marriage, indicating some leeway dealing with those struggling with sexual identity. There was no tolerance for deliberate active or passive sodomy itself. Paul would've agreed with Ezekiel (23:13-17) that staring at pornographic images to incite lust was also not to be tolerated.

The Torah position that there is to be no miscegenation without full conversion to the covenant people and polity would have been upheld, as would its position that one may not exact usury from a fellow citizen. The Torah position that the law should be the same for Jew and Gentile was largely upheld in his day. Over successive centuries, some Jews took the position that it was not their job to help Gentiles write inspired laws for themselves against miscegenation and usury, and that it was ethical to take advantage of the more lenient laws of the Gentiles when it could be done to advantage. This is a valid criticism against those Jews who adopted this stance, when they could have easily said that since Jews criminalize miscegenation and usury among themselves they should not promote them among others, and indeed this alternate stance was taken by many Jews who regarded it as essential for the sanctification of God's name. Such criticism is similar to criticism of Americans who take advantage of foreign laws to engage in activities that are criminal in America.

I leave it to you to Name The Jew For Real. Aside, I greatly appreciate your apparent remaining moderate in tone as I requested; you come across like Vlad the Impaler on one of his gentle days. However, Scored is a bit of an "elite research board" and if you remain in the character of indirection rather than firmness I believe your influence will lessen.

TALLESTSKIL You’re contradicting yourself and Paul at the same time. lol

You say a Jew who accepts the Messiah stops being a Jew and becomes something else. But the apostle Paul the Apostle literally identifies himself as both after believing in Yeshua. How do you square that?

Look in Romans 11:1 (Amplified Bible) “I say then, has God rejected and disowned His people? Certainly not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.”

Look at The Greek word he uses is Ἰσραηλίτης (Israēlitēs). That means a member of Israel. Paul did not say “I used to be an Israelite.” He says I am. Big difference dude.

And your claim that “the ancient Hebrews all became Christians centuries ago and now only Jews are left” is something the Scriptures never say. LOL.

Paul says the opposite in the same chapter.

Look AGAIN in Romans 11:28–29 (Amplified Bible) “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake; but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are still beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

The Greek word for irrevocable is ἀμεταμέλητα (ametamelēta), meaning not withdrawn, not taken back. Look it up!!

So no, Israel did not disappear and get replaced. Paul explicitly says God has not rejected His people. I see a duh coming on.

And you brushed off the warning about boasting against the natural branches, but that warning was written to Gentiles exactly for this kind of arrogance. Go back and read it.

Romans 11:17–18 (Amplified Bible) “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive [shoot], were grafted in among them… do not boast against the branches… it is not you who supports the root, but the root that supports you.”

The Greek word for root is ῥίζα (rhiza), the source or foundation.

So the picture Paul gives is clear. Gentiles are grafted in. Israel is the root. God has not rejected His people. And Gentiles are warned not to boast against the natural branches.

You told me to read the Bible. I did. That is why your claim does not line up with what Paul actually wrote. Do better homework.

we done son?

some of the folks here use words in fascinatingly novel ways

Your Scofield bullshit is the novelty. The previous 1900 years knew what words mean.

SwampRangers, thank you for the welcome and for the suggestion. But I want to be clear about something.

I want nothing to do with Christianity as an institution or label. I follow Yeshua and the Scriptures, but that is not the same thing.

Since you invited me to this forum, I think it is best that I simply decline and step away from this direction of the discussion. I appreciate the civility and wish you well. Peace.