Jump to content
IGNORED

Harmonizing Paul and the Twelve


stillseeking

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  13
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,726
  • Content Per Day:  2.91
  • Reputation:   6,258
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

I am a computer dotard....I have never pm’d.......wait a minute.....go here.....doctrine.org.......lotsa good stuff....enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,130
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

Mmm not sure where you are sending me. ....doctrine.org.....can you be a bit more specific, please?

Ok now I`ve found it - thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, stillseeking said:

I will respond in parts, because one of these things takes a while to write....and I work long hours :P

Then why did the apostles and Paul remain Torah observant?  Why did Paul go to great lengths to prove to the Jews that he *wasn't* breaking the law of Moses?  Why did Paul continue to make temple sacrifices and go to great lengths to observe the Jewish holy days?  How come the apostles continued in their Judaism for decades after Jesus' death, and why did Jesus preach the law of Moses?  How could Jesus even be accepted by ANY Jews--let alone any disciples who preached him--if he in any way failed the Deuteronomy 13 test? 

It (loving God with all one's heart) does not preclude the notion that the actions, which demonstrate such dedication, are indeed God's own instructions.  The apostles certainly seemed to think so as evidenced by the way they lived their lives. 

Even the alien living among the Jews was subject to their laws.  Gentiles are grafted on to Israel like the wild olive branch.  Seems like God's rules, which define sin, still apply to all of Israel, which is now all of us. 

I agree salvation is by faith because we'll all fall short of the law and need grace--no argument there.  The law tells us how to walk in love, peace, joy, etc--God spelled it out for us.  He lists out how we should interact and some things which are abominations.  Do those principles and rules stop applying?  And, if they did, why did the apostles keep on following them? 

I realize at this point the dilemma has shifted largely toward the concept of Torah observance, but I guess that was my main issue with Paul in the first place...and having shifted in understanding to see that he probably WAS observant, then the type of observance now becomes the issue. 

why did the apostles and Paul remain Torah observant? Why did Paul go to great lengths to prove to the Jews that he *wasn't* breaking the law of Moses? Why did Paul continue to make temple sacrifices and go to great lengths to observe the Jewish holy days? How come the apostles continued in their Judaism for decades after Jesus' death, and why did Jesus preach the law of Moses?”

Most of the early Apostles were Jews – and therefore conditioned from birth to be subject to Law. Peter was initially resistant to the message of freedom from Law - God had to reveal this to him in a vision (Acts 10). In Acts chapter 11, the Jewish Christians called Peter to account for this new message, but after hearing his testimony, realised that salvation was offered to the gentiles also (i.e. those not under Law – see verse 18). Even so, Paul later had to correct Peter for hypocritically reverting back to the standards of Law (Gal 2:11-21). It was difficult for Jews to get their heads around freedom from Law. Even gentile Christians find it difficult to get our heads around grace – that God's favour towards Christians is independent of our actions. Most gentiles are also conditioned by upbringing into a merit-based philosophy.

As for Jesus, He had a dual mission – to fulfil righteousness for all of humanity, and to fulfil the Law (the covenant between God and Israel). He therefore, through one sacrifice, qualified as the redeemer of both Gentiles (from sin) and Jews (from sin and the curse of the Law) – see Rom 2:12. Therefore Jesus could not interact with Gentiles in a manner that breached the Law. He could not teach freedom from Law until He had fulfilled it on the Jew's behalf. Nevertheless, gentiles with faith could still benefit from His ministry.

  Matthew 15:22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Even though Jesus' earthly ministry was specifically to those under Law, He foretold of a time when non-Jews (i.e. those not under Law) would be added to His flock.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

As for Paul, he explained;

1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

I think I should also explain that I was never suggesting that Christians are prohibited from participating in any aspects of the Law (that prohibition in itself would be a kind-of law – and a deviation from grace). But if we perceive such action as pleasing God or earning His favour, then we subject ourself to the perfect standard of the whole Law – and thereby reject grace. It is, for example, perfectly acceptable to give 10% of our income to the church. However, if we think that makes us any more righteous, mature, faithful, committed, or deserving of God's favour than any other Christian, we have strayed from grace into Law. Likewise, we are free to, or to not, circumcise our male children – but we would be wrong to assume that decision puts us (or our children) in any better stead with God. We can abstain from bacon if we choose, but there is no value in that decision before God with regards to righteousness (either for or against).

Romans 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Colossians 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

 

How could Jesus even be accepted by ANY Jews--let alone any disciples who preached him--if he in any way failed the Deuteronomy 13 test?

