Thoughts about the confusing word: "Law"

[Gary K]

There is no such thing as a "pagan Christian". Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. Paul plainly states that mankind is not under the laws of the old covenant and that includes the laws concerning Sabbath keeping. Mankind is free to worship corporately any day we choose because we are not under the Law. And I might remind you that Gentile nations were never under the Law given only to Israel.

Once again, point out the Biblical covenant made with Gentiles.

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as I thought. I had to look up the definition of deontological:

"The ethical study of duties, obligations, and rights, with an approach focusing on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves and not on the goodness or badness of the consequences of those actions." ​

​

I agree that having a system that can look at the big picture is better than the nit-picking system that had developed among the Jews of that time, where the tithing of herbs from the garden was emphasized over larger concepts of justice, mercy and faith. But as Jesus said, both should be done (Mat 23:23)

I wouldn't say Jesus said both should be done, as there is a difference between endorsing an action and stating that it's possible to focus on more important things without neglecting the importance of others.

​

You mentioned Col 2. Regarding Paul's instruction there:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Col 2:16)​

How would this sentence be different if I were to rewrite it as,

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by who you marry and sleep with -- even if it be your father's wife" ? (Kevin's rewrite)​

​

There are fundamentally the same. In Col 2:16, Paul is making reference to old Jewish regulations, and rejecting them. So I just swapped out one old Jewish restriction for another. But note the contrast to 1 Cor 5 where Paul states just the opposite. That is the passage I posted earlier about the immoral church member who married his father's wife.

Those aren't fundamentally the same, because the one is something that is specifically Jewish and tied up in having a Jewish identity and the other is prohibited far more widely, basically universally. Paul doesn't contradict his words in Colossians or Galatians or Romans in Corinthians, unless one or the other or both are twisted. Especially since Paul's words in 1 Cor 5 are not about whether or not the one caught in sin is justified, with the sanction against him not being a matter of condemnation but as an attempt for him to self-correct. It is hand him over to Satan so that his flesh may be destroyed and his soul saved, which implies that his justification is not tied into his adherence to the law but is dependent on the grace he has received from God.

Paul says different things at different times when talking to different people. As far as I am concerned, he is unreliable as a source of doctrine. I think he was the Lord's chosen agent to reach the Gentiles, and he was a Godly man who was doing the very best in dedicating his entire life to God's work. But when he is not consistent, I don't trust him. And in addition to not being consistent with himself, he appears to me to not be consistent with the rest of the Bible. Peter commented that Paul was hard to understand, I believe for just such reasons. I am not throwing Paul out. I believe God had given him an understanding that worked for the situation he was in. But I don't think what Paul wrote then is always applicable in a larger scope. And if today I see someone drinking poison wood grain alcohol (methanol), I am certainly going to judge them as headed for big problems, and am going to intervene to the best of my ability. And if the man replies that he isn't going to "let me judge him by what he drinks," I will try all the harder to help him see that he is misguided. Details matter.

Best wishes
KT

Jesus also says different things at different times, because they are addressing different issues and different audiences. It would be totally inappropriate for a doctor to prescribe chemotherapy for an allergic reaction, or antibiotics for cancer. Attempts to create a universal, one-sized fits all systematic doctrine are almost certainly in error, but not because the sources are in any way insufficient or because of any contradictions within the Biblical data. So on the one hand you're correct that what Paul has written isn't always applicable, but not for the reasons that you seem to be putting forward for it.

 

[KevinT]

I wouldn't say Jesus said both should be done, as there is a difference between endorsing an action and stating that it's possible to focus on more important things without neglecting the importance of others. --KT ADDED EMPHASIS

I'm not following you. Agree that there can be the kind of difference you mention, but Jesus does specifically say that both should be done:

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.​

Those aren't fundamentally the same, because the one is something that is specifically Jewish and tied up in having a Jewish identity and the other is prohibited far more widely, basically universally.

