Saul the Pharisees vs Paul the Apostle. No difference really.

[frienduff thaylorde]

All I need to do is warn.  My job is complete on this thread. 

[notsolostsoul]

8 hours ago, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

Your words belie the truth behind them. You say you're not accusing anyone here of this, but this is truth. Cowards attack Paul. The "but" revoked your prior affirmation. In other words, what you said was, cowards attack Paul.

You won't have a informative discussion within the realm of Apologetics when you call people cowards for their opinion of scripture. You'll close down conversation because people don't have to engage with those who resort to pejoratives rather than reason.

This is my point. Some use Paul's teachings to accuse, dismiss and reject people. Whether knowingly or not.

As I mentioned within this thread, Maybe it's not necessarily Paul's teachings intent, but many use it to attack. 

If you don't agree with it, or your view differs in anyway, "you are no Christian, you commit blasphemy, you are in darkness, you don't no Christ." Your soul is possessed".

I have been called a Wolf, I was told I could not be a vessel of God, amongst other things, all on this forum.

Yet, I completely believe in Christ. So I live my life according to his direction. I treat others with Love, understanding and mercy. If my friends, family or strangers come to me with problems, I refer them to Jesus, for them to receive/accept him as I do.

Yet none of this matters because I disagree with what a MAN says in a book. My salvation is questioned, by MAN.

I am Jesus (The Trinity) first and let them lead me through life and Scripture.

Jesus came because Scripture had it wrong before. MAN had it wrong before. So Jesus gave all The Spirit to lead, teach and guide them to God. Yet Man still wants to condemn as if they (Man) have authority.

Good thing is I am so sure that God chose me to be with him. I do not shake because MAN speaks scripture to me from their own interpretation.

I don't live for MAN. 

I do not fear MAN, nor their thoughts.

No one has to hide from Jesus/God. He knows us, everyone. He knows our sins and struggles and yet he still chooses sinners with Godly Hearts to work for him. The Meek, the Humble, the sick, the outcast.

The MEN I fear for, are the ones who accuse, reject and turn away God's creations, as if God does not know what he is doing or how he is doing it. That's bold.

These actions mimic those of The Pharisees. I hope people can test themselves well enough to ensure they do not follow the mistakes which were already made.

AND I would have to agree that Paul did speak on this also.

I never said his teachings weren't God inspiried, I never said they are not useful. For me however there is just something about the little additives don't match up completely as with what Jesus says or the Apostles.

Example:

Jesus says do not judge.

Paul says it's okay if......

Jesus was direct to what he meant. No judgement because we are just as sinful as the next.

Paul (according to some on here and elsewhere) says, as long as you are living rightly (which honestly would only be in your own view) then you can judge others, not in a mean way but you can.

That's not what Jesus said. We are not capable of judging.

We may think the specks are removed from our eyes, but that would be lies, since we are fallible to sin everyday and most likely commit sin in some way.

So leave the judging to God/Jesus. Leave the finger pointing and condemning to them for they are the only ones equip and authorized to do so.

We bring the gospel, teach where we can, to who will listen and let The Trinity deal with the rest. We can not convert. God can. We can not decide who is worthy of God's grace. God can and will with, murderers, adulterers or gays if he wants.

Paul was an example of a murderous persecutor, that JESUS change. That is what is written?????

So why do so many turn others away because they (MAN) have a problem with sinner's particular sins?

So once again, maybe it's not Paul, but those that use his teachings to condemn and judge others, should be careful not to fail like the Pharisees.

Even Paul warned of this.

Yes his ministry is GOD Inspired, as all ministry should be, but we must test the spirit.

I am not wrong for doing so.

Jesus blessed me as all sinners with the gift of the Holy Spirit to ensure I do. No MAN can take that from me. No man should try. Especially if he claims Jesus as his savior.

Sorry WalkingMyFishLikeABoss, didn't mean to hold your quote hostage. I just liked what you posted because it points out the very thing I have been speaking about.

How, if not Paul's teachings, but some who use Pual's teachings to justify them being able to criticize, judge, belittle and turn away, The very Gentiles (not in the law) they say they are trying to help.... "in Love."

Not calling anyone a Pharisee, but pointing out similar behavioral patterns.