Agreed – if Jesus broke the Law, He would have been disqualified as the kinsman Redeemer of the Jews. He instead had to fulfil the Law to save the Jews.

 

It (loving God with all one's heart) does not preclude the notion that the actions, which demonstrate such dedication, are indeed God's own instructions.

That depends on who the instructions were intended for. If the purpose of one standard is to guide us into a new, better standard, then reverting to the first standard is a breach of both.

 

Seems like God's rules, which define sin, still apply to all of Israel, which is now all of us.

The Law does not “define sin”. The Law can reveal sin, but sin existed long before the Law.

 

The law tells us how to walk in love, peace, joy, etc--God spelled it out for us.

The Law doesn't tell us any such thing. The Law is purely about the letter, not the spirit. The Law is simply a list of rules for Israel to follow in order to fulfil their part of the covenant with God. The Law says; 'If Israel keeps these rules, God will bless and protect Israel, but if the rules are broken, Israel will be cursed'. It doesn't explain why or “how to walk in love, peace, joy, etc”, it just says 'follow the rules – or else!!!'. But Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) do what is right because we have the Holy Spirit – not because we find it on a list of rules.

 

He lists out how we should interact and some things which are abominations. Do those principles and rules stop applying?

Morality doesn't change with the instigation of a New Covenant. Those things which the Law said were immoral are still immoral. However the rules about “how we should interact” with sin are obsolete for Christians. We have the conviction of the Holy Spirit – and don't need to be told “thou shalt, or thou shalt not”. Christians understand that God is perfectly just, and that we have all sinned and need His salvation, and that God's primary motivation is to save sinners – not condemn us. The job of the church is to preach the gospel of grace to save as many as will hear it – not to stone sinners for committing “abominations” (as the Law would have us do).

When the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus, He didn't dispute that she was worthy of death under Law, but questioned the authority of her accusers to cast judgement. “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (Jn 8:7). The only One present Who had the authority to condemn her by the standards of Law, rather chose mercy; “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” (verse 11).

Edited by Tristen
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  13
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,726
  • Content Per Day:  2.91
  • Reputation:   6,258
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  12/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

Tristen.....another great post....thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  146
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   86
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

Again, context is important. Verse 19 explains that this was pertaining to the manner of Peter's capture and death – nothing to do with him being “deceived”.

Verse 19 does indeed say that it pertained to his death, so shame on me for missing that context.  Verse 18 doesn't really match up with that, though.  The better translation is to "stretch forth" his hands, not stretch "out".  I'm not sure we can know if it's supposed to be about the manner of death or just an event that happens leading up to it.  Many interpret the latter, and they must be aware of the context.  I guess I just need more information here, and all of it's opinion-based, so I'm not sure I'll get any. 

Quote

Look at the New Testament table in your provided link. None of Paul's writings are disputed by any listed tradition.

I'm aware of that, but that's not the point - the point is that the Bible differs regionally, meaning that what is part of "canon" in one place may not be in another place.  In other words, the idea of a canon is entirely man-made.  Because canon varies, we must conclude that some of them are wrong, and thus, it would be impossible to know which canon, if any, is "God's word".  Like I said, they're man-made and thus subject to fallacy. 

Related to this is why I am interested in sources which show that the early apostolic-lead churches did or did not adhere to the traditional interpretation of Paul.  The more I read, the more I catch onto details such as Paul preaching to the Gentiles in the synagogues on Saturdays...in Acts.  Why would he be doing that if Gentiles weren't trying to learn the law of Moses?  Why would he be preaching on Saturday if, as many say, the early Christians gathered on Sunday? 

I'd love to see clear-cut examples of the apostles actually putting into practice the supposed decision that the law of Moses was done away with--but I just don't see that. 

Quote

I don't see any “confusion”. Paul has always been considered a legitimate Apostle of Christ – by the first church leaders (inc. Peter and James), and by the church at-large throughout history. You are finding confusion where none exists (which I would suggest speaks to a pre-existing agenda).

*Sigh* Why is everyone so convinced that I have an agenda when all I have done is read and come to the conclusion that the traditional understanding of Christianity seems a bit off, based on what's *actually* there? 

Anyway...Paul may or may not have been an apostle in the generic sense (not the twelve, but someone preaching Yeshua nonetheless) but he certainly wasn't part of the THE twelve apostles chosen by Yeshua.  He only chose 12. 

Revelation 21: 14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations bearing the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

I test everything and don't accept anything at face value.  Doing so would put me at risk of accidentally believing the wrong thing, and believing in the wrong gospel is warned about.  Sounds like something I should take seriously. 