I disagree. There were some arbitrary Mosaic rules that were tied up with Jewish identity. I'm thinking specifically of the instruction to not cut the hair on the sides of their heads. But I would estimate that > 70% of the regulations fall into the "don't do this because it is a bad thing for any human being to do" category. You are saying that only laws that are "prohibited far more widely, basically universally" are applicable. So when God told them to not worship idols, this wouldn't still apply because it wasn't followed universally? That makes no sense. Paul, indeed, doesn't seem to worry too much about idols:

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, (1 Cor 8)​

Whereas the resurrected Jesus, in Revelation, specifically calls this practice out:

20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.​

I think that much confusion comes from when one considers if an action is being done for moral reasons, for natural reasons. Take the washing of hands. Many a mother has insisted that their child washes hands before coming to supper. Compare that to the handwashing of the Pharisees who saw it as a matter of holiness (and self-sanctified satisfaction). So when Christ lambasted the Pharisees for their exasperating actions, He may well have swept up their teachings of handwashing with everything else. But that doesn't mean handwashing is bad. It is a good thing (unless overdone).

So lets go back to the issue of eating. A quick web search pulls up this article: An Evidence-based Look at the Effects of Diet on Health showing that what humans eat has a huge impact on health. So while the gospels indicate that Jesus declared all foods clean (Mat 7:19), this does NOT mean that you would want to eat food that had just fell in some manure. And the counsel at Jerusalem gave counsel to the Gentiles very very few recommendations for life (Act 15).

19. It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to ​

1. abstain from food polluted by idols,
2. from sexual immorality,
3. from the meat of strangled animals and
4. from blood.

Notice that 3 of the 4 recommendations relate to food. Paul doesn't seem to take this to heart, but I'll leave it to others to decide if Paul's opinion should outweigh the opinion of all the other apostles.

So the point I seem to be making badly is that Paul, at best, seems to be pointing to the self-sanctimonious effects of Jews who felt no need to follow Jesus because they had it all figured out with their handwashing and careful diets. And perhaps those guidelines had to be set aside for a time to lower the barrier of entry to the sheep from Christ's other pastures. But that is NOT to say that in the real world, there are real-life benefits from following rules.

"Tie your shoelaces", I'll say.
"You can't tell me what to do, I'm free in Christ!" is the reply, followed by a trip on their face.

Paul doesn't contradict his words in Colossians or Galatians or Romans in Corinthians, unless one or the other or both are twisted. Especially since Paul's words in 1 Cor 5 are not about whether or not the one caught in sin is justified, with the sanction against him not being a matter of condemnation but as an attempt for him to self-correct. It is hand him over to Satan so that his flesh may be destroyed and his soul saved, which implies that his justification is not tied into his adherence to the law but is dependent on the grace he has received from God.

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not convinced. I say Paul contradicts himself, and you say he doesn't. And exactly how does letting Satan destroy a man's flesh lead to the salvation of his soul?

Jesus also says different things at different times, because they are addressing different issues and different audiences. It would be totally inappropriate for a doctor to prescribe chemotherapy for an allergic reaction, or antibiotics for cancer.

I agree.

Attempts to create a universal, one-sized fits all systematic doctrine are almost certainly in error, but not because the sources are in any way insufficient or because of any contradictions within the Biblical data.

So there is no way to have a system of truth, but NOT because the bible doesn't provide sufficient information for this? That doesn't make sense to me.

So on the one hand you're correct that what Paul has written isn't always applicable, but not for the reasons that you seem to be putting forward for it.

Paul is not with us today, so I can't talk with him. But I can talk to people who take what Paul said to someone else a long long time ago, and then try tell me it applies today. Do all the women in your church always keep quiet and have their heads covered in submission, "because of the angels"? Some churches are this way, but not many. Perhaps it was appropriate then, but not now. Perhaps it was appropriate to say that Gentiles could eat whatever they want. But today perhaps we would caution that a diet of McDonalds does not lead to a happy long life -- regardless of what Paul said about not being restricted by a "do not eat".