Thank you WalkingMyFishLikeABoss

Sorry again for the hostage situation. Your words were perfect.

[notsolostsoul]

8 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

I'm sorry, but there is no factual basis whatsoever for the accusations against Paul. Keep in mind: we have to give an account of out words before the Lord. What happens in the event you discover your words are indeed wrong?

Think about it.

Factual can get very deep and scary, if you would research the origin of the Bible. Solid facts, there are none to prove.

We all have to give account of our words before the Lord. True indeed.

I have gone to the Lord about this issue since the Word has been brought to my attention by God. I consult with him daily on all of the Written Word, each verse from beginning to end. He patiently teaches me, bringing me to more and more understanding of right and wrong. What is him, who he is and how I should be?

If even after doing this in my journey of seeking Him, he finds I was in error and he can not forgive me for being in error. Then I would just have to take my punishment as he sees fit.

I trust that He leads me. If I am in error. I trust that he will correct me. I trust that since he brought me to him, because I wasn't really seeking him before. I trust that since he brought me to him and repeatedly has kept me near him, even as I ran from him in fear that I was not worthy. I trust that he will do exactly what he sees fit. 

I don't fear his judgement because I know that no matter what it is, it is justly so.

People may have a problem with my reply here also, because I don't fear him.

He taught me, from me running from him, that I do not need to fear him. I can come with all my sin stacked against me and if he wants he can wipe it all away. His Will, His Grace, His Gift.

[notsolostsoul]

7 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

"Research the origin of the Bible". Apparently you don't read my posts; I recently posted how we got the Bible here:

On that note: the Lord is not about to contradict Himself. If what we hear contradicts Scripture, Scripture has the say; God gave it to us for that reason. that said: if "god" told you that the writings of Paul in Scripture were not inspired by the Lord, then I would seriously question exactly what "god" was talking to me, because it is NOT the Lord of Creation whose words are in the Bible.

And in that case, you should be afraid.

 

Now, since you wanted to bring up the origin of the Bible, I'll repost my original comment for you:

 

The Old Testament:

With the OT, when God authorized the writing of a manuscript, the people of God recognized it as being such and preserved it. To draw an example, Moses wrote "all the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4), and these writings were laid in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26), as were Joshua's (Joshua 24:26), Samuel's (1 Samuel 10:25), Jeremiah's and Daniel (Daniel 9:2). As time went on, the number of books grew and people honored them as the Word of God. Example: Ezra possessed a copy of the law of Moses and and the prophets (Nehemiah 9:14, 26-30). This law was read and considered the Word of God.

Not all Jewish religious writings were considered Scripture though. Some examples are the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13), Books of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and other books (1 Kings 11:41). Were these books inspired Scripture, the Lord would have insured that they were to be included in the Bible.

The canonicity (authenticity) of these books were not questioned largely by the Jewish scholars; the books were regarded as canonical as soon as they were written, and when properly interpreted are in complete harmony with the other books of the OT. The centuries have demonstrated that keeping these books in the biblical canon was a wise move.

As of 400 BC, the canon of the OT was considered closed by the Jewish with the prophecy of Malachi. We know this because 1) our OT is based on the Hebrew Old Testament canon accepted by the Jews, and 2) it's the same canon that Jesus Christ ratified by His continual references to the OT as the unbreakable Word of God. (note: Jesus never quoted any of the books of the "Apocrypha" such as Maccabees).

Keep in mind: the OT books were selected without the benefit of any "council" such as Nicaea to debate the merits or detractors of any of the books. They leaders who were responsible for the spiritual life of the nation recognized the books and selected them. That said, it was never a "select committee" that did so. And while a council in Jamnia in 90 AD met on the canon of the OT, all it did was to ratify what was already selected.

 

 

The New Testament:

The authority given to those who penned the books of the OT on the Lord's command was ascribed to the writers of the New Testament. This authority is not found in human intellect, brilliance or any type of speculation, but is rooted in God's character. Paul cited to the congregation that he was writing per the Lord's command, and could legitimately tell them that he was doing so (1 Corinthians 14:37).