Quote

Everyone from Adam to Moses sinned without a Torah. And gentiles sinned, even though the Torah was only given to the Jews. The Apostle John defined the commandments as faith in Jesus and love one another (1 Jn 3:23). So I disagree that commandments must always refers to the Law.

Yet Yeshua, when asked which commandments to obey in order to inherit eternal life, got more specific than that and began quoting the law of Moses:

Mark 10:17 "17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’”

You mention Adam and those prior to Moses - they didn't have the Torah yet, so of course there was nothing in it they could have been held accountable for.  But God spelled out exactly HOW to love him and exactly HOW to love your neighbor in detail in the Torah.  Now that we have that clarification, what is the rationale for abandoning it?  I simply don't see it. 

Quote

Paul's inclusion in scripture has been consistently accepted by the Christian church throughout church history.

We have essentially the Roman/Constantine church as the one allowed to live and spread.  That iteration of church contained a ton of pagan customs and influences.  Those were also allowed to live but are not valid teachings of God.  Thus we can see that which traditions are upheld by many people are *not* proof that they are valid. 

Quote

the onus is on those opposing to make a convincing case against

Exactly, and for this reason, I still ask why Paul (or at least the traditional understanding of Paul, as mainstream Christians believe) should be valid instead of the Jewish/apostolic Kingdom message that the apostles were given by Yeshua.  "Test all the prophets". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  146
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   86
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/31/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

Peter was initially resistant to the message of freedom from Law - God had to reveal this to him in a vision (Acts 10)

I'm aware of the interpretation of the vision and am thankful that it's right there in verse 18 as you mentioned--as many mistakenly think that this vision was there to abolish the Jewish dietary laws (it wasn't).  It was to tell Peter it would be ok to go to the Gentiles.  Maybe I'm missing something from Torah, but where in the Torah does it prohibit a Jew from visiting the house of a Gentile?  There certainly were Pharisee traditions (law of men) prohibiting such things. 

Quote

He therefore, through one sacrifice, qualified as the redeemer of both Gentiles (from sin) and Jews (from sin and the curse of the Law)

The curse of the law of sin and death, yes, but obviously not the entire law.  Even Christians today generally still regard the moral components, such as the ten commandments, to be valid.  Paul also tells us later that the law isn't abolished but established a few different times.  Sin = transgression of the law.  Obviously the definition of sin, including what he finds to be an abomination, can't have changed if God never changes. 

Furthermore, if God meant to abolish the law but only for the Gentiles, then why wasn't this mentioned until decades after his resurrection...let alone in a suspect way such as a vision experienced by someone totally outside the fold? 

If a Muslim came into your church and told you about his vision about God and that he converted to Christianity, you'd probably be glad that he converted but want to set him straight on any doctrine you thought he got wrong.  Same with Paul.  Seems very suspect in the same way. 

Quote

But if we perceive such action as pleasing God or earning His favour, then we subject ourself to the perfect standard of the whole Law

Doing God's commandments, just like Yeshua said, isn't pleasing to God?  Sure, all of our righteousness is like filthy rags to him due to the fact that we'll never be good enough, but he still seems to want our filthy rags if that is all we can offer.  Stuff like abstaining from bacon, though?  Show me where any of the apostles did NOT do that.  It was declared an abomination in the OT, and God doesn't change.  Keeping God's rules like that would be part of loving God with all your heart.  I will continue to not eat bacon because I read in the OT that it's an abomination.  Doing so does NOT save me; I strive to follow commandments BECAUSE of the "love God with all your heart" commandment given to us all as believers and followers of Yeshua. 

Quote

Romans 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Demonstrate how you believe the above is regarding God's laws and not the Pharisee traditions that Yeshua AND the apostles preached against. 

Quote

The Law does not “define sin”. The Law can reveal sin, but sin existed long before the Law.

1 John 3:4 "Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness."

Once given, breaking any of God's laws would be a sin.  Once God clarified the specifics of what he meant by loving him and loving others in Moses, humanity had no excuse to innocently transgress the laws set forth, as now specifics were laid out. 

Quote

The Law doesn't tell us any such thing. The Law is purely about the letter, not the spirit. The Law is simply a list of rules for Israel to follow in order to fulfil their part of the covenant with God. The Law says; 'If Israel keeps these rules, God will bless and protect Israel, but if the rules are broken, Israel will be cursed'. It doesn't explain why or “how to walk in love, peace, joy, etc”, it just says 'follow the rules – or else!!!'. But Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) do what is right because we have the Holy Spirit – not because we find it on a list of rules.