KT

 

[Fervent]

I'm not following you. Agree that there can be the kind of difference you mention, but Jesus does specifically say that both should be done:

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.​

Saying not to neglect the former is not saying both should be done, as neglect is a particular disregard. So while it's true that Jesus isn't condemning their meticulous tithing per se, he isn't necessarily giving an endorsement to it either. He's cutting off a potential objection, rather than giving a command to follow.

I disagree. There were some arbitrary Mosaic rules that were tied up with Jewish identity. I'm thinking specifically of the instruction to not cut the hair on the sides of their heads. But I would estimate that > 70% of the regulations fall into the "don't do this because it is a bad thing for any human being to do" category. You are saying that only laws that are "prohibited far more widely, basically universally" are applicable. So when God told them to not worship idols, this wouldn't still apply because it wasn't followed universally? That makes no sense. Paul, indeed, doesn't seem to worry too much about idols:

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, (1 Cor 8)​

Whereas the resurrected Jesus, in Revelation, specifically calls this practice out:

20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.​

While the cutting of the hair has come to be one of the identifying markers of modern Jewish identity, it wasn't one in the ancient world. The context is important to understand the Biblical texts, which your two examples show perfectly. Neither of them are in contradiction to one another, and while they appear similar they aren't when the context is understood. When Paul is discussing eating food sacrificed to idols, he is writing to people who are concerned they can't buy any food in the market because they can't distinguish between what has and hasn't been sacrificed to an idol. So Paul highlights that the idols are just statues, the act of sacrificing the food to them doesn't change anything about the food. Whereas in Revelation the practice is knowingly eating food sacrificed to idols as part of a ritual, in worship of the idol. Which Paul also condemns within 1 Cor. The separation between laws that set the Jews apart as Jews in the ancient world, vs those that were recognized as immoral by the wider world makes a very important distinction because what Paul is dealing with is the question of what makes a Christian a Christian, because there were some who wanted to compromise their exclusive devotion and identity as belonging to the Messiah in order to be accepted by the Jews through requiring circumcision, dietary restrictions, and Sabbath laws on gentile converts. So what Paul was opposing was not adherence to a set of moral guidelines, but the rejection of Jesus' paradigm shifting existence. On the one hand, the compromisers wanted there to be no difference pre- and post- Messiah. They wanted the world to be continued to be divided between Jew and gentile, with the gentiles on the outside of God's acceptance. So the fact that the laws Paul chose to highlight were the specific ones that were seen as setting apart the Jewish nation are not coincidental, but crucial to the arguments being set forth.

I think that much confusion comes from when one considers if an action is being done for moral reasons, for natural reasons. Take the washing of hands. Many a mother has insisted that their child washes hands before coming to supper. Compare that to the handwashing of the Pharisees who saw it as a matter of holiness (and self-sanctified satisfaction). So when Christ lambasted the Pharisees for their exasperating actions, He may well have swept up their teachings of handwashing with everything else. But that doesn't mean handwashing is bad. It is a good thing (unless overdone).

I'm not sure what purpose your pointing this out is supposed to serve.

So lets go back to the issue of eating. A quick web search pulls up this article: An Evidence-based Look at the Effects of Diet on Health showing that what humans eat has a huge impact on health. So while the gospels indicate that Jesus declared all foods clean (Mat 7:19), this does NOT mean that you would want to eat food that had just fell in some manure. And the counsel at Jerusalem gave counsel to the Gentiles very very few recommendations for life (Act 15).

19. It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to ​

1. abstain from food polluted by idols,
2. from sexual immorality,
3. from the meat of strangled animals and
4. from blood.

Notice that 3 of the 4 recommendations relate to food. Paul doesn't seem to take this to heart, but I'll leave it to others to decide if Paul's opinion should outweigh the opinion of all the other apostles.

