Post by benjoseph on Jun 15, 2011 22:28:26 GMT -5
whatdidjesussay, I figured I'd make our discussion about Paul into a new thread in case supermom comes back and wants to discuss the original sin thing in her original thread. I had to break this up a lot in order to respond because it was a lot of different ideas.
"What I am asking, is do you believe Jesus' death and resurrection made the law void to Christians and Jews?"
It seems to me that the ceremonial/sacrificial ordinances that foreshadowed the Lord's atoning death would no longer be necessary. As for the rest of the laws given to Israel, I think they were rejected altogether, but not before having the gospel preached to them and being given plenty of opportunity to repent.
"Did Jesus' words about fulfilling the law in your opinion end the necessity to keep the law by His children?"
I assume you mean the teaching starting in Matthew 5. No. That's not my opinion. I think He was reinforcing the need to keep the law. But He was putting first things first, not like the Pharisees. As long as the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat they were supposed to be obeyed. But again, I think even the unbelieving Jews knew that they were being completely rejected by God (Jeremiah 18, and the writings of Josephus) when the Romans came and destroyed them.
The Lord also said, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"
"As to Paul, I believe his epistles should not carry the same weight as the words of Jesus."
If there is actually a contradiction I would go with what Jesus Christ said rather than Paul. But I can't ignore how Paul seemed, like the Lord, to speak with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I will have to assume, unless proven otherwise, that it is more likely that we could misunderstand something that seems like a contradiction. I think we should care more about the truth than what is considered heresy or not.
"If Paul's writings seem to contradict those of Jesus we must reject Paul in favor of Jesus."
It would be a sin against my conscience for me to reject Paul's writings over a "seeming" contradiction. I would have to be irrefutably certain about it. Not just at a point where I could possibly be misunderstanding something. If Paul wrote with a worldly spirit or something like that then I would not feel this way. But because, to my mind, he seemed to have a heart after the Lord Jesus, I can't just lightly believe he was a false teacher or something. It would be tragic, and I would have to see proof that couldn't just be a misunderstanding.
"Jesus told the apostles He was the only teacher, they were only to be instructors of His words they were not given license to change the gospel He gave them, correct?"As far as I know, only God would have the authority to change the Gospel. How it should be applied for different people is a different matter. Like when John the Baptist gave different instructions to different people who asked him.
My beef with Paul is biblical, no where in the scriptures is Paul called an apostle, except by himself. Biblically, and legally one cannot be a witness to himself, he must have two others to testify for there to be truth.You want to know why you should believe what Paul said about himself. That's reasonable.
The scriptures are very plain there are only 12 apostles, Judas was replaced by Matthias. Revelation speaks of 12 thrones for the 12 apostles, Paul is not included as an apostle.I didn't think apostleship was limited to those twelve. Jesus said something about them sitting on thrones and judging Israel. Is it possible that they were primarily ministering to Israel, while Paul and possibly others were sent to the rest of us? I can't say why it would be impossible. It would even make sense to me. But I agree we should be able to verify whether it is actually true or not.
In 2 Peter, Paul is called a beloved brother not an apostle. Beloved brother to one who claims to be an apostle was probably taken as an insult.This sounds off. Someone who was humbled by having their feet washed by Jesus Christ probably doesn't think "beloved brother" is an insulting term to any man.
What the author (Peter) was saying to Paul was that his words were Ketuvim that is not inspired, but scripture. Just to clarify the word scripture means writings.I don't judge you for questioning Paul but some of this does seem like a stretch. If it's not the heart of your concern, I'd suggest it is not solid enough to try to make into an issue. Peter said Paul talked about all the same things that Peter was saying.
So my thought here is, if Paul was said to be confusing, allowing some to twist his words to promote evil, then why bother regarding any of Paul's epistles as inspired?That sounds pretty biased. The Lord Jesus was misunderstood constantly. He even said things that I don't know how anyone could understand if they were there hearing it for the first time.
What was the author of 2 Peter saying exactly about what evil was being promoted by his teachings be twisted?