I am truly curious how you can come to this conclusion.  The ten commandments are either about specifically how to love god or love your neighbor.  Many other such rules exist with the intention of protecting widows, those disadvantaged, etc.  The Jews didn't seem to understand how to walk in love/peace until God spelled out the specifics.  (Following that, they knew, but broke it, but that's another story.)

Quote

Those things which the Law said were immoral are still immoral.

Like bacon, because it's listed as an abomination?  Why would that cease to apply? 

Quote

We have the conviction of the Holy Spirit – and don't need to be told “thou shalt, or thou shalt not”.

How can this be true when so many "spirit-led" Christians keep coming to different conclusions, even after lots of fasting and praying? 

Quote

Christians understand that God is perfectly just, and that we have all sinned and need His salvation, and that God's primary motivation is to save sinners – not condemn us.

I wish I could believe that, and it certainly sounds comforting, but:

Matthew 10:34 "34Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

Quote

When the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus, He didn't dispute that she was worthy of death under Law, but questioned the authority of her accusers to cast judgement. “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (Jn 8:7). The only One present Who had the authority to condemn her by the standards of Law, rather chose mercy; “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” (verse 11).

And this seems contradictory to the above, and to Revelation with all of its horrors and terrors.  So I guess I'm still very confused. 

On a personal level, it pains me to not be able to know what God wants me to do in order to love him.  I do not feel forgiven for my sins, and I worry constantly that I'm accidentally living in unrepentent since due to an incorrect understanding of the gospel, and my tendency is always to err on the side of caution.  My autistic brain works in black and white.  You want to know my motivation?  It is that.  And having come to belief in Christianity has thus been one of the most depressing and stressful things I've endured as of late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/28/2018 at 3:13 PM, stillseeking said:

Verse 19 does indeed say that ...

 

On 1/28/2018 at 3:55 PM, stillseeking said:

I'm aware of the interpretation of the vision and ....

Hey there, sorry for the belated and long response. There was a lot to cover.

You said,“the point is that the Bible differs regionally, meaning that what is part of "canon" in one place may not be in another place. In other words, the idea of a canon is entirely man-made. Because canon varies, we must conclude that some of them are wrong, and thus, it would be impossible to know which canon, if any, is "God's word". Like I said, they're man-made and thus subject to fallacy

Your initial argument was a suggestion to exclude Paul, but accept the Gospels as scripture. In order to determine scripture we need to have a set of standards (aka a canon or measure). You are arguing to exclude Paul because his inclusion would have to be accepted by fallible humans. For me, that is an unreasonably rigid standard – since no text could ever be accepted as scripture by that standard (including the Gospels).

I would suggest that if God was intent on preserving texts as scripture, He would have such text recognised unanimously by the early Christian church, and preserve that recognition throughout church history and throughout the various Christian traditions. I am therefore arguing this early and persistent recognition by the church to be a reasonable standard by which to measure the legitimacy of scripture (though obviously not the only standard).

I agree that where there is contradiction, some of the canons must be “wrong” to some degree – but the works in common to all (including Paul) pass this particular standard.

 

The more I read, the more I catch onto details such as Paul preaching to the Gentiles in the synagogues on Saturdays...in Acts. Why would he be doing that if Gentiles weren't trying to learn the law of Moses? Why would he be preaching on Saturday if, as many say, the early Christians gathered on Sunday?

My understanding is that Paul initially sought out Jews in the synagogues – to reveal Jesus to them through their scriptures – in accordance with his own Pharisaic training. I can't remember any verses where Paul specifically seeks out gentiles in the synagogues. Christians tend to meet on Sundays; traditionally to honour the resurrection of our Lord – but Christians are not restricted to preaching on Sundays. Paul went where and when he knew he would find people to preach to.

 

I'd love to see clear-cut examples of the apostles actually putting into practice the supposed decision that the law of Moses was done away with--but I just don't see that

Apart from the book of Acts, there is not much historical information in scripture about the specific behaviour of the early church – and Acts tends to focus on Paul. But I think it's fair to say that both Peter and Luke explicitly endorsed Paul through scripture.

 

*Sigh* Why is everyone so convinced that I have an agenda when all I have done is read and come to the conclusion that the traditional understanding of Christianity seems a bit off, based on what's *actually* there?

