Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

According to Saul, the Law died with Jesus. Let us face truth, being a Pauline Christian is easy! According to Saul, 1 Cor. 15:1-4:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.)"

How interesting, Saul cites himself as his only authority -- it is a gospel "I preached to you." For this significant erasure of Exodus 20:6 -- part of the Ten Commandments, Saul does not cite G*d nor Jesus nor the Bible for this supposed new truth. Saul just directly does away with both elements - as if neither need ever be mentioned again -- on his exclusive authority to say so by his own preaching.

Instead of what Exodus 20:6 requires, Saul clearly teaches elsewhere that faith alone saves. For you are "saved by faith, not works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9.) So "keep in memory" -- as Saul clearly says in 1 Cor. 15:2 -- just the facts that Jesus "died for your sins" and "rose the third day" and you supposedly "are saved."

Such an attractive principle — if you latch onto it — necessarily drives from your mind any necessity to obey or love G*d as a condition to receive his mercy. In fact, Saul says it leads to the sin of boasting if you believe works of obedience form any condition of G*d's mercy -- His grace.

Saul goes even farther than just this. Saul emphasizes that you are cursed, and severed from Christ, and Christ will profit you nothing if you try to obey G*d's law as a condition of salvation. Yet as we review Saul's contentions next, please remember Saul's principles are at total odds with Exodus 20:6. Look it up, G*d gave us a principle that our conscience would normally and readily recognize as true. This verse tells us how to be saved eternally with G*d. It simply says G*d's mercy is given to those who love G*d and obey His commandments.

In Galatians, Saul bemoans Galatian Christians who wish to keep sabbath as provided in the Ten Commandments - a command specifically applicable to all Gentiles in community with Israel. See Deut. 5:12-15 ("sojourner within thy gates"); Lev. 25:6 ("sojourner settling with thee"); Exo 23:12 (sojourner).

Saul then says "anathema" -- cursed -- are those who wish to be just / justified by keeping such parts of the Law, i.e., sabbath, etc. For otherwise, Saul argues, they will have to keep "all" of the Law, and not selected parts. (Gal. 1:6-12; Gal. 2:14-16 (cursed if not continue in all points of law); Gal. 3:9-12 (under a curse, misquoting Deuteronomy), Gal. 3:21. In the same vein, Saul says to the Galatian Christians about those who obeyed G*d as Christians to stay in G*d's grace: "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4 NASB.)

At this point, a word about Deuteronomy... it says "Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law, to do them. And all the people shall say: 'Amen.' Deuteronomy 27:26 KJV." What does this mean, this means in the original that if you do not confirm or uphold Torah that it be done, you are cursed. The emphasis is on everyone who does not confirm or uphold Torah as a code to obey is cursed rather than the curse applies to anyone guilty of any single disobedience. In contrast, Saul in Galatians 3:10, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Galatians 3:10 KJV). Saul alters the passage by changing "confirm" or "uphold" - a term meaning affirmation or teaching, and replacing it with a word continueth which implies obedience. Then Saul adds the words all things to suggest the slightest disobedience will fall under a curse, rather than the failure to confirm or uphold Torah is cursed. Thus, just a few word changes, and an entirely different meaning was extracted by Saul.

Is Saul then cursed? Saul misquote misled him to do precisely what G*d promises to curse. And with Saul, so too all the Paulinists who do not "confirmeth the words of this law to do them." As the blind leads the blind, they will all suffer the curse of Deut 27:26.

So, as a Christian...must you conform to all the laws? No, if the Law says it applies to a foreigner/sojourner, it applies to Gentiles. A sojourner was an uncircumcised member of the nations. Otherwise, it applies only to Israelites, e.g., circumcision in Lev. 12:1-3 applies only to "sons of Israel."

Sometimes a command only to "sons of Israel" extends the same duty to Gentiles in an exception which thereby broadens the duty to also be upon Gentiles in the gates ("sojourners"). For example, on circumcision, while this law was only upon "sons of Israel" (Lev. 12:1-3), it had two exceptions where a sojourner (Gentile) living in community in Israel had to be circumcised.

First, if a sojourner (Gentile) wishes to participate in the Passover feast at someone's home -- which is voluntary, then the Gentile must be circumcised. Exodus 12:48.) Also later, Ezekiel added prophetically that a Gentile who wished to enter the Temple had to be circumcised. Ezekiel 44:9.

Hence, figuring out the duty of a Gentile living in the kingdom under the Law is fairly easy and obvious to determine.

The list for Gentiles is very short. I recommend that you start by reading Leviticus chapter 17 to the end of Leviticus chapter 26-- known as the HOLINESS CODE. In doing so, highlight any command you think applies to sojourners or is open ended. I call this the MORAL SECTION of the Law. Jesus regularly quoted from this moral section in His sermons.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

The fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians is known as the Resurrection chapter, for the risen Christ is its topic, and the Reality of the Christian faith.