The books of the OT were written around the last half of the First century.  With the books, some of them were letters to individuals (such as the letter to Philemon), and others being letters to the local churches. Then there were the books that had been were written to larger audiences (such as Europe and East Asia). Because of this, we need to understand that not all the books were immediately available as copies to all the churches due to travel being as fast as one could walk, ride a horse or sail; communication was also limited as well during this time and depended on travel as opposed to today's technology. So, it took some time before the final number of NT books were ratified and the canon was set.

Selecting and verifying Scripture was important to the early believers, and as long as the Apostles were alive they could verify everything (Luke 1:2, Acts 1:21-22). Had Paul or Luke been fakes or unreliable, they would have quickly been decried by Peter, John, James and those who had been there for Jesus' miracles and heard His teaching during His ministry on Earth. For example, John said:

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. " (1 John 2-3 NASB, emphasis mine).

Peter was able to assure us that he had personally seen the Lord at the Transfiguration, his testimony being an eyewitness account (2 Peter 1:16-18) Apostolic authority was a final "court of appeal"; as they were the Lord's representatives on Earth and were commissioned to pass on the truth Jesus had taught them:

"“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."" (John 14:25-26, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

 

Apostolic Authority:

The fact that some books were accepted as Scripture is demonstrated in Peter's own words in Scripture: he possessed a collection of Paul's letters and regarded them as Scripture. Peter soundly confirms Paul's authority on writing Scripture:

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:14-16, NASB, emphasis mine)

Other books in the Bible confirm the authority of each other: Paul confirms Luke's writing as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 quoting Luke 10:7) and  Jude quoted Peter (Jude 1:17-18 quoting  2 Peter 3;3) are examples. By the end of the 1st Century, more than 2/3 of our present NT was deemed inspired, with the remaining books deemed as authoritative even though they had not been fully circulated yet. When a heretic named Marcion in 135 AD decided to "publish" his own version of Scripture that completely omitted the OT and only selected a few books from the NT (Marcion was fiercely anti-Semitic), the Church was forced to respond and declare which books were authoritative. A document called the Muratorian Fragment, dating back to 175 AD, evaluates the various canonical books alongside those that were not deemed canonical. Although the document is mutilated by age, scholars have been able to identify a list of book that contain 23 of the present 27 books of the NT. It also listed some spurious (fake) writings ascribed to Paul that the author noted could not be accepted into the church. These books that were fake were not "banned"; they were brushed aside because they were fakes.

 

 

What about the Councils?

There is contention that the canon of the OT was not finalized until 40 years after the Council of Nicaea (convened in 325 AD). While it's true that the full list of 27 NT books first appeared in the Easter letter of Athanasius in 367 AD, the 27 books of the NT (along with 39 books of the OT), had been functioning as the rule of the church for 250 years.

As for the Council of Nicaea, the topic of canon did not even come up at it; Constantine did not decide what canon was. What was discussed at the Council was whether Jesus Christ (The Son) was fully God or not (a man by the name of Arius was spreading the heresy that Jesus was not). This, along with other doctrinal disputes that were tearing apart society, forced Constantine to convene the council. Constantine had no agenda as to what creed or doctrine was selected; he let the delegates decide that.

Arius was given the opportunity to voice his views. But the council decided overwhelmingly that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that Arius' views on Jesus not being so were heresy (John chapter 1 pretty much blows Arius' views out of the water). The delegates recognized that if Jesus was not fully God, then He could not be the redeemer of Mankind; to say Jesus was created was to violate Scripture in a number of areas (Colossians 1:16, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, etc.). Once the divinity of Jesus was addressed and confirmed, they then determined that Christ could be fully God only if He had the very same nature as God (This was expressed by Marcellus, a bishop from Asia Minor and representative of Athanasius, who was present but not invited to the proceedings).

That said, what Constantine did do was commission Eusebius to make 50 Bibles on good parchment by trained scribes to be given to the churches of Constantinople for use. But while we presently don't have any copies of these Bibles to see which books were in the NT, scholar F.F. Bruce (Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester for 27 years), "the answer is not seriously in doubt. The copies contained all the books which Eusebius lists as universally acknowledged...in short, the same twenty-seven books as appear in our copies of the New Testament today". (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, InterVarsity Press, 1988)

in short: all the early church could do was recognize which books were inspired and which were not. It did not have the power to imbue a non-canonical book with any sort of authority, nor remove authority from a book that was authentic and had authority. They could only determine which books were legitimate; only the Holy Spirit, inspiring the book from the beginning, could make it authoritative.  No council could do this either, and the process was not a "selective, deliberate committee with an agenda".