It's not an accusation, but a conclusion based on argument. By any reasonable standard, the inclusion of Paul in scripture is at-least as equally supported as any other New Testament text. Paul's writing is explicitly endorsed in other scriptures. His message can be reconciled to be consistent with the rest of scripture (both Old and New Testaments). Through his ministry, Christianity was spread throughout the Roman empire – and from there the whole world. And his written message has been preserved as scripture from the time of the early church, and is still accepted unanimously as scripture by all major Christian traditions (maybe all Christian traditions).

In light of all that support, arguing for a special rejection of Paul (whilst accepting other scriptures like the Gospels) speaks to an underlying motive against Paul. Perhaps the bias is unconscious, but there is a clear reluctance to hear the supporting arguments for Paul's inclusion. I don't point it out as an attack – I just know it's sometimes difficult to recognise our own biases.

 

Paul may or may not have been an apostle in the generic sense (not the twelve, but someone preaching Yeshua nonetheless) but he certainly wasn't part of the THE twelve apostles chosen by Yeshua. He only chose 12. Revelation 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations bearing the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

I'm not sure this is really an issue with regards to inclusion in scripture (it wasn't an issue for the Old Testament). However, It could be argued that Jesus also chose Judas. And if you believe the Damascus road account, Jesus did personally choose Paul. Furthermore, neither was Luke one of the twelve (nor Jude).

 

I test everything and don't accept anything at face value. Doing so would put me at risk of accidentally believing the wrong thing, and believing in the wrong gospel is warned about. Sounds like something I should take seriously

Sure, but the standards by which we “test” things have to be reasonable, and consistently applied.

 

Yet Yeshua, when asked which commandments to obey in order to inherit eternal life, got more specific than that and began quoting the law of Moses:

Mark 10:17 "17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’”

As already covered, Jesus was obligated to teach the Law. As Paul teaches, the Law leads us to faith in Christ (Gal 3:24-25). People have to know that they need a Saviour before they can consider the Gospel. But note the take-home message of the passage – that adherence to the Law was insufficient to save. What did the man who thought he'd kept the Law “lack”? And what do we really need to do to “inherit eternal life”? Jesus said “come, take up the cross, and follow Me” (verse 21).

 

You mention Adam and those prior to Moses - they didn't have the Torah yet, so of course there was nothing in it they could have been held accountable for

Adam was held accountable for eating forbidden fruit. Except for those on the Ark, the whole world was held accountable for their corruption. Likewise Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

 

But God spelled out exactly HOW to love him and exactly HOW to love your neighbor in detail in the Torah. Now that we have that clarification, what is the rationale for abandoning it? I simply don't see it

The Law does not tell us "HOW" to love God, it taught Israel "HOW" to keep their part in that covenant with God - along with the blessings associated with adherence, and the curse associated with non-adherence.

John 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

The Law is not about love, but about obedience – i.e. doing what we are told; regardless of sincerity or motivation. We abandon it because it is an impossible standard that condemns us for being imperfect. But there is good news;

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Jn 3:16)

- Not those who are obedient to Law, but “whoever believes in Him

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8)

Jesus purchased for us a new and better way; grace, not Law. A path of true, heartfelt worship rather than outward obedience – where God's holy standards are written on our hearts, rather than stone and parchment. And explicitly distinct from the covenant of Law between God and Israel – the covenant which Israel broke (See Jer 31:31-34).

 

We have essentially the Roman/Constantine church as the one allowed to live and spread.

Jesus said, “I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18)

At some point, we have to trust that God is involved in the preservation and passage of the church.

 

traditions are upheld by many people are *not* proof that they are valid

But whatever standard we apply, we are rationally obligated to apply it consistently. Paul's preservation in the church throughout church history is one of many lines of evidence presented to you in this thread.

 

That iteration of church contained a ton of pagan customs and influences. Those were also allowed to live but are not valid teachings of God

Scripture is the highest authority for any sincere Christian.

 

I still ask why Paul (or at least the traditional understanding of Paul, as mainstream Christians believe) should be valid instead of the Jewish/apostolic Kingdom message that the apostles were given by Yeshua

You have been presented with many lines of evidence supporting Paul's inclusion in scripture – some of which exceed standard of evidence available for the other works of the New Testament.

 

"Test all the prophets"

John wrote;

1 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. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 Jn 1-3)

And Paul wrote;

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom 1:1-3)

So Paul passes the test.

You are claiming to be simply testing Paul, but you are scrutinising Paul against a much higher critical standard than other scriptures (which you seem to accept). The only reason to adopt this inconsistent approach is that you have an existing predisposition to reject Paul.

 

Maybe I'm missing something from Torah, but where in the Torah does it prohibit a Jew from visiting the house of a Gentile? There certainly were Pharisee traditions (law of men) prohibiting such things.