The Gospel which the apostle Paul preached to the Corinthians; viz. that "Christ died for our sins, and rose again the third day," in 1st Corinthians 15:1-4, is the heart of the Christian Gospel of Jesus Christ, the very foundation of Christianity, and the theme and final goal and culmination of all Scripture from Genesis through Revelation.

The eye witnesses of His resurrection, Peter, James, and more than five hundred brethren, 1st Corinthians 15:5-7. Lastly, He appeared to Paul himself, who saw Him, and was called by Him to His apostleship, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.
1st Corinthians 15:8-11.

All true Christians believe that Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, and then risen from the dead, is the sum and substance of Christianity. All the apostles agreed in this testimony; by this faith they lived, and in this faith they died, all except John, a martyr's death, all to rise again on that day.

The law of Moses was unable to save anyone ever, because of the weakness of our sinful nature. It was a precursor, sent to prove that no man could perfectly abide by it. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son, who was without sin, as a perfect and acceptable sacrifice for our sins.

Because He had no sins of His own for which He must pay, He was able to take upon Himself all the sins of mankind, and, thereby, paid in full our death penalty which we owed to God with His own death.

Jesus came to fulfill the law,which no man had ever been able to accomplish, and He accomplished it, He completed it. There is, therefore, no further sacrifice for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 4:4,5
"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
to redeem those under the law, that we might then receive adoption to sonship."

Philippians 2:7
He emptied Himself of the Divine glory, not by ceasing to be what He was, but by assuming something He was not before.

Hebrews 2:14, 2:17
Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil,
For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, in order to make atonement for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.

When the Bible speaks of “the law,” it refers to the detailed standard God gave to Moses, beginning in Exodus 20 with the Ten Commandments. God’s Law explained His requirements for a holy people and included three categories: civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. The Law was given to separate God’s people from the evil nations around them and to define sin (Ezra 10:11; Romans 5:13; 7:7). The Law also clearly demonstrated that no human being could purify himself enough to please God - i.e., the Law revealed our need for a Savior.

Hebrews 7:18
So the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless.

There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before ( ἀθέτησις μὲν γὰρ γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς )

Verily is superfluous. Ἀθέτησις only here and Hebrews 9:26; a very few times in lxx: The fundamental idea is the doing away of something established ( θετόν ). The verb ἀθετεῖν to make void, do away with, is common in N.T. and in lxx, where it represents fifteen different Hebrew words, meaning to deal falsely, to make merchandise of, to abhor, to transgress, to rebel, to break an oath, etc.

The noun, in a technical, legal sense, is found in a number of papyri from 98 to 271 a.d., meaning the making void of a document. It appears in the formula εἰς ἀθίτησιν καὶ ἀκύρωσιν forannulling and canceling. Προαγούσης ἐντολῆς rend. of a foregoing commandment. The expression is indefinite, applying to any commandment which might be superseded, although the commandment in Hebrews 7:16 is probably in mind by the writer. Foregoing, not emphasizing mere precedence in time, but rather the preliminary character of the commandment as destined to be done away by a later ordinance. With foregoing comp. 1 Timothy 1:18; 1 Timothy 5:24.

For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof ( διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές )

Rend. “because of its weakness and unprofitableness.” It could not bring men into close fellowship with God. See Romans 5:20; Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:21. Ἀνωφελής unprofitable only here and Titus 3:9.

Hebrews 10:1, 10:8
For the law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
In the passage above He says, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not desire, nor did You delight in them" (although they are offered according to the law).

The Law was not evil. It served as a mirror to reveal the condition of a person’s heart (Romans 7:7). John 1:17 says, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Jesus embodied the perfect balance between grace and the Law (John 1:14).

God has always been full of grace (Psalm 116:5; Joel 2:13), and people have always been saved by faith in God (Genesis 15:6). God did not change between the Old and New Testaments (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 55:19). The same God who gave the Law also gave Jesus (John 3:16).

His grace was demonstrated through the Law by providing the sacrificial system to cover sin. Jesus was born “under the law” (Galatians 4:4) and became the final sacrifice to bring the Law to fulfillment and establish the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). Now, everyone who comes to God through Christ is declared righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:15).

There is no conflict between grace and the Law, properly understood. Christ fulfilled the Law on our behalf and offers the power of the Holy Spirit, who motivates a regenerated heart to live in obedience to Him (Matthew 3:8; Acts 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:14).

James 2:26 says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” A grace that has the power to save also has the power to motivate a sinful heart toward godliness. Where there is no impulse to be godly, there is no saving faith.

Acts 13:39
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

John 3:14-17
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: …

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

The conflict between Jesus and the prideful self-righteous arose immediately. Many who had lived for so long under the Pharisees’ oppressive system, however, eagerly embraced the unmerited mercy (grace) of Christ and the freedom He offered (Mark 2:15).

Some, however, saw this new demonstration of grace as dangerous: what would keep a person from casting off all moral restraint? Paul dealt with this issue in Romans 6: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (verses 1—2).