 

 

Selection:

Now, how were these books determined to have inspiration and authority? These were the criteria:

1) Apostolic Writing/ Sanction: The books were either written by an apostle or sanctioned by one. Mark was not an apostle, but his words reflect his association with Peter; meantime, Luke traveled with Paul.

2) Tying in to the Rule of Faith: the book had to be consistent with both the teachings of the Old Testament prophets and the writings of the New Testament Apostles.

3) Acceptance: The book had to have continuous acceptance to remain in the canon. While times may change, the truth does not. Any book can be "true" in it's time, but does that book remain true and in harmony with established Scripture?

On that specific note: the Church is headed by Christ, and made up of fallible humans. And while humans do make mistakes, it is an infallible God who inspired a fallible Church to compile an infallible list of books that comprise our New Testament. And God is not so weak that he cannot ensure that man doesn't have His Word; if God is truly Almighty, He is capable of making sure the books of Scripture correspond to what He wants in there.

None, FACTUAL. A lot of considered and accepted by MAN based on MAN'S wisdom.

Ever played the telephone game? Whether knowing or unknowingly, messages get mixed. If Scripture was the complete unfallible Law, no need for The Spirit. 

Deny The Spirit and where are you? Without the Spirit what is Scripture?

Words are nothing, without The Spirit. Even God inspired Words led by false Spirits mean Nothing to God. It's false.

Reason for testing?

Man trying to tell what they believe scripture to be, force, that is Pharisees tactics. Jesus came so each individual can have their own connection with him and God without having to rely on another's Man's interpretation.  

Yet so many STILL WANT TO DENY MANY THAT GIFT FROM JESUS. 

And for what? What is the true motive behind MAN in bypassing the very gift Jesus gave and gives?

I live by THE TRINITY, and through them and only through them (not MAN) is pure direction.

So we can talk books about how MAN came up with all sorts of MAN knowledge, wisedom and criteria. That's  Man's. 

Even the 12 Apostles had difficulty understanding Jesus WHILE THEY WALKED WITH HIM. MAN had 1st hand direction and instruction and still could not understand with their MAN abilities.

Now some will say I contest the Bible.

NO I DON'T. I BELIEVE IT IS A TOOL, TOOL, TOOL, TO BE USED BY THE SPIRIT TO TEACH AND GUIDE.

However, I also take into account the many times Jesus in the bibles points out how MAN is flawed and that only THROUGH JESUS can one be saved.

So for me Jesus' teachings come first. Whether the Apostles agree or don't agree, my salvation comes from Jesus. MAN'S words are fallible.

I am not saying my beliefs are for anyone else, but Thank you Jesus for allowing me to learn from YOU and not HAVE TO, solely rely on MAN.

Sorry for all the bold, but working off of mobile, it's difficult going back and forth, from top to bottom. Over and over. Sorry!

[notsolostsoul]

5 minutes ago, Yowm said:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(2Pe 3:15-16)

Yes, it seems some are having a hard time understanding Paul.

I wonder who gave Paul such wisdom?

'Other Scriptures'...hmm, sounds like Paul's writings are on par with the 'other Scriptures', hence inspired of God.

...or should we throw Peter under the bus as well?

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(Isa 8:20)
 

 

As I have always stated. The Bible is a God inspired TOOL. valuable for teaching and guiding.

I never said it wasn't. Yet my faith lies in JESUS. Not a book.

Whoever believes otherwise, Jesus gives them that right as he gives me the right to seek him myself. Not under another MAN's control of how to do so.

Sharing info for the sake of discussion is fine. Forcing ones views as Law of another's salvation. We are not authorized. That's between the individual and God.

[Guest]

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:37 PM, Cobalt1959 said:

Why is it that some people are always so intent on bashing on Paul?

Because they wish to teach something other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. They are false teachers and should be challenged and/or ignored. For the sake of the little ones, they should be rebuked!

[WalkingMyFishLikeABoss]

57 minutes ago, Yowm said:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(2Pe 3:15-16)

Yes, it seems some are having a hard time understanding Paul.

I wonder who gave Paul such wisdom?