Again, Paul does take it to heart which is clear in 1 Cor, it's only when stripped of its context that it may appear that he doesn't. At this point, it seems as if your primary purpose is to undermine Paul, rather than to understand what is being instructed in the Bible.

So the point I seem to be making badly is that Paul, at best, seems to be pointing to the self-sanctimonious effects of Jews who felt no need to follow Jesus because they had it all figured out with their handwashing and careful diets. And perhaps those guidelines had to be set aside for a time to lower the barrier of entry to the sheep from Christ's other pastures. But that is NOT to say that in the real world, there are real-life benefits from following rules.

"Tie your shoelaces", I'll say.
"You can't tell me what to do, I'm free in Christ!" is the reply, followed by a trip on their face.

Some confuse what Paul has said as being opposed to legal guidance in general, and that's certainly worth opposing. But your suppositions about lowering the barrier for entry temporarily are entirely baseless, and don't seem to engage with what Paul is actually arguing in his letters. What was at stake is whether or not Jesus being the Messiah meant anything, or if it was just business as usual for the people of God. To return to the structures that existed before the advent is treason to the king, and this is on a permanent basis not simply a temporary lowering the bar of entry.

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not convinced. I say Paul contradicts himself, and you say he doesn't. And exactly how does letting Satan destroy a man's flesh lead to the salvation of his soul?

His soul was already saved because he belongs to Christ, but he would not crucify the flesh himself. Paul doesn't contradict himself, because no where does Paul claim that there is no standard for holy living. In fact, within every single one of his arguments against the law he heightens the requirement for holiness to a more stringent level.

I agree.


So there is no way to have a system of truth, but NOT because the bible doesn't provide sufficient information for this? That doesn't make sense to me.

Systems of truth are fabrications, but the inability to build one is not because of a flaw in the Bible or because there exist contradictions within the Biblical texts. The issue is that reality, and ethics, are not divided up into neatly digestible packets. So the Bible contains all there is for us to know about these things, but as soon as we start trying to force it into some kind of system we distort what is written in the Bible.

Paul is now with us today, so I can't talk with him. But I can talk to people who take what Paul said to someone else a long long time ago, and then try tell me it applies today. Do all the women in your church always keep quiet and have their heads covered in submission, "because of the angels"? Some churches are this way, but not many. Perhaps it was appropriate then, but not now. Perhaps it was appropriate to say that Gentiles could eat whatever they want. But today perhaps we would caution that a diet of McDonalds does not lead to a happy long life -- regardless of what Paul said about not being restricted by a "do not eat".

KT

You're talking about two different things, because Paul himself argues against what you claim he is in favor of within the letters we have...for example:
23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

The issue you seem to be having is you're taking drive-by swipes at Paul and accusing him of saying things he doesn't say based on snippets of his letters, rather than taking the time to understand the letters as a whole in their historical context. Let's return to your accusation with food for idols, sure if we stopped at 1 Cor 8 we might get the impression that Paul is telling them to eat foods sacrificed to idols to their hearts content because idols are nothing. But if we read the whole letter, we'd come across this:

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel:[d] are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Seems like he may be contradicting himself, if that's all we have to go on. In one place, it's ok to eat food sacrificed to idols, in another, it's not ok. In the same exact letter. So is Paul contradicting himself? No, and we find out why shortly after.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his.

So we can put it all together, the central issue that the Corinthians were wrestling with was meat that may or may not have been sacrificed to idols. Paul denounces eating food sacrificed to idols religiously in 1 Cor. 10:14-22, which is what the Acts prohibition and Revelation judgment are dealing with. So he's consistent with both of those. But he adds nuance to the picture, because of a couple of realities the people of Corinth were dealing with in their cities. First was accidentally eating meat sacrificed to idols because it isn't disclosed to them, and second is being put in a situation where their neighbors would see them eating meat sacrificed to idols with full knowledge. In the first case, Paul argues that it makes no difference because the meat is not corrupted by being sacrificed to the idol, because it is the act of worship that is forbidden not pollution from contact with something unclean. The second he forbids, regardless of whether there is an act of worship involved because he doesn't even want to give a hint of endorsement to these false gods.