Paul clarified what Jesus had taught: the Law shows us what God wants (holiness), and His grace (unmerited mercy) gives us the desire and power to be holy. Rather than trust in the Law to save us, we trust in Christ. We are freed from the Law’s bondage by His once-for-all sacrifice (Romans 7:6; 1 Peter 3:18).

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Interesting that the majority of your references is from Saul.

The Messiah's promise in Isaiah 42:21 was to bring a New Testament / New Covenant based upon "magnifying the Law" and making it better "honored" and followed. The promise in Isaiah 56 of salvation to Gentiles ("my salvation is about to come", 56:1) was predicated on two things: "keep the Sabbath from profaning it and keep his hand from doing evil." (Isaiah 56:2) or "who keep My Sabbaths, and choose things that please Me, and take hold of my covenant." (Isaiah 56:4,6).

Given what is the meaning of the NT / NC, is Saul conceivably an apostle — a messenger — that compliments the true Jesus whose role prophetically was to "magnify the Law" and make it more "honored"?

Does Saul help bring the simple message to the Gentiles that they must primarily obey the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath, and avoid evil as defined for Gentiles in the Law and Jesus when they join as a citizen of kingdom Israel as a spiritual member?

Based upon all Saul wrote, it is impossible that Saul is such a messenger for several reasons.

First, Saul denigrates and insults the Law rather than bring it any honor.

Second, Saul abolishes Sabbath for any NT / NC member.

Third, Saul is never said to be an apostle of Jesus in the three appearance accounts in Acts. The Jesus outside Damascus is quoted from the same event three times by either Saul or Luke. Each time, Saul's Jesus reproves
Saul. Saul's Jesus never says in all three accounts that Saul is an "apostle" -- a messenger — of Jesus. See Acts chs. 9:4-7; 22:6-9; and 26:13-18.

The most positive aspect of something from Saul’s Jesus is that supposedly Saul would be a "witness" (martus in Greek). (This was not recorded at the appearance event but Ananias -- a non-prophet by any measure - made the claim later that this happened in a dream he had.) Thus, if we accept this dubious assertion, still it only meant that Saul would be a witness of this “resurrection” appearance itself. But notably, the role of “apostle of Jesus“ was not given Saul by the Jesus outside Damascus despite three chances for it to be recorded.

Furthermore, only Saul in the NT calls himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ. (Saul never relays any quote from a conversation, verifiable or unverifiable, with Jesus saying this to him. Saul simply asserts Jesus made him an apostle -- an assertion that has no quote to back it up.)

Do you remember what Jesus said about self-serving statements about a role given by G*d? They are invalid.

Jesus said if He alone bore witness to Himself, then His witness would be untrue. (John 5:31, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.") G*d, however, spoke from heaven in the hearing of witnesses, who called Jesus his "beloved son" as well as at the transfiguration, saying "Listen to him" in front of witnesses.

In fact, Jesus in Revelation 2:2 clearly agrees a self-serving claim to be His apostle is insufficient. Jesus commended the Ephesians for finding those merely "saying" they were apostles were in fact not His apostles. Hence, in that case, there was only self-serving proof, and Jesus commended the Ephesians for rejecting that as sufficient proof of someone being His apostle. Thus, Saul's claim to being an apostle suffers from being self-serving. By a Biblical standard from Jesus Himself, Saul's self-witness "is not true."(Rev. 2:2.)

You believe that Jesus chose Saul as the Apostle of the Gentiles. However, Saul alone calls himself that. Hence, it is self-serving and thus invalid.

In fact, do you know who the Holy Spirit called as the Apostle to the Gentiles? And who this honor unanimously was agreed upon at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 as true? And also agreed upon by the 12 with Saul listening, but not objecting that another made the claim? It was Peter. In Acts 15:7 Peter says:
Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago G*d chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

So it was Peter, not Saul, who G*d chose to be the apostle by whom the Gentiles would hear the gospel message.

Now could Saul be a messenger / apostle of Jesus the Messiah -- the one who is to "magnify the Law" and bring it greater "honor" when Saul incites Gentiles to disrespect the Law (instead of Saul explaining its narrow scope to them) and scares them that trying to obey Sabbath causes them to "fall away" from Grace?
Do you remember how Saul debased the Law in Romans 7:1-13? Saul says without the Law he would not have sinned, but the law by telling him to not covet, he says, incited him to covet, and thus by reading the law he fell. So Saul naturally says we should follow the spirit (summarized as "all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient" -1 Cor. 6:12), not the letter of the Law which kills us. How did that happen to Saul? By reading it! The reading of the Law on coveting (Romans 7:5-13) supposedly led him to sin. Saul presents the one who gave us the Law is guilty of tempting us to sin. Saul clearly points to G*d who gave those commands — a direct blasphemy.

Incidentally, this is why James 1:13-15 is a rebuttal to Romans 7:1-13, James insisting that G*d tempts no one.