Could this have been Paul's words saying the law was no longer in force, that it had been nailed to the cross, and had not resurrected with Jesus? I believe Peter did not believe that Paul meant to teach these ideas in his writings, and must have thought Paul's words must have been twisted by those who were preaching abrogation of the law.I talked to one man who said he rejected Paul because he thought Paul taught original sin. That is historically how Paul has been twisted the most I think. Original sin and the idea of being by faith without any works. I think a lot of people don't get him or twist him. But it's not a crime to write something that takes some real study to understand.
I think it is quite plain the apostles were keeping the law all along, before and after the resurrection. The apostles were keeping the sabbath day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on them.
By that time, I think they had been informed of the entire message of Jesus would you not agree? And they were still keeping the law. I don't think it is wrong to keep the sabbath.
The early church most definitely kept the festivals of the Lord, the easter orthodox to this day keeps Passover, only the English speaking churches call Passover by the pagan name Easter. The change of the sabbath day to the Sun's Day is recorded in history during the reign of Constantine the Great, up until that time the church kept God's seventh day sabbath. Ok. I don't really have any issue with any of that. I think the sabbath was specifically for Israel. I'm not convinced that Sunday replaced the Sabbath. If I thought I had to keep sabbath I would do it the Jewish way, but I don't think I'm obligated to do that.
My biggest issue with Paul was found in Duet 13: 1-4 I believe Paul's epistles fit the text exactly, he preached the law was no longer in force, that it had passed away. But this would be exactly what God was warning against when He said if anyone comes with signs and wonders that come true (like on the road to Damascus) but teaches you to follow a different path or god or tries to cancel what has come before from God, then he is a false prophet. We should cling to God and His commandments alone.
Yes I know this is considered damnable heresy by most who claim to be Christians, but all of what I have written is supported in the inspired scriptures of God.I don't think your soul is in danger for questioning Paul. If someone is totally heels dug in biased, not even open to finding out if they could be mistaken or uninformed, then probably they would have a defiled conscience and it would not be a good sign. But I don't have any reason to believe that is the case for you.
I'll check out Deut 13:1-4. But I don't know what else to respond to unless you collect the actual passages of Paul's that you think are contrary to God's will and show me.
"What I am asking, is do you believe Jesus' death and resurrection made the law void to Christians and Jews?"
It seems to me that the ceremonial/sacrificial ordinances that foreshadowed the Lord's atoning death would no longer be necessary. As for the rest of the laws given to Israel, I think they were rejected altogether, but not before having the gospel preached to them and being given plenty of opportunity to repent.
"Did Jesus' words about fulfilling the law in your opinion end the necessity to keep the law by His children?"
I assume you mean the teaching starting in Matthew 5. No. That's not my opinion. I think He was reinforcing the need to keep the law. But He was putting first things first, not like the Pharisees. As long as the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat they were supposed to be obeyed. But again, I think even the unbelieving Jews knew that they were being completely rejected by God (Jeremiah 18, and the writings of Josephus) when the Romans came and destroyed them.
The Lord also said, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"
"As to Paul, I believe his epistles should not carry the same weight as the words of Jesus."
If there is actually a contradiction I would go with what Jesus Christ said rather than Paul. But I can't ignore how Paul seemed, like the Lord, to speak with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I will have to assume, unless proven otherwise, that it is more likely that we could misunderstand something that seems like a contradiction. I think we should care more about the truth than what is considered heresy or not.
"If Paul's writings seem to contradict those of Jesus we must reject Paul in favor of Jesus."
It would be a sin against my conscience for me to reject Paul's writings over a "seeming" contradiction. I would have to be irrefutably certain about it. Not just at a point where I could possibly be misunderstanding something. If Paul wrote with a worldly spirit or something like that then I would not feel this way. But because, to my mind, he seemed to have a heart after the Lord Jesus, I can't just lightly believe he was a false teacher or something. It would be tragic, and I would have to see proof that couldn't just be a misunderstanding.
