Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

This is a lot of information to digest and research. Please allow me time to research before I respond, I want to give your thoughts and work the attention it deserves.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Much of what you have written here is to be found at

https://jesuswordsonly.com/aboutauthor.html

The Author's Beliefs

The author regards himself today as an evangelical Christian whose doctrine is Sole Cristus -- only what the words of Jesus teach.

He neglects Jesus' own words to His disciples in Luke 12:11, "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers, and authorities, do not worry about how to defend yourselves or what to say.
12For at that time the Holy Spirit will teach you what you should say.”

Matthew 10:19
But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say.

Matthew 10:20
For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Acts 4:8
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

It is obvious that if the words of Jesus are alone honored,all the words given the Apostles by the Holy Spirit are ignored.

John 16:14 He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine ...
(14) He shall glorify me.--The pronoun is here full of emphasis. The thought is that the future guidance of the Spirit promised in John 16:13, will be the revelation of the many things of Christ Himself which they cannot bear now. "For he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Paul's conversion on the Damascus Road also represented his calling to serve as a missionary to the nations. The Lord made it clear when Paul was converted that he was "a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15).

"But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel."

I find it extremely sad that these same long, tediously composed lists of artificial contradictions, supposed contradictions between Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ, supposed contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament, have all consistently been disproven for 2,000 years, only to be recycled.

I understand you sincerely believe what you have posted, which is your right, but if this had not been disproven multitudinous times, by those who were much more brilliant than I, Christianity would not have survived and thrived. It would have died in Jerusalem.

These lists are quite similar to the virulent literature published by an anti-Christian organization known as Jews for Judaism.

Thirty years ago, I was performing Accounting, and processing payrolls and taxes for B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation, the world's largest Jewish organization, mailings of the anti-Christian literature of "Jews for Judaism" used to be received at their building on a regular basis.

Seeing it again is always like an Old Home Reunion Week.

https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/why-jews-cannot-accept-the-new-testament/

http://defendingjudaism.blogspot.com/2007/04/refutation-concept-of-new-testament-in.html

http://defendingjudaism.blogspot.com/search/label/Christian%20claims

I will be happy to join with other Christians in asserting the truth of Christianity and continue to refute these outdated claims, as my time allows, understanding the dreary repetition of it is pointless, as my answers will be ignored and the claims periodically recycled.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Take your time. Thank you very much!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I agree with Pennylynn... That was a lot of information....

I always enjoy going through your work... Thanks Tommy

Rose42

My typing is very limited these days and so far only you and Parky represent the truth of Christianity on this thread.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Now why would you want to break the cardinal rule and make tis personal? This is an academic discussion about the "Law" for gentiles and Saul. I am sure your input could close the gap on the areas that you think have been misrepresented. Please give us your input, but keep in mind....we do not shoot messengers, we keep things civil, and we keep it on an academic level.

If you are having problems typing, have you thought about "voice Typing?" It is free and works quite well...https://xapk-installer.com/voice-typing-talk-to-text-2019-for-pc-windows-10/

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you, I am getting there. You do present a challenge and provide much to consider and investigate.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

First, thank you so much for your well thought-out reply. As I said, this is a lot of information to go through.

Your first observation, that Luke was a witness of what Saul saw and heard. There is no evidence of this. In modern times, Luke would be called an autobiographer and traveling companion. Luke was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ mighty works and teachings (Luke 1:1-2). He was not in the wilderness on the road to Damascus and therefore unlikely he knew or interviewed Ananias about his dream. He traveled with Saul on his second and third missionary journeys. Notice the pronoun “we” beginning in Acts 16:10, where Luke became one of Saul’s regular traveling companions throughout the remainder of the book. So, we can strike Luke as a witness as he was not yet the biographer of Saul. We can also strike Ananias as a witness because the story was told by Saul at his own trials. In reality what we have is Luke quoting Saul, who is quoting Ananias, with no other witnesses who came to testify for Saul, about a vision of a Jesus.

Indeed, the events of Saul’s vision is troublesome. It is written in Matthew, after Jesus ascends to heaven his next appearance will be witnessed by all….from all angles. Saul has three versions of what happens in the wilderness on the road to Damascus. Saul says Jesus "appeared" to him just as Jesus "appeared" to the twelve. The companions' (names are not provided) perception was limited --- they "heard the voice but saw no one". In another account in Saul’s court testimony, they saw the light but did not hear the voice.“ Do you see the problem?