No wonder the true Jesus warned of Saul-Paul. His Latin name of Paul means "least" in Latin. Jesus said that the one who wrongfully teaches the Law is not to be followed any more will be called "least" by those who are in the kingdom of heaven, but "Great" are those who teach you to follow and obey the Law. (Matt 5:17-19.) Paul is a Latin name — Paulus. In Latin, it is a contraction of pauxililus meaning "least."

Saul only quotes one time in his epistles a revelation from the Damascus Jesus given directly to him. Saul's Jesus in this single revelation -- 2 Cor. 12:7-9 -- refused to release Saul from an "Angel of Satan" despite Saul's multiple prayers. Saul's Jesus justified this by saying that he had already shown Saul favor enough. This means Saul's Jesus, unlike the Jesus of the 12, refused to release someone from demonic influence and control, despite prayerful requests. How long was Saul possessed? Was he ever released from the "Angel of Satan"?

So, how does Saul's teaching differ from Jesus? Here are some examples:

• Jesus Says Not To Eat Meat Sacrificed to Idols, But Saul Says It Is Ok.

• Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Saul Says No.

• Saul Says The Pharisees Followed The Law Rigorously, But Jesus Says They Were Lax About The Law.

• Jesus Says Salvation Initiates And Continues By Repentance From Sin and Obedience Besides Faith; Saul Says This is Heresy.

• Jesus Tells Apostles To Teach His Commands Given Prior to His Ascension While In The Flesh, But Saul Says Not To Do So.

• Saul Says Elders Are Entitled To Pay for 'Preaching & Teaching,' But Jesus Says No.

• Jesus Teaches There Are Only 12 Apostles Into Eternity, But Saul Adds Himself To The List As a Thirteenth.

• Saul Exhorts Celibacy, But Jesus Clearly Says It is A Choice Not Within Everyone's Power.

• Jesus Says There Is One Pastor and Teacher (Himself), But Saul Tells Church He is a Teacher, & There Are Many Pastors and Teachers.

• Saul Says G*d Is The G*d of the Dead, But Jesus Says G*d Is Not The G*d of the Dead.

• Saul Says G*d Does Not Live in Temples Made of Human Hands, But Jesus Says He Does.

• Jesus says Nations Of The World Are Under Satan, But Saul Says Its Rulers Are Agents of G*d.

• Jesus Teaches Rapture is Of Evil Ones First, But Saul Teaches The Opposite.

• Jesus Says A Call Is Revocable, But Saul Says It Is Irrevocable.

• Jesus Says Some Are Righteous, But Saul Says It Is Impossible.

• Saul Excludes Eating With Sinners But Christ's Example We Are To Follow, and the Lost Sheep Parable, Is Contrary.

• Saul Teaches We Are Eternally Secure, But Jesus Teaches Insecurity to a Sinning Believer.

• Saul Teaches In Original Sin But Jesus Contradicts.

• Saul Denies Obedience Grants Any Righteousness Unto Life, But Jesus & Exodus 20:6 Both Says It Does.

• Jesus Sends The Apostles to Baptize, But Saul Says Jesus Did Not Send Him to Baptize.

• Jesus Says Only the Merciful Receive Mercy, But Saul Says Only Those G*d Chooses Arbitrarily Will Receive Mercy.

• Saul Says Salvation Does Not Depend Upon Exertion, But Jesus Says It Does.

• Saul Says He Could Be Justified of The Sin that Never Could be Justified under the Law given Moses (Blasphemy), but Jesus says to the contrary that it is The Unpardonable Sin.

• Saul Says Flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but Jesus in Flesh ascended to heaven, and promises to resurrect our bodies likewise to the Kingdom of the New Jerusalem, giving us the same physical resurrection that Jesus had.

SO, I guess the question remains.....who is your messiah? Is it Jesus or Saul?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

My Messiah, thank you for asking is Yeshua HaMashiach – "I Am," i.e. Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the prophecies of Maschiach in the Tanakh.

Mashiach is a title for Yeshua HaMashiach, the Saviour of the world. In the Old Testament, Yahweh promised to send the Mashiach to rescue His people, to make everything right and to destroy evil.

The Jews looked forward to the arrival of this Jewish hero but rejected Yeshua HaMashiach because they expected someone different. Instead of a soldier, Yeshua was a servant. Instead of being a mighty King, Yeshua died on a cross. The Jews did not recognize Yahweh's plan for Yeshua as the Mashiach, but Yeshua still saved those who believed in Him by His death on the cross. He rose from the dead and now rules in heaven above.

God entrusted a large portion of His Holy Word to Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His words are God breathed. It is not at all strange to use them. They have inspired countless millions of people for 2,000 years.

From the Roman family name of Latin origin, Paulus, meant "small" or "humble" in Latin.
In French Baby Names the meaning of the name Paul is: Little.