Now, if we fly-by-night we can certainly get the impression that Paul contradicts himself and the rest of the Bible. But it seems to me that when we get this impression, it's something we have mistaken because Paul is often making nuanced arguments that aren't delved into within the rest of Scripture. He's dealing with real situations in churches, and is a study in applied theology. There are a lot of reads on Paul that aren't consistent with the Bible as a whole, and some of these are common, but these usually come from not understanding the historical picture that Paul is dealing with and instead bringing in a different set of historical assumptions.

 

[KevinT]

...

Now, if we fly-by-night we can certainly get the impression that Paul contradicts himself and the rest of the Bible. But it seems to me that when we get this impression, it's something we have mistaken because Paul is often making nuanced arguments that aren't delved into within the rest of Scripture. He's dealing with real situations in churches, and is a study in applied theology. There are a lot of reads on Paul that aren't consistent with the Bible as a whole, and some of these are common, but these usually come from not understanding the historical picture that Paul is dealing with and instead bringing in a different set of historical assumptions.

Fervent,
Thank you for the time you have put into going back and forth on this topic with me. We still do not see eye-to-eye on the issue of Paul, but at the end of the day, we are each God's children, and we each will rely on Him to bring us into the understanding we need. I think we have discussed this enough. I am finding myself getting upset when I can't seem to get my point across. So let's just let this be for awhile.

Again, I thank you for your sincere effort you have put into talking with me.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[sparow]

There is no such thing as a "pagan Christian". Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. Paul plainly states that mankind is not under the laws of the old covenant and that includes the laws concerning Sabbath keeping. Mankind is free to worship corporately any day we choose because we are not under the Law. And I might remind you that Gentile nations were never under the Law given only to Israel.

I disagree with you on every point.

What do you mean by there is no such thing as a pagan Christian? Could it be that there is no such thing as a heathen Christian, or no such thing as an unenlightened Christian, a fake Christian, a false Christian or the Christian who uses Jesus's name to hide their repose, while providing their own garments and their own food, Christians in name only, having strange gods.

What I had in mind by Pagan Christian is where all the Pagan religions and the Chistian false religion is placed in a big melting pot and blended, and the resulting soup is called universalism, or Pagan Christian.

What do you mean, "Jesus came and fulfilled the Law", this reeks of doctrines of men, was Jesus underneath the Law when He did it, do you mean, Jesus fulfilled the Ten Commandments, or do you mean Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, or that Jesus fulfilled all the Prophesies concerning himself found in the Law and the Prophets, or do you mean Jesus confirmed the old covenant?

Because Paul is difficult to understand I will only nibble at his edges. I do not believe Paul has plainly stated what you are suggesting. Mankind is only free to worship in any manner when he disregards God, otherwise God instructs. I suspect you have in mind what pagans call worship. God expects worship 24/7, we are expected to value everything associated with the covenant, the Sabbath, the Law, the promise.

 

[Bob S]

Do you believe Paul was Jesus' ambassador to all mankind? It seems like you downgrade him and in fact, if you really believe in him, you would not be posting all of the fallacies you have been. Since you don't believe he was writing the truth you won't consider the following:
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament;(new covenant) not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

Paul is not hard to understand with those words. He called the ten commandments the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation and wrote that they were done away. Yes, they came with glory when Moses brought them down from the mount, but that glory faded when the ministry of the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost which is more glorious. Verse 9 tells us that the Holy Spirit EXCEEDS IN GLORY and verse 10 tells us that what was glorious has no glory because of the Holy Spirit that excels. Then Paul tells us in verse 11 that the ten commandments have been DONE AWAY.