'Other Scriptures'...hmm, sounds like Paul's writings are on par with the 'other Scriptures', hence inspired of God.

...or should we throw Peter under the bus as well?

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(Isa 8:20)
 

 

Michael J. Kruger is the President and the Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.

 

The Authenticity of 2 Peter

Michael J. Kruger

Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

42.4 (1999):

645-671.

The Authenticity of 2 Peter

—

Michael J.

Kruger

j

J. N. D. Kelly in his commentary on 2 Peter confesses that “scarcely anyone nowadays

doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous.”

1

Indeed, from the very start this epistle has had a

difficult journey. It was received into the New Testament canon with hesitation, considered

second-class Scripture by Luther, reluctantly accepted by Calvin, rejected by Erasmus, and

now is repudiated as pseudonymous by modern scholarship. Joseph B. Mayor agrees with the

current consensus when he declares that 2 Peter “was not written by the author of 1 Peter,

whom we have every reason to believe to have been the Apostle St. Peter himself .... We

conclude, therefore, that the second Epistle is not authentic.”

2

Why all the difficulty? The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter turns on three

main problems: (1) problem of external attestation in the early church; (2) stylistic and literary

problems with 1 Peter and Jude; and (3) historical and doctrinal problems that seem to

indicate internal inconsistency and a late date. Undoubtedly, 2 Peter has a plethora of

problems. Most scholars believe its path towards canonical status was littered with pitfalls and

detours for good reason. If so, then why reopen a discussion which apparently deserves to stay

closed? It is not because I presume to have solved all the conundrums that have so vexed

capable scholars throughout church history, but because, in the case of 2 Peter, the other side

of the argument seems mainly untold. It is untold because scholars have reached a conclusion

about its authorship upon which they agree (a novel event in a field where there is little

agreement on anything). Therefore, it would be most beneficial for us to reconsider the “other

side”—indeed, scholarly progress is ensured by a willingness to rethink what has already been

thought—and to question what has already been decided.

Therefore, this essay will take a fresh look at 2 Peter’s pseudonymous label. I hope to

demonstrate that the case for its

pseudonymity is simply too incomplete and insufficient to

warrant the dogmatic conclusions issued by much of modern scholarship. Although 2 Peter

has various difficulties that are still being explored, we have no reason to doubt the epistle’s

own claims in regard to authorship.

[p 646]

I.Pseudepigraphy In The Early Church [FULL PDF]

 

 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1

[WalkingMyFishLikeABoss]

10 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I wasn't questioning the authenticity of 2 Peter, never had. But if one is going to belittle Paul, they'll also have to belittle Peter, for Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.

I don't think you have the right frame of mind in this discussion. There is no belittling happening here toward Paul, nor Peter. Though there appears to have arisen a spirit of that toward members who are selected in this discourse to be on the receiving end of innuendo and false claims concerning motive for participating. Pity.

Those who are fascinated with apologetics, and Soterology, and any other number of study  fields in Christian theology know that the authenticity of 2nd Peter has been a subject of debate and discussion among Bible scholars for years.  Addressing that isn't belittling anything. Ignoring theology and apologetics and scholarly discussions and research, doesn't help to further the dialog .

 

[Willa]

On 7/16/2017 at 10:58 AM, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

Did Paul teach repentance and baptism? If so, how often? And in what scripture?

 Act 17:30  “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,   Act 17:31  because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

 Act 17:32  Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”  Act 17:33  So Paul went out of their midst.

 1Co 1:16  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.  1Co 1:17  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Pauls disciples did baptize.  But baptism is not necessary for salvation.  Only that people repent and believe in the God who raises the dead, that Jesus is the I AM, the Word made flesh.

[WalkingMyFishLikeABoss]

3 minutes ago, Willa said:

 Act 17:30  “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,   Act 17:31  because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

 Act 17:32  Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”  Act 17:33  So Paul went out of their midst.

 1Co 1:16  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.  1Co 1:17  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Pauls disciples did baptize.  But baptism is not necessary for salvation.  Only that people repent and believe in the God who raises the dead, that Jesus is the I AM, the Word made flesh.

 

 

 

 

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Acts of the Apostles 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also sufferedonce for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, ¹⁹ in whichhe went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, ²⁰ becausethey formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ²¹ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.