Now Saul says he saw Jesus physically in a bright light, which staring into the light is apparently why Saul ended up blinded but this did not happen to the companions. So, basically, we have one man who is the only witness.

Your next “witness” Peter did call Saul a “brother” and did not call him an apostle. The term “brother” was used in Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews to identify a fellow countryman. Although it could be used for a man of the same faith, as used in Amos, Acts, and 1 Corinthians. In contrast, The noun apostolos [ajpovstolo"] appears seventy-nine times in the New Testament (ten in the Gospels; twenty-eight in Acts; thirty-eight in the Epistles; and three in Revelation). The vast majority of these occurrences are found in Luke-Acts (thirty-four) and in the Pauline epistles (thirty-four), and refer to those appointed by Christ for a special function in the church. Their unique place is based not only on having witnessed the resurrection, but also on having been commissioned and empowered by the resurrected Lord to proclaim the gospel to all nations.

Peter says Saul writes by the "wisdom given him" but not by inspiration. Second Peter also said Saul's wisdom was sometimes not present in a material way, and in fact Saul's words were salvation threatening when read by the "ignorant and unstable." For Second Peter says Paul's writings are "sometimes dysnoetas." Noetas means sensible. The prefix DYS in ancient Greek means "destroying good sense" which follows this Greek prefix.

So, Peter is not a witness of Saul’s apostleship.

Gnostics and the book of Hebrews. It is uncertain who wrote Hebrews….but the King James title does give a clue “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.” It is not unreasonable to conclude that Saul dictated the book, many of the thoughts of Hebrews are similar to those found in Saul’s writings.

Now your very interesting question...” was Abraham counted righteous *AND* was his faith fulfilled, by the law of Moses, or, without the law of Moses?” Abram, whom became Abraham…was born and died long before the ‘law” was given to Moses. Abram, lived around 2,000 B.C...Moses, (Moshe), was born around 1393 B.C.. Just as the Noahide Laws were expanded, so were the rudimental laws given to Abraham. So, yes he was counted as “righteous” before the laws given to Moses. G*d said about Abraham’s obedience in Genesis 26:5, hundreds of years before G*d spoke to Moses and Israel at Mt. Sinai: “Abraham obeyed me and kept my mismarti (requirements), my miswotay (commands), my huqqotay (decrees) and my wetorotay) laws”.

Your second question; "Secondly, If G*d’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 G*d to conform His new covenant to the previous form?"

Jeremiah (11:10), as well as Ezekiel (16:59) do say that as a nation, Israel broke its covenant with G*d. But the Torah clearly states that even so, G*d held firm in His relationship with us, renewing it in spite of Israel’s failings. Although Ezekiel 16:59 states that G*d will deal as harshly with us as we did with Him, verse 60 concludes: “I will remember My covenant with you of the days of your youth, and I will establish it for you as an everlasting covenant.”

A similar theme appears in Leviticus 26. G*d enumerates terrible punishments He will inflict upon Israel for breaking His Torah, including annulling His covenant (v. 15). Yet at the end of the chapter (vv. 44-45), He promises:

“And even with this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not be disgusted with them, nor will I abhor them to destroy them and break My covenant with them, for I am the Lord their G*d. And I will remember the covenant with the first ones, whom I took out of the Land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G*d for them. I am the Lord.”

Jeremiah 31:30 does state that G*d will create a new covenant, it clearly states that it will be with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It continues that as part of the covenant G*d would place His Torah upon our hearts (v. 32). Thus, even though we had broken our original covenant with G*d, He will create a newer stronger one in its place – but still with Israel and again commanding us to observe His Torah. The new covenant did not abrogate the original one to keep the Torah nor was it directed towards all the nations. As vv. 34-35 continue, Israel will continue to be G*d’s nation so long as the sun shines, the moon rises, and the surf breaks upon the coast.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

There it is... I was waiting for that first part....

Very nice reply... It is a pleasure to see Tommy and you discussing this topic

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I can honestly say, he made me think which made me do some much needed research. Good observations and questions from him.

And thank you for your participation....I am sure you could add to this conversation.....jump in, the water is comfortably warm and everyone is getting along!

Rose42

I am not shooting the messenger but some of the message which has already been shown to be wrong numerous times. Christians on OPP know he is a false teacher so you need to keep in mind he doesn’t represent the truth of Christianity - only part of it.

And I do not have a PC but thanks for the suggestion.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Thank you, Rose, our 2,000 year old christian truth is not readily recognized, desired, or welcomed at times.

It, however, will forever be the 2,000 + year old truth.