There are many dietary and hygiene laws that would make concerting with gentiles difficult, but the point of the vision to Peter was that God's new path of salvation is also offered to those outside of the Law (i.e. non-Jews) – unlike the Law which was specific to Jews. Adherence to the Law is not a factor in Christian salvation. This was revolutionary to those brought up in the Hebrew mindset – where the Jews were God's own, special, covenant people; God's promises were made to the Jews, through the Jews, and presumably for the Jews. The Messiah was expected to be the King/Warrior-Saviour of the Jews.

 

The curse of the law of sin and death, yes, but obviously not the entire law. Even Christians today generally still regard the moral components, such as the ten commandments, to be valid.

As previous discussed, morality (what is ultimately right and wrong) doesn't change with a new of covenant. But sincere Christians know that idol worship, murder, adultery, etc. are wrong – not because they were written on stone many centuries ago, but because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit in our hearts today. Obviously the Holy Spirit and the Law agree on morality, but adherence to Law is an outward manifestation of obedience, whereas Christian morality stems from the condition of a renewed heart manifesting itself in sincere devotion.

 

Paul also tells us later that the law isn't abolished but established a few different times

Yes, the Law still has a purpose (and is technically still available for justification for those silly enough to think they can attain perfection). Paul clearly saw faith in Christ as the end-game of the Law. The Law points to Christ. It is not “abolished” altogether (i.e. it still has a purpose and place), but is “obsolete” for a Christian in terms of justification (see Hebrews chapter 8. Also Galatians 3:24-25).

 

Sin = transgression of the law

Only if you are under Law. For the rest of us, sin is a breach of God's holy standards (some of which are incidentally reflected in the Law).

 

Obviously the definition of sin, including what he finds to be an abomination, can't have changed if God never changes

Right, but sin was defined before the Law, not by the Law. God explicitly articulated certain moral requirements in the Sinai Law, but those actions named as sins in the Law, were still sins before the Law – regardless of their subsequent addition to the Law.

 

Furthermore, if God meant to abolish the law but only for the Gentiles, then why wasn't this mentioned until decades after his resurrection...let alone in a suspect way such as a vision experienced by someone totally outside the fold?

The Law is fulfilled (not “abolished”) by Christ on behalf of the Jews. That is, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of covenant Law in order to qualify as the Justifier of the Jews from the condemnation of the Law. Gentiles were never under Law.

God chooses whomever He wills, how-ever He wills, whenever He chooses. Paul was highly educated in the Law and ideally equipped to explain the implications of Christ's sacrifice from the perspective of scripture. As a former persecutor of the church, he had a spectacular conversion testimony. With a demonstrated zeal for God, Paul was perfectly positioned to spearhead the spread of Christianity beyond Israel and throughout the gentile world of the time.

 

If a Muslim came into your church and told you about his vision about God and that he converted to Christianity, you'd probably be glad that he converted but want to set him straight on any doctrine you thought he got wrong. Same with Paul. Seems very suspect in the same way.

Paul subjected his message to the church leadership in Israel.

 

Doing God's commandments, just like Yeshua said, isn't pleasing to God?

Correct. Only Jesus could please God through unfailing righteous behaviour. He did so on our behalf because He knows we are incapable of attaining righteousness by our behaviour. That's why He found a better way to save us – a way that doesn't require our personal righteousness. Through His sacrifice, He purchased a path of salvation that is independent of our capacity to be righteous. What is “pleasing to God” is our acceptance of this offer through faith in the scope of this sacrifice.

 

Sure, all of our righteousness is like filthy rags to him due to the fact that we'll never be good enough, but he still seems to want our filthy rags if that is all we can offer.

He doesn't want us to abide in our “filthy rags”, but exchange our “filthy rags” for His righteousness. He purchased righteousness for us through taking our sin upon Himself and paying the price due us.

 

Stuff like abstaining from bacon, though? Show me where any of the apostles did NOT do that

Really – show you a scripture detailing the Apostles “NOT” abstaining from a particular food? Do you think that's a reasonable standard by which to judge freedom from Law – a very specific double-negative?

Apart from the Pauline texts, freedom from Law was specifically addressed in scripture through the issue of gentile Christians “NOT” being compelled to be circumcised (e.g. Acts 15).

 

It [bacon] was declared an abomination in the OT, and God doesn't change

God told Noah (i.e. before the Law) that “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Gen 9:3). God added dietary laws to the covenant with Israel for reasons apart immorality. The only dietary caveat to Noah was a prohibition on consuming blood (Gen 9:4).