Nowhere is Paul given the meaning of "least," in an attempt to apply it to Jesus' words.

Matthew 5:17-19 The Fulfillment of the Law. 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

---and when was everything accomplished?

Of the last sayings of Christ on the cross, none is more important or more poignant than, “It is finished.” Found only in the Gospel of John, the Greek word translated “it is finished” is tetelestai, an accounting term that means “paid in full.” When Jesus uttered those words, He was declaring the debt owed to His Father was wiped away completely and forever. Not that Jesus wiped away any debt that He owed to the Father; rather, Jesus eliminated the debt owed by mankind—the debt of sin.

All to God's Glory

27"If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat anything set before you without raising questions of conscience.
28But if someone tells you, “This food was offered to idols,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience— the other one’s conscience, I mean, not your own. For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:27-29)
Berean Study Bible ·

Paul's Thorn and God's Grace
7or because of these surpassingly great revelations. So to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. (2nd Corinthians 12:8) Berean Study Bible ·

I have afternoon appointments, but will be happy to explain to you what you fail to understand about the multitudinous comparisons of Paul and Jesus words, on which you omitted chapter and verse.

Thank God for the internet search engine.

bahmer

Was not Paul/Saul to be the replacement for Judas who was called an Apostle? You two are both marvelous as to your knowledge of the scriptures I sit and marvel at both of you. Thanks for this discussion both you Zemirah and also you as well Pennylynn. May you both have a wonderful day. Bruce

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

[quote=bahmer]Was not Paul/Saul to be the replacement for Judas who was called an Apostle? You two are both marvelous as to your knowledge of the scriptures I sit and marvel at both of you. Thanks for this discussion both you Zemirah and also you as well Pennylynn. May you both have a wonderful day. Bruce[/quote

I agree, Bahmer! It’s enjoyable to read a conversation between these two ladies. I enjoy this section of OPP and those that contribute and share their knowledge....And! There are several that are extremely knowledgeable. I would love for them to spend more time in our little quiet section!

bahmer

[quote=TexaCan][quote=bahmer]Was not Paul/Saul to be the replacement for Judas who was called an Apostle? You two are both marvelous as to your knowledge of the scriptures I sit and marvel at both of you. Thanks for this discussion both you Zemirah and also you as well Pennylynn. May you both have a wonderful day. Bruce[/quote

I agree, Bahmer! It’s enjoyable to read a conversation between these two ladies. I enjoy this section of OPP and those that contribute and share their knowledge....And! There are several that are extremely knowledgeable. I would love for them to spend more time in our little quiet section![/quote]

Amen and Amen

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

No, his name was Mathias (Acts 1:12-26).

As a side note...

Peter was the apostle who was to bring the gospel to the Jews.

Paul was the apostle who was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles.

Rose42

[quote=TexaCan][quote=bahmer]Was not Paul/Saul to be the replacement for Judas who was called an Apostle? You two are both marvelous as to your knowledge of the scriptures I sit and marvel at both of you. Thanks for this discussion both you Zemirah and also you as well Pennylynn. May you both have a wonderful day. Bruce[/quote

I agree, Bahmer! It’s enjoyable to read a conversation between these two ladies. I enjoy this section of OPP and those that contribute and share their knowledge....And! There are several that are extremely knowledgeable. I would love for them to spend more time in our little quiet section![/quote]

I agree as well. This has been a good read. Thanks to both Zemirah and Pennylynn.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Most excellent indeed...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

From your response, I take it you want references to my list of inconsistencies. Okay, I will get to that, but first.... after Jesus was murdered, he came back and continued to teach his apostles, for 40 days. We know that he neatly folded the cloth that covered his face, and that deals with "tradition." he then appeared to Mary and told her to go tell the "others". He then appeared to Cleopas (Peter) and his traveling companion and asked them what they were discussing. Jesus gave them a history lesson, starting with Moses and all the Prophets as “he interpreted to them things pertaining to Himself in all the Scriptures.” Then two men from the road to Emmaus found the disciples and were told that He had appeared to the women and now to Simon Peter. The two related how He walked with them, then vanished before their eyes. He then appeared to his disciples, He said to them, “In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day, and on the basis of His name repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations -- starting out from Jerusalem, you are to be witnesses of these things. And, look! I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. Wait here until you receive power from on high. You will be guided by Holy Spirit, make sure you listen and receive it. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they stand forgiven.” Not long afterward, Peter announced, “I am going fishing.” Thomas, Nathanael, James and John and two other disciples went with him.... and Jesus appeared, instructing them on where to "cast" their nets. Luke writes, “In the first account, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach, until the day that He was taken up, after He had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles. To these also by many positive proofs, He showed Himself alive after He had suffered, being seen by them through 40 days and telling the things about the kingdom of G*d. And while He was meeting with them, He gave them the orders, Do not withdraw from Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me, because John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days after this. “Lord,” they asked, “are You restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” He answered, “It is not yours to know the time or season which the Father has placed in His own judgment, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant parts of the earth.” And after He had said these things, while they watched, He was lifted up and a cloud caught Him up from their vision. So, during the 40 days, Jesus met with all his disciples. Forty days, and yet not one word about the "law" becoming obsolete! Something to consider, Saul was a few years younger than Jesus. Scholars put the birth year of Saul between 2 to 6 years after the birth of Christ. So, if Saul was to be such a great addition to the Apostles, why didn't Jesus go to him during the 40 days or at least invite him to attend the meetings he had with the real disciples?