My newest topic, The Authenticity of the LXX (Septuagint) vs the Masoretic Text
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-177277-1.html

was just moved to Chit-Chat...

Rose42

Christian truth is not welcomed even by many professing to be Christians. Pride is the root of all resistance.

The beautiful thing is the truth stands on its own and is immutable.



Odd. Its a very interesting topic and something I’ve never delved into before. Thanks for bringing it to light.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Should it not be in this section?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Dear Pennlynn,

It is a pleasure to talk with you, and to hear your perspective. I also am quite challenged by the concepts you are putting forth. I do not claim to have all the answers. Neither do I, nor would I, contend that I need to have all the answers in order to justify my faith. If my faith had evidence, it wouldn’t be “faith”, would it? (“Faith” here in the context of “evidence of things hoped for” rather than “the set of principles believed on”). My point being, I will definitely listen intently to what you have to say, and will honestly consider it, but don’t be too disappointed when I don’t change my loyalty to my Lord Jesus Christ. Like Paul, I also have “seen the lord Jesus”, but for me it was a mental and spiritual “vision”, not as a physical light. It was the first time I knelt at a Pentecostal altar. Long story short, I had been drawn to trust in him. When I finally “went to church”, and knelt down, I simply prayed, “Jesus, I don’t know what or how to pray, I just know I need you”, at which point, I saw in my mind’s eye, a vision of Jesus on the cross with his arms stretched wide and his eyes, oh his eyes, just so impassioned looking at me, and he said to me simply, “I died for you.” It was then I knew he was real. No one else had to tell me, he did. “When he was on the cross...” the song goes, “I was on his mind.” I get emotional to this day recalling that, and that was in 1982, and that was just the beginning, I still had yet to receive the subsequent promise of the spirit, which is the law written on the heart. Just an open disclosure of what you are up against.

So, next, a confession to you. I seem to have missed your main point being “eyewitness” of Paul’s claim of being “ordained” as an apostle. You make good points that Paul did not have literal “eyewitnesses” of his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, but I’m not convinced that is as important as it is in your mind concerning whether or not he is an apostle.

Who was there to eyewitness Moses at the burning bush? No one, right?

How then, did God bear witness with Moses if not for the miracles that God did by Moses? Jesus made a similar claim:

“17It’s also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. 18I am one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me testifies about me.” (John 8:17–18)

“11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake.” John 14:11

As you noted, “Notice the pronoun “we” beginning in Acts 16:10, where Luke became one of Saul’s regular traveling companions throughout the remainder of the book.”

Luke, as Paul’s companion, pointed out, in Acts 19:11 that “God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul”. So you would have to agree that Luke, being Paul’s companion at that time, bore witness of those special miracles.

Considering that no one renounced Paul as a false apostle, rather, they supported him in his ministry: therefore, it appears, all of this is sufficient to accept that they agreed with Paul when he said things like,

“1Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus Christ, our Lord? Aren't you my work in the Lord? 2If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 9:1-2

“2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being revealed that you are a letter of Christ, served by us...” 2 Corinthians 3:1-3

“12Truly the signs of an apostle were worked among you...” 2 Corinthians 12:12

Circular? Perhaps. But, in my mind at least, no less circular than when Moses came down from the mountain with a message that he had been ordained by God to lead them out of Egypt. How many Israelites doubted Moses even after seeing the miracles he wrought? How many of Joseph’s brothers doubted that God had ordained him that his elder brothers should bow to him?

I will concede to you that much of Paul’s statements about his apostleship are, or appear to be, circular: but no more or less so than Moses’ claims to having talked with God face to face. What I do not concede is that the other apostles and companions with Paul disagreed with him on that score. They certainly are not on record of renouncing and denouncing his claim of being an apostle, whether they were hesitant to readily indorse that particular point or not. Nor do I concede by any means that Paul was a purveyor of a new or different gospel than that which Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost.

~~~

Quote by Pennylynn: “Peter says Saul writes by the "wisdom given him" but not by inspiration. Second Peter also said Saul's wisdom was sometimes not present in a material way, and in fact Saul's words were salvation threatening when read by the "ignorant and unstable." For Second Peter says Paul's writings are "sometimes dysnoetas." Noetas means sensible. The prefix DYS in ancient Greek means "destroying good sense" which follows this Greek prefix.”

I couldn’t agree with you or Peter more here. I myself “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered” with others constantly because of this very fact: they misread and misrepresent what Paul was saying. They seem to believe they can just pull a sentence or two or three of Paul’s out of its apostolic, first century Jewish Christian context, and claim it means what the Gnostics, Augustine, and Augustine’s disciples Luther and Calvin say he meant. Such is far from the case. But even Paul made a point of this:

“11For it has been reported...that there are contentions among you. 12...that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," and, "I follow Christ." 13Is Christ divided?...” 1 Corinthians 1:11

“3for you are still fleshly... 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," aren't you fleshly?...” 1 Corinthians 3:3-7

“5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace; 7because the mind of the flesh is hostile towards God; for it is not subject to God's law, neither indeed can it be. 8Those who are in the flesh can't please God.” Romans 8:5-8

I’ve already addressed the imbalance of Paul’s words that Protestant Evangelicals employ in the other thread https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-174455-26.html#3178147). Certainly, by ignoring these, anti-christ-ians do reveal just how accurate Peter’s concerns were.