I don't think consuming bacon was ever “declared an abomination”. Dietary laws are ritual, not moral – likely, in many cases, as a means to distinguish those in covenant with God from the idolatrous dietary practices of the pagan nations.

 

Keeping God's rules like that would be part of loving God with all your heart.

There is no value in keeping rules never intended for you.

 

I will continue to not eat bacon because I read in the OT that it's an abomination. Doing so does NOT save me; I strive to follow commandments BECAUSE of the "love God with all your heart" commandment given to us all as believers and followers of Yeshua

Whether or not you choose to eat bacon is not, of itself, the issue.

But if you think your abstaining from bacon puts you in any better stead with God (in any sense) than those who eat bacon, then by logical extension, you imply that you have earned righteousness and favour by your own efforts. In doing so, you are rejecting the grace offered through Christ in preference of earning your own righteousness by the works of the Law – even though the Law itself has already demonstrated the impossibility of that endeavour.

You don't know why you are abstaining from bacon (i.e. its not a law written in your heart), you are simply choosing to follow the letter, rather than the Spirit. You claim it to be out of “love”, but in following after Law, you are setting aside the free gift of grace purchased for you at such a high price.

The Law does not encourage obedience from “love”, but from a motive of quid-pro-quo.

 

Demonstrate how you believe the above [Rom 14:6] is regarding God's laws and not the Pharisee traditions that Yeshua AND the apostles preached against

Can you demonstrate that it means one and not the other? I am reading the verse for what it says – with nothing added or taken away. Paul was writing to the Romans; i.e. gentiles who had no reason to assume any such distinction was being made. Paul leads into this discourse by declaring the Law to be fulfilled in “love” (Rom 13:8-10). In verse 14 (chapter 14) Paul states; “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself” (which is contrary to the Law), and in verse 20All things indeed are pure”.

There is ample evidence from this context (not to mention the rest of Paul's teaching) that Paul taught freedom from Law.

 

Once given, breaking any of God's laws would be a sin. Once God clarified the specifics of what he meant by loving him and loving others in Moses, humanity had no excuse to innocently transgress the laws set forth, as now specifics were laid out.

The Law was not given to humanity. It was given to Israel as a covenant between them and God. We can learn from the Law (namely regarding our inherent corruption and need for a Saviour), but the corruption of sin exists with or without the Law.

Nevertheless I agree that if God specifically tells someone to do something and they refuse, they have sinned against God's authority. The question we are discussing is whether or not the Law of Moses holds any authoritative sway over Christians. If it doesn't, as I (and I think Paul) argues, then we are not obligated to the Law, and therefore cannot be held accountable for sin by the Law. We were held accountable for sin by God's perfect justice, but Jesus took upon Himself the wrath owed us according to justice – so that not even justice has any further claim over Christians. The price has been paid.

 

I am truly curious how you can come to this conclusion. The ten commandments are either about specifically how to love god or love your neighbor.

Only if you define loving God as 'not worshipping anything or anyone above God', and only if you define loving “your neighbor” as not murdering them, not stealing from them, not lying to them, and not coveting their spouse or possessions. I mean, I agree that walking in love would self-evidently cover these laws – but the Law itself sets a pretty low bar for “love”.

 

Many other such rules exist with the intention of protecting widows, those disadvantaged, etc. The Jews didn't seem to understand how to walk in love/peace until God spelled out the specifics

The influence of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian (which Paul calls “the fruit of the Spirit” - Gal 5:22-23) teaches a Christian to walk in love, patience, goodness and kindness - without the need for the “specifics” to be “spelled out” in a list of rules.

 

Like bacon, because it's listed as an abomination? Why would that cease to apply?

It ceases to apply because it is inferior to the New Covenant - i.e. because the letter of the Law only requires an outward manifestation – which we are incapable of fulfilling. The Law therefore condemns us. But the Spirit gives life and understanding which makes the letter obsolete. If the purpose of not-eating-bacon was to maintain a distinction between God's people and idolatrous paganism, then the important factor is that God's people keep ourselves from idolatrous paganism. That is the moral issue at hand – not the consumption of bacon.

Jesus said; “There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man” (Mark 7:15).

I haven't been able to find where God describes eating pig as an “abomination” to Him. It was unquestionably prohibited under Law – but as a ritual edict rather than moral.

 

How can this be true when so many "spirit-led" Christians keep coming to different conclusions, even after lots of fasting and praying?