We can either believe what you write or what Paul has written. That choice is so easy to make. John, in 1Jn 3, tells us we belong to the truth if we believe in the one God sent to save us and if we love one another as He loves us. Se Jn15:9-14 where Jesus tells us He kept the Torah and asks us to keep His commands. His command in chapter 15 is the new command to love others as Jesus loves us. He loves us so much that He laid down His life for us. Notice in chapter 15 that Jesus didn't ask us to keep the Torah as He did. You, on the other hand, tell us we have to keep some of it. again, the choice is so easy to make.

 

[Bob S]

Because Paul is difficult to understand I will only nibble at his edges. I do not believe Paul has plainly stated what you are suggesting. Mankind is only free to worship in any manner when he disregards God, otherwise God instructs. I suspect you have in mind what pagans call worship. God expects worship 24/7, we are expected to value everything associated with the covenant, the Sabbath, the Law, the promise.

Did I write "in any manner"? Why do I have to always correct your posts? We are free to worship corporately any time we please. If you choose Saturday, I certainly do not have any qualms.

You have yet to answer correctly when Gentile nations were required to observe the laws given to the Israelites and that is including the Sabbath laws. Where are those commands?

 

[Gary K]

Did I write "in any manner"? Why do I have to always correct your posts? We are free to worship corporately any time we please. If you choose Saturday, I certainly do not have any qualms.

You have yet to answer correctly when Gentile nations were required to observe the laws given to the Israelites and that is including the Sabbath laws. Where are those commands?

Where is your posting of the Biblical covenant made with Gentiles as you use the new covenant, made with the nations of Israel and Judah, to escape keeping God's law which was never it's intent?

 

[sparow]

Do you believe Paul was Jesus' ambassador to all mankind? It seems like you downgrade him and in fact, if you really believe in him, you would not be posting all of the fallacies you have been. Since you don't believe he was writing the truth you won't consider the following:
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament;(new covenant) not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

Paul is not hard to understand with those words. He called the ten commandments the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation and wrote that they were done away. Yes, they came with glory when Moses brought them down from the mount, but that glory faded when the ministry of the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost which is more glorious. Verse 9 tells us that the Holy Spirit EXCEEDS IN GLORY and verse 10 tells us that what was glorious has no glory because of the Holy Spirit that excels. Then Paul tells us in verse 11 that the ten commandments have been DONE AWAY.

We can either believe what you write or what Paul has written. That choice is so easy to make. John, in 1Jn 3, tells us we belong to the truth if we believe in the one God sent to save us and if we love one another as He loves us. Se Jn15:9-14 where Jesus tells us He kept the Torah and asks us to keep His commands. His command in chapter 15 is the new command to love others as Jesus loves us. He loves us so much that He laid down His life for us. Notice in chapter 15 that Jesus didn't ask us to keep the Torah as He did. You, on the other hand, tell us we have to keep some of it. again, the choice is so easy to make.

I do not use Paul; Jesus is my teacher.

I believe Paul is an ambassador, but not Christ's.

Jesus said Satan can change himself into an angel of light. I believe Satan changed himself int an angel of light and met Paul on the road to Damascus and sent him forth as the deception that can deceive the very elect. For that reason, I do not use Paul as an authority.

<<We can either believe what you write or what Paul has written.>>

This is not a wise option, your option should be, we can either believe what Jesus wrote or what Paul wrote, even if they say the same thing, Jesus has authority, Paul does not.

I believe Paul says a lot that is wrong, but by nuance and assumption and context and premise, and translators put words in his mouth. But even if Paul said nothing wrong he is still sent not by Christ as he claims; so it is the authority of Satan in place of the authority of Christ; maybe Paul believed he was sent by Christ.

Jesus said he cannot testify of himself unless his Father be a second witness to he testimony; you allow Paul to testify of himself, with out God's witness.

<< Paul is not hard to understand (you disagree with Peter) with those words. He called the ten commandments the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation and wrote that they were done away. >>

Now you have Paul disagreeing with God.