~~~

Quote by Pennylynn: “Now your very interesting question...” was Abraham counted righteous *AND* was his faith fulfilled, by the law of Moses, or, without the law of Moses?” Abram, whom became Abraham…was born and died long before the ‘law” was given to Moses. Abram, lived around 2,000 B.C...Moses, (Moshe), was born around 1393 B.C.. Just as the Noahide Laws were expanded, so were the rudimental laws given to Abraham. So, yes he was counted as “righteous” before the laws given to Moses. G*d said about Abraham’s obedience in Genesis 26:5, hundreds of years before G*d spoke to Moses and Israel at Mt. Sinai: “Abraham obeyed me and kept my mismarti (requirements), my miswotay (commands), my huqqotay (decrees) and my wetorotay) laws”.”

Agreed about the chronology. The point I want to make, which is really Paul’s point, is that the promise that God made to Abraham was predicated on faith, not on the keeping of the Mosaic law.

“6Even as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." 7Know therefore that those who are of faith, the same are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Good News beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you all the nations will be blessed." 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who doesn't continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident, for, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not of faith, but, "The man who does them will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree," 14that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith...
16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He doesn't say, "To seeds," as of many, but as of one, "To your seed," which is Christ. 17Now I say this. A covenant confirmed beforehand by God in Christ, the law, which came four hundred thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect. 18For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by promise. 19What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made.” Galatians 3:6-14

“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 4:11-12

So then, the promise made to Abraham of being a blessing to all nations simply was not predicated on the law of Moses, but on the faith of Abraham (of which I must reiterate, for the sake of the neo-Gnostics, that Paul qualified by saying Abraham’s children are required to walk in the steps of Abraham.

Response?

~~~
Quote by Pennylynn: “Jeremiah 31:30 does state that G*d will create a new covenant, it clearly states that it will be with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It continues that as part of the covenant G*d would place His Torah upon our hearts (v. 32). Thus, even though we had broken our original covenant with G*d, He will create a newer stronger one in its place – but still with Israel and again commanding us to observe His Torah. The new covenant did not abrogate the original one to keep the Torah nor was it directed towards all the nations. As vv. 34-35 continue, Israel will continue to be G*d’s nation so long as the sun shines, the moon rises, and the surf breaks upon the coast.”

The Christian position is this:

“17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree; 18don't boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in." 20True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don't be conceited, but fear; 21for if God didn't spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22See then the goodness and severity of God. Toward those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23They also, if they don't continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” Romans 11:17-24

When you say, “it clearly states that it will be with the House of Israel and the House of Judah”, well, again, it is evident that Jesus was from the house of Judah. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. All of the apostles were Jewish. All of Christianity was Jewish until Acts 15.

But what is also noteworthy is this passage:

“They said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law. 21[/b]They have been informed about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs[/b]. 22What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23Therefore do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. 24Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses for them, that they may shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the things that they have been informed about you, but that you yourself also walk keeping the law. 25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality." 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purified himself and went with them into the temple...” Acts 21:26

So then, the apostles yet maintained a distinction between the practices of Jews and Gentiles.

It appears to me, that Paul didn’t mean to totally destroy any distinction between Jews and Greeks any more than he determined to destroy the distinctions between males and females:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

Rather, he just renounced the idea that they could not serve God in faith as brothers and sisters:

“11But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision... 14But when I saw that they didn't walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?” Galatians 2:11-14.

Thus Paul’s specific contention with Peter wasn’t to force Jews to stop living as Jews, but against Jewish Christians for compelling non-Jewish Christians to live as Jews.

Thoughts?

P.S. I’ve foregone using the “quote” feature because it limits a following “quote” to capture all the text.