I'm not sure there is that much dispute among sincere, Bible-believing Christians as to what constitutes moral and immoral behaviour.

 

I wish I could believe that, and it certainly sounds comforting, but: Matthew 10:34 "34Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

The context reveals clearly that Jesus was talking about Himself bringing contention between people – even between family members. It was not referring to God contending against Christians.

If God was looking for a reason to condemn us, He already has that in spades. But “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn 3:16). God is motivated by perfect love to save, not condemn. Jesus paid a very high price so that God could forgive us easily.

 

this seems contradictory to the above, and to Revelation with all of its horrors and terrors. So I guess I'm still very confused

The Bible predicts that a time is approaching where the world will, en-mass, refuse to receive God's offer of salvation; even making Christianity illegal; punishable by death. The “horrors and terrors” in Revelation are an outworking of human corruption. For seven years, God will remove His grace from the world and apply judgement in one last attempt to turn humanity back to Him (a method which God applied many times to turn the rebellious Jews back to Him).

 

On a personal level, it pains me to not be able to know what God wants me to do in order to love him

You don't have “to do” anything. God loves you as you are. You are already accepted by God in Christ. Jesus said, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”” (Matt 11:28-30).

God just wants fellowship with the child He loves; the one He chose - already fully aware of all their flaws.

 

I do not feel forgiven for my sins, and I worry constantly that I'm accidentally living in unrepentent since due to an incorrect understanding of the gospel, and my tendency is always to err on the side of caution

Our flesh is corrupted. We can't trust what we feel. God has promised us salvation and peace if we give our life to His Son in faith. That promise is what we trust, not our feelings. We choose to trust God's word rather than what we feel or don't feel.

We don't surprise God with our imperfections and/or misunderstandings. He knew exactly what He was getting with us – and He loves us regardless.

 

My autistic brain works in black and white. You want to know my motivation? It is that. And having come to belief in Christianity has thus been one of the most depressing and stressful things I've endured as of late.

Perhaps I can give you a kind-of “black and white”. There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that all humans are justly condemned to eternal damnation for our inability to keep God's holy standards. The good news (also called “the Gospel of Christ”) is that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn 3:16); “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

I can fully understand how you might be depressed if you think you still have to perform to please God - given that the Law has made it clear that we can never be good enough. The good news is that Jesus has done all the work for us. In Him we are free to rest from our striving. Like children, we can relax in our Father's arms - knowing that we are already accepted because of what Jesus has done for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/28/2018 at 12:50 PM, Blood Bought 1953 said:

Tristen.....another great post....thanks!

Thanks Blood Bought - the encouragement is appreciated.

  • Loved it! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

30 minutes ago, Tristen said:

(Stillseeking said:) “Doing God's commandments, just like Yeshua said, isn't pleasing to God?

Correct. Only Jesus could please God through unfailing righteous behaviour. He did so on our behalf because He knows we are incapable of attaining righteousness by our behaviour.

Totally wrong.  Sorry.   Oh, it is correct we cannot "attain righteousness" by keeping TORAH,  but if someone rejects TORAH they also reject all that Jesus taught, as well as Moses,  Abraham,  John, Peter and Paul and all the messengers of YHVH.  

Why you or anyone thinks they or anyone might obtain righteousness by observing TORAH is a mystery,   

but even more a mystery is why you or anyone thinks they can reject YHVH'S WORD and disobey Him on purpose and continue instead like (or as) the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2) or worse and thus obey hasatan and still be saved.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Totally wrong.  Sorry.   Oh, it is correct we cannot "attain righteousness" by keeping TORAH,  but if someone rejects TORAH they also reject all that Jesus taught, as well as Moses,  Abraham,  John, Peter and Paul and all the messengers of YHVH.  

Why you or anyone thinks they or anyone might obtain righteousness by observing TORAH is a mystery,   

but even more a mystery is why you or anyone thinks they can reject YHVH'S WORD and disobey Him on purpose and continue instead like (or as) the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2) or worse and thus obey hasatan and still be saved.

Hi Jeff,

I haven't rejected or intentionally disobeyed any of God's Word - I have simply applied it in its explicitly intended context.

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:24-25)

As a single, adult male, scriptures addressed to husbands, children, women and wives are not meant for me. I can learn from them, but I am not obligated to, or judged by them. Likewise, as a Christian under the New Covenant of grace, I can learn from the Old Covenant of Law, however, I am not obligated to, or judged by the Old Covenant of Law (which was explicitly between God and the nation of Israel).

Paul also states in "Ephesians 2" that Jesus “14 … is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Hebrews 8

1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...