Even before Jesus' death, he prayed: "I (Jesus)have glorified thee(G*d) on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” John 17:4.

Jesus said these words before He was crucified for the accused crime of insurrection. Jesus said this even before He was betrayed while praying to the Father concerning His disciples. He finished the work of the Father continues His prayer.

“For I have given unto them(disciples) the words (G*d’s doctrine) which thou gavest me; and they have received them.” John 17:8.

One would think if his death ended the "law" then, someplace he would have said so. but, he did not, nor did he include Saul in any of his conversations.

Jesus says clear as a bell if anyone claims Jesus appeared to them and gave them a “word,” “do not believe it.” Nobody can deny Saul claims Jesus appeared to him and gave him a message on salvation not taught by Jesus. So, what did Jesus teach?

“On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered, ‘Love the Lord your G*d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind;’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.’” Luke 10:25-28. At no place did Jesus say the “law” would become obsolete.

Jesus taught the same message as His Father stating not one jot or tittle of the law would disappear. Matthew 5:17-19. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Look at this passage, it is conditional…. when would the “law” become obsolete? When both heaven and earth disappears, the end of times when all will be judged. This is when all will be accomplished, not before or in letters dictated to secretaries or scribes. Even before Jesus' death, he prayed: "I (Jesus)have glorified thee(G*d) on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” John 17:4. If, as you believe, the “law” had become obsolete….in his own words, Jesus’ had completed his mission before he died, why would he continue to teach obedience to the law?

On the cross, Jesus said it was done. Jesus speaks in the perfect tense, which is very rare in the New Testament and has no English equivalent. The perfect tense is a combination of two Greek tenses: the Present tense, and the Aorist tense. The Aorist tense is punctiliar: meaning something that happens at a specific point in time; a moment. The Present tense is linear: meaning something that continues into the future and has ongoing results/implications. The combination of these two tenses in the perfect tense as used in John 19:30 is of overwhelming significance. When Jesus says, “It is finished” (or completed) what he is actually saying is “It is finished and will continue to be finished”. He did not add a qualifier such as, until I talk to Saul and change all my (and your) teachings.

Three years of his ministry and an additional 40 days of his resurrection…. not once did he say the “law” had been abolished. Yet a man who was not a student of Jesus or any apostle and possessed by an 'angel of Satan” comes along with a personalized religion misleads the Gentile nation in taking the easy way to salvation.

Indeed, this man was unstable, consider his attack on James son of Alpheus, as recorded by Clementine, “... the high priest of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had often sent priests to ask us that we might discourse with one another concerning Jesus: when it seemed a fit opportunity, and it pleased all of our church, we accepted the invitation and went up to the temple. It was crowded with people who had come to listen, many Jews and many of our own brethren. First the high priest told people that they should listen patiently and quietly.... Then, he began exalting with many praises the rite of animal sacrifice for the remission of sins and found fault with the baptism given by our Jesus to replace animal sacrifice....

"To him our James began to show, by abundant proof that Jesus is the Christ, and that in Him are fulfilled all the prophecies which related to His humble advent. For, James showed that two advents of Him are foretold: one in humiliation, which He has now accomplished; the other in glory, which is yet to be accomplished....

"And when James had plainly taught the people concerning these things, he added this also, that unless a man be baptized in water, in the name of the threefold blessedness, as the True Prophet taught, he can neither receive remission of sins nor enter the kingdom of heaven: and he declared that this is the prescription of the unbegotten G*d.... And when James had spoken some more things about baptism, through seven successive days he persuaded all the people and even the high priest that they should hasten straightaway to receive baptism....

"And when matters were at that point that they would all come and be baptized, [Saul] [changed by historical revision to "some one of our enemies"] and his men entered the temple: and [Saul] cried out: 'Oh men of Israel, why are you so easily influenced by these miserable men?' He began to excite the people and raise a tumult... and drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been done by James. [Saul] rebuked the priests for having listened to James, and, like a madman, began to excite the priests and people to murder James and the brethren, saying 'Do not hesitate; grab them and pull them to pieces.' [Saul] then, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, joined in the beating. Much blood was shed. Although James and the brethren were more numerous and more powerful, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than to kill others. [Saul] [changed into "that enemy"] attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead left him."

See "Recognitions of Clement," Book 1, Chapters LXIX and LXX, in Alexander Roberts et al. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325 (1886) Vol. 8 at 95-96.