<<where Jesus tells us he kept the Torah (where does he tell us that) and asks us to keep his commandments.>>

I understand the doctrine of men you boast, I don't understand you being gullible. Jesus said not any part may be changed in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus said, ”Before Abraham was, I am”, so therefore the Torah is his commandments.

 

[HIM]

I agree with 90% of what you wrote and it seems you agree with about 80% of what I wrote. I don't think there would be any value to me going back and trying to defend the points you disagree with.

I'll just say that you seem to be showing all the ways that Paul upholds the law. And on the other hand, I very frequently find people who point out all the ways that Paul writes about doing away with the law. See post from @Clare73. This is what drives me crazy about Paul. I feel like I am back in college with a professor that won't give consistent guidance about what will be on the test. One day he says this, and another day he says that. 2 Cor 12 "6 Let it be granted, then, that I was not a burden to you; but, crafty fellow that I am, I took you with trickery! " I think Paul purposely works to shake his audience out of their complacency with this back and forth, saying things to shock them into consideration of the important issues he is trying to teach.

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post. I appreciate it.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Hey Keven,
When we understand that we are not to be sinning anymore because God has given us the ability through Christ, then we will understand how the Law has been done away. If that which was on the outside telling us what to do is now on the inside defining who we are. What need is there for that which was, when we are what it intended?

 

[Bob S]

I do not use Paul; Jesus is my teacher.

I believe Paul is an ambassador, but not Christ's.

Jesus said Satan can change himself into an angel of light. I believe Satan changed himself int an angel of light and met Paul on the road to Damascus and sent him forth as the deception that can deceive the very elect. For that reason, I do not use Paul as an authority.

<<We can either believe what you write or what Paul has written.>>

This is not a wise option, your option should be, we can either believe what Jesus wrote or what Paul wrote, even if they say the same thing, Jesus has authority, Paul does not.

I believe Paul says a lot that is wrong, but by nuance and assumption and context and premise, and translators put words in his mouth. But even if Paul said nothing wrong he is still sent not by Christ as he claims; so it is the authority of Satan in place of the authority of Christ; maybe Paul believed he was sent by Christ.

Jesus said he cannot testify of himself unless his Father be a second witness to he testimony; you allow Paul to testify of himself, with out God's witness.

<< Paul is not hard to understand (you disagree with Peter) with those words. He called the ten commandments the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation and wrote that they were done away. >>

Now you have Paul disagreeing with God.

<<where Jesus tells us he kept the Torah (where does he tell us that) and asks us to keep his commandments.>>

I understand the doctrine of men you boast, I don't understand you being gullible. Jesus said not any part may be changed in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus said, ”Before Abraham was, I am”, so therefore the Torah is his commandments.

Since you do not believe God inspired Paul to write much of the New Testament, I have no interest in continuing a dialog with you. All I am able to do is to pray for you and those who believe like you. The old adage is we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make it drink.

 

[Bob S]

A question to the moderators:

Should a person who does not believe the Apostle Paul (or any of the other Bible contributors) are part of the Biblical canon be allowed to write on this forum?

 

[ralliann]

There is no such thing as a "pagan Christian". Jesus came and fulfilled the Law. Paul plainly states that mankind is not under the laws of the old covenant and that includes the laws concerning Sabbath keeping. Mankind is free to worship corporately any day we choose because we are not under the Law. And I might remind you that Gentile nations were never under the Law given only to Israel.

God never made that covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob either.
De 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.


But with the 4th generation of Abrahams seed (Jacob) through Isaac.

 

[HIM]

A question to the moderators:

Should a person who does not believe the Apostle Paul (or any of the other Bible contributors) are part of the Biblical canon be allowed to write on this forum?

You will have Open a thread here: https://www.christianforums.com/forums/advisors-office-for-members.1260/


This is not the thread for it to be discussed.