"Jesus told the apostles He was the only teacher, they were only to be instructors of His words they were not given license to change the gospel He gave them, correct?"As far as I know, only God would have the authority to change the Gospel. How it should be applied for different people is a different matter. Like when John the Baptist gave different instructions to different people who asked him.
My beef with Paul is biblical, no where in the scriptures is Paul called an apostle, except by himself. Biblically, and legally one cannot be a witness to himself, he must have two others to testify for there to be truth.You want to know why you should believe what Paul said about himself. That's reasonable.
The scriptures are very plain there are only 12 apostles, Judas was replaced by Matthias. Revelation speaks of 12 thrones for the 12 apostles, Paul is not included as an apostle.I didn't think apostleship was limited to those twelve. Jesus said something about them sitting on thrones and judging Israel. Is it possible that they were primarily ministering to Israel, while Paul and possibly others were sent to the rest of us? I can't say why it would be impossible. It would even make sense to me. But I agree we should be able to verify whether it is actually true or not.
In 2 Peter, Paul is called a beloved brother not an apostle. Beloved brother to one who claims to be an apostle was probably taken as an insult.This sounds off. Someone who was humbled by having their feet washed by Jesus Christ probably doesn't think "beloved brother" is an insulting term to any man.
What the author (Peter) was saying to Paul was that his words were Ketuvim that is not inspired, but scripture. Just to clarify the word scripture means writings.I don't judge you for questioning Paul but some of this does seem like a stretch. If it's not the heart of your concern, I'd suggest it is not solid enough to try to make into an issue. Peter said Paul talked about all the same things that Peter was saying.
So my thought here is, if Paul was said to be confusing, allowing some to twist his words to promote evil, then why bother regarding any of Paul's epistles as inspired?That sounds pretty biased. The Lord Jesus was misunderstood constantly. He even said things that I don't know how anyone could understand if they were there hearing it for the first time.
What was the author of 2 Peter saying exactly about what evil was being promoted by his teachings be twisted?
Could this have been Paul's words saying the law was no longer in force, that it had been nailed to the cross, and had not resurrected with Jesus? I believe Peter did not believe that Paul meant to teach these ideas in his writings, and must have thought Paul's words must have been twisted by those who were preaching abrogation of the law.I talked to one man who said he rejected Paul because he thought Paul taught original sin. That is historically how Paul has been twisted the most I think. Original sin and the idea of being by faith without any works. I think a lot of people don't get him or twist him. But it's not a crime to write something that takes some real study to understand.
I think it is quite plain the apostles were keeping the law all along, before and after the resurrection. The apostles were keeping the sabbath day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on them.
By that time, I think they had been informed of the entire message of Jesus would you not agree? And they were still keeping the law. I don't think it is wrong to keep the sabbath.
The early church most definitely kept the festivals of the Lord, the easter orthodox to this day keeps Passover, only the English speaking churches call Passover by the pagan name Easter. The change of the sabbath day to the Sun's Day is recorded in history during the reign of Constantine the Great, up until that time the church kept God's seventh day sabbath. Ok. I don't really have any issue with any of that. I think the sabbath was specifically for Israel. I'm not convinced that Sunday replaced the Sabbath. If I thought I had to keep sabbath I would do it the Jewish way, but I don't think I'm obligated to do that.
My biggest issue with Paul was found in Duet 13: 1-4 I believe Paul's epistles fit the text exactly, he preached the law was no longer in force, that it had passed away. But this would be exactly what God was warning against when He said if anyone comes with signs and wonders that come true (like on the road to Damascus) but teaches you to follow a different path or god or tries to cancel what has come before from God, then he is a false prophet. We should cling to God and His commandments alone.
Yes I know this is considered damnable heresy by most who claim to be Christians, but all of what I have written is supported in the inspired scriptures of God.I don't think your soul is in danger for questioning Paul. If someone is totally heels dug in biased, not even open to finding out if they could be mistaken or uninformed, then probably they would have a defiled conscience and it would not be a good sign. But I don't have any reason to believe that is the case for you.
I'll check out Deut 13:1-4. But I don't know what else to respond to unless you collect the actual passages of Paul's that you think are contrary to God's will and show me.