As promised, I will provide you with references to the significant differences in teachings, but I end this post with Jeremiah 31:3 "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their G*d, and they will be my people."

This "my law" is a reference to G*d's Law or Torah, not a "new" law. Hence, G*d in Jeremiah was not declaring a "new law" was coming. Ezekiel speaks of this same impact of a covenant G*d will make with Israel in the future -- the Spirit of G*d would lead to a new spirit of zealously following G*d's Law, not its abandonment, as Saul is normally understood to teach and which you apparently accept: "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." (Ezekiel 36:26–27).

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

I'm pressed for time so this is the best I have. Sorry I don't have more time for proof.

Paul the Apostle said that Peter had the special charge of being apostle to the Jews, just as he was apostle to the Gentiles. Another apostle, James, is regarded as the leader of the Jewish Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter_and_Judaism

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

It is extremely sad when the only "proof" of Saul's claim to apostleship is Saul. Acts chapter 1 proves Saul can never be the 12th apostle. The 11 prayed for Jesus's direction, and the Holy Spirit then chose by means of lots which of 2 candidates would replace Judas as the 12th. It is clear in context the 11 knew they could not add the second candidate to the list of apostles because a 13th apostle is impermissibly too many. Thus only Matthias replaced Judas as #12, and the other candidate was not accepted as any kind of apostle.

This matches what the Revelation of Jesus said — that there are only 12 apostles "of the Lamb" (Jesus) to rule in the new Jerusalem. Revelation says: "The city was built on twelve foundation stones. On each of the stones was written the name of one of the Lamb's twelve apostles." (Rev. 21:14 CEV.)

All three accounts by Luke of a voice and light outside Damascus who says "I am Jesus," Luke never has the Damascus Jesus say to Saul that Saul is an apostle. Thus, Saul's claim to being an apostle suffers from being self-serving, just as those who made a similar claim at Ephesus, and whom Jesus said the Ephesians properly found were not telling the truth. By a Biblical standard from Jesus Himself, Saul's self-witness "is not true."

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Hi Pennylynn,

It seems to me your primary thesis (topic) has at least a few holes in it.

Luke (witness #1) wrote the book of Acts, wherein Ananias (witness #2) testified that Saul would be a witness to all men:

“12One Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews who lived in Damascus, 13came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' In that very hour I looked up at him. 14He said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth. 15For you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16Now why do you wait? Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'” Acts 22:12-15 (See also Acts 9:15 where Luke records that the Lord had told Ananias that Paul would bear his name before the Gentiles.)

Luke also recorded, in Acts 13:1-2, that the church there heard from the Holy Spirit to separate Paul and Silas for the work which he had called them, and again that the whole body of apostles together sent Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:22.

Peter (witness #3), in his 2nd epistle, wrote:

“2that you should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior:... 14 be diligent to be found in peace, without blemish and blameless in his sight. 15Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; 16as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:2, 14-16

Paul addressed most of his epistles as “Paul an apostle” in some fashion. It would hardly seem that Peter thought Paul was a false apostle, or a perverter of the gospel that he had personally been mentored to by Jesus Christ.

In Acts 15 Peter did not say he was chosen to be the only “apostle to” the Gentiles, he merely said the Gentiles would hear his word, which he said had already happened. If Peter thought by hearing from his mouth meant that he was an apostle, then he effectively silenced anyone else than apostles from speaking about the Christian faith.








Scholars tell us that the book of Hebrews was written by a close associate of Paul, after Paul. In it, nowhere do we find such Pauline statements, as are exaggerated and unbalanced as today’s “Protestant Evangelicals” interpret them. As a matter of historic fact, the only ones who interpreted Paul in such extreme ways were Gnostics such as Marcion the heretic:

“Early Christian patristic literature shows that no writer promulgated Paul’s anti-legal theme except Marcion the heretic. Even the epistle to the Hebrews interprets the Gospel as a new covenant of both law and grace.” E. G. Weltin, “Athens and Jerusalem; An interpretative Essay on Christianity and Classical Culture, Scholars Press, 1987, pgs 130-131

Please keep in mind, that when you are dealing with “interpretations” of Paul as being “anti-law”, you are dealing with the aberrant Gnostic heritage, not the heritage of the actual known companions and successors of Paul. In other words, the idea that Paul was “anti-law” is a straw man argument. Today’s neo-Gnostics will content for that position, but it is NOT the position of the vast majority of Christians from the early centuries of Christianity. Paul himself prophesied that they would get more and more effective at deceiving:

“But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” 2 Timothy 3:13

This explains why neo-gnostics are so sophisticated in their “arguments.”
It is written:

“Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel…not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

Even Jewish sages teach that the New Covenant would make the Old Covenant look like vanity in comparison with the new:

“‘The Torah which a man learns in this world is vanity in comparison with the Torah (which will be learnt in the days) of the Messiah.’
“Isaiah’s prediction for the days to come, ‘With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation’ (12:2), is explained by Rashi in the following way: ‘Ye shall receive new teaching, for the Lord will widen your understanding…’” Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man; A Philosophy of Judaism (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1983), 264.

If Yahweh said the new covenant would not be according to the old covenant, and even Jewish sages realize that they could not comprehend what the New Covenant would be, what makes them the judges of the New Covenant? Is God restricted to the understanding that they call “vanity”?

Is it not true that it is written in Psalm 110:4: “Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.’”

The writer of Hebrews uses this verse as justification for saying:

“11Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law. 13For he of whom these things are said belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord has sprung out of Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15This is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest, 16who has been made, not after the law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless life: 17for it is testified, "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek." 18For there is an annulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” Hebrews 7:11-19

So then, those who properly understand Paul, including those who were his companions (i.e. Barnabas), and disciples, didn’t understand Paul as abolishing law completely, but of being a minister in transforming from the Old Covenant (“of vanity” according to Jewish sages) into the New Covenant, even a new “law”, based on better promises (Hebrews 8:6):

“Concerned as they were with ethical questions as much as with doctrinal issues, the apologists [writers after the apostles] also sought to prove and defend the superiority of the Christian ethic. Of the devices employed in this defense, the most important doctrinally was their interpretation of the Christian gospel as ‘new law.’ When Barnabas spoke of ‘the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without a yoke of necessity,’ he set forth a pattern followed by many later theologians. Justin called Christ ‘the new lawgiver,’ and Origen termed him ‘the lawgiver of the Christians”... The ‘new law’ implied new demands (the knowledge of Christ, repentance, and a sinless life after conversion) as well as new promises...” Jaroslave Pelikan, “The Christian Tradition; A History of the Development of Doctrine”, The University of Chicago Press, 1971, pgs 38-39

“Justin replied to Typho’s charge by, in effect, stratifying the Old Testament law. The Christians retained whatever in the law of Moses was ‘naturally good, pious, and righteous’... Irenaeus...affirmed that ‘the words of the decalogue’ had undergone ‘extension and amplification’ rather than ‘cancellation’ by Christ’s coming in the flesh... Tertullian argued that a ‘new law’ and a ‘new circumcision’ had replaced the old, which had been intended only as a sign or type of what was to come...” ibid., pgs 16-17

The thing that many ignore and/or negate is that Paul used Abraham as his model for faith:

1What then will we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as something owed. 5But to him who doesn't work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. 6Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works,
7"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin."
9Is this blessing then pronounced on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10How then was it counted? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they might be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might also be accounted to them. 12He is the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision.” Romans 4:1-13

To which the writer of Hebrews, close companion of Paul, noted that “by faith Abraham...obeyed... by faith Abraham...sojourned”:

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went...” -Hebrews 11: 8-16

So then, even Paul qualified his statement against “working” for salvation, not on “no works, period”, and never on “faith alone” or “faith only”, but for those who also walk in the steps of Abraham that he walked in uncircumcision:

“…that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they might be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might also be accounted to them. 12He is the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had in uncircumcision.” Romans 4:1-13... -Romans 4:11-13

The question isn’t whether Abraham had to be faithfully obedient to God or not, the question is what was the heart or attitude of Abraham’s response?

James wrote, also after Paul, as you know, that faith and works are only effective in synergy. Not that works are a “result”, or a product, rather, the faithfully obedient steps were the proper response, and that was what was the heart of Paul’s message, that those who don’t harmonize Paul with the other apostles totally miss and consequently pervert.

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought ("sunergo –1, to work together, help in work, be partner in labour 2, to put forth power together with and thereby to assist") with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only… For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” James 2:21-26, KJV.

This is the only place in the New Testament epistles where the words “faith” and “only” or “alone” are in the same place, and it specifically says, “not by faith only.” Paul never said we are saved or justified by “faith only”, rather, he qualified that by saying that we walk in the steps of Abraham.

Furthermore, in James 2, James James tied faith and works together with the word sunergo, which, as is defined and inserted above, imparts a clear and specific sense of partnership, rather than result. Sunergo is the root of our English word synergism, which literally means "like-energy." The Dictionary meaning of synergy, in harmony with the definition of sunergo above, says it is, "The action of two or more substances, organs, or organisms to achieve an effect of which each is individually incapable."

In the clearest of terms, James was denying that we display works as a result of already inherent faith as many attempt to impose upon James' words.

In previous post on another thread (which I see you’ve posted at), I posted an abundance of scriptures showing that Paul did not abolish law completely, rather, he upheld the new law of Christ: https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-174455-26.html#3178147

So, my questions to you are, first, was Abraham counted righteous *AND* was his faith fulfilled, by the law of Moses, or, without the law of Moses?

Secondly, If God’s covenant was to NOT be after the manner of the former, then what gives you, or any of us, the right or authority to demand God to conform His new covenant to the previous form?

I would also like to see your references before commenting much further on them.