Jump to content
IGNORED

Harmonizing Paul and the Twelve


stillseeking

Recommended Posts


  • 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

I find it interesting that you responded to a bunch of my specific points but then posted another post in the name of not wanting to do that.  A little confusing, but, ok...Now I'm not sure whether you just wanted to have the last word or whether you actually wanted me to respond...Anyway, I'll assume the former and just respond to your second post only, in the name of avoiding "lengthy conversation":

Quote

I don't see any necessary disharmony between Paul and other New Testament scripture. The issue of freedom from Law is less explicit in the gospels - but ambiguous verses on the issue can rationally be interpreted to support freedom from Law.

They can be interpreted that way, yes.  They can also be interpreted from a more Jewish perspective.  I've heard both sides of the coin and am still looking for evidence that gives one side the winning edge.  The question as to how/if Paul harmonizes remains. 

Quote

I don't see any necessary disharmony between Paul and other New Testament scripture. The issue of freedom from Law is less explicit in the gospels - but ambiguous verses on the issue can rationally be interpreted to support freedom from Law.

The gospels present a picture of a Jewish, Torah-teaching and law-abiding Jesus, who focuses on the fact that the kingdom of God is near.  Paul's writings seem to suggest the possibility of freedom from the law, when interpreted a certain way.  The difference in focus and the difference in what Paul and Jesus teach still stands out to me.  Again, both sides have arguments but neither convinces me fully. 

Quote

" * Possibility: Since we know that the apostles were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus told people to follow Jewish commandments, Paul's letters, which are confusing the the apostles' admission, can indeed be interpreted as opposition to the traditions of MAN rather than opposition to any of the laws God gave to Moses. We're left with the question of why he seemed to tell the Gentiles not to be under the law, or if indeed he did. "

In many places, Paul specifically addresses the issue as referring to the covenant Law of Moses. So I don't think this "possibility" rates.

Paul addresses which issues as referring to this?  I'm not sure I understand your objection here. 

I still see this as a possible harmonization. 

Quote

" * Possibility: We see in the OT that a new covenant was foretold. If we can establish that the new covenant is characterized by a new set of commandments replacing (and not in addition to) the old ones, then Paul's (again confusing) letters can also be interpreted as supporting adherence to such a set of new rules. "

Nooooooo! The New Covenant is of grace, not Law. Why would God "replace" Law with Law? Law doesn't work for corrupted humans (Galatians 3:21-22). If Law worked, we wouldn't need a Saviour (Galatians 2:21). But since Law doesn't work, we need a path to salvation that doesn't rely on corrupted humans fulfilling a set of rules. The Christian covenant does not contain a list of rules to follow. It is a better system because, unlike the Law, we can't break the covenant by falling short of perfection (and because we have the Holy Spirit directly convicting our hearts of God's standards in accordance with the spirit of morality, rather than outward observance of a written list of rules).

Salvation has never been based on faithfully adhering to a set of rules, even in the Old Testament times.  We know this because even those who are listed as "righteous" still sinned, and yet we have the concept of Old Testament people who were saved.  If I had to make an observation as to why that might be, it seems that their hearts were in the right place, they trusted God, and they tried their best to adhere to the rules regardless of the fact that they inevitably all fell short.  No one was ever saved by the Law of Moses, to my knowledge. 

The new covenant obviously does have rules...you seem to have rephrased them as "not doing things that offend God", but "don't do any of these individual things that offend God" is exactly the same as saying don't do X, Y, or Z in the Old Testament, since the very REASON not to do X, Y, or Z OT things was because X, Y, and Z offend God. 

The new covenant either a) uses the rules from the original covenant or b) has its own set of rules.  Even the hyper-grace ideas ("pray once and you're saved forever" types of ideas...which lack biblical support, given the high number of verses focused on DOING the will of God) represent the concept of rules: there is still the requirement to "believe" in that paradigm. 

I still see a new covenant, which replaced the old, as a possibility.  Sounds like we have some ambiguity on the requirements of this new covenant, though, as well as why Paul mentions a number of specifics that Jesus didn't even allude to. 

Quote

" and why Paul so adamantly wanted to prove to the Jews in the book of Acts that he indeed DID keep the law "

I think you have exaggerated this in your mind. Paul explains this behaviour.

It's only 'exaggerated' if you doubt these Bible verses, which depict Paul indeed proving to the Jews that he DID keep the law:

“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them” (Acts 21:23-26).

This again seems strange if Jewish rules are no longer required, Jesus was the final sacrifice, etc.  I have yet to see a good explanation of this which supports Jewish laws having been done away with. 

Quote

I don't think you've established that anyone got anything “wrong”, or that Paul's gospel was all that different to the gospel of the other Apostles.

Not sure what you're getting at.  I'm here because I have questions, and the multiple explanations I get on harmonization of Paul and the twelve disagree with each other...this includes your points as well as the interpretations of others, many of which I've presented in response to your opinions.  I'm here trying to figure it out, and so far, I again do not see evidence for one interpretation over another.  I've raised a lot of doubts, and the responses received to such doubts are largely the repetition of the same interpretation rather than an explanation of why it's correct.  There are still verses on either side that can't be explained away if we are to take one interpretation over another.  There is still a huge lack of clarity here. 

Quote

As you suggest, Jesus alluded to this new paradigm in several places in the gospels. I also agree that those passages are often less straightforward than some of Paul's statements. That's why it's important to establish Paul's legitimacy independently of any presupposed doctrine. If Paul is scripture, then we have additional information shedding light on how to interpret any ambiguous verses found in the gospels.

Jesus kept the Sabbath and biblical feasts and never alluded to these things going away.  He alluded to the temple going away.  There remains confusion as to which OT provisions still apply and which don't.  Even if we accept Paul as scripture 100%, his opinions on these things can be interpreted in a very Jewish manner and likewise a very Gentile manner.  The question of how he harmonizes remains, even if we establish that he does harmonize. 

I can mostly at this point accept that he does harmonize...but HOW is not clear. 

Quote

In the previous post I mentioned that I couldn't find the evidence that Polycarp taught that Saturday Sabbath observance was necessary (or even that he necessarily adhered to this tradition). I did provide an example of another of John's disciples, as well as Polycarp's own disciple, both endorsing Sunday as the day of Christian worship. So even if Polycarp DID keep the Saturday Sabbath, it doesn't seem to have been considered a dogmatic position held ubiquitously by the early church.

There are writings referring to Polycarp preaching on the Sabbath, and even the date of his martyrdom is referred to as a Sabbath (which also could refer to a biblical holiday). 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp records that he was taken on the day of the Sabbath and killed on a Great Sabbath.  Those references would be fairly odd for someone who has done away with the Sabbath; one who keeps biblical holidays and preaches on Sabbath, referred to as Sabbath, likely doesn't do those things and then hold to a Sunday doctrine. 

Seeing as Sabbath keeping was the default (Jesus and disciples were Sabbath keeping Jews,) a departure from it is what needs to be justified and explained, not the maintenance of the status quo. 

If you're referring to Justin Martyr, I'm not sure that he necessarily proves anything, either.  First, his most-quoted references to the "Lord's Day" are arguably better translated as "Lord's Way".  Second, the further we get from the apostles, the more we start to see ideas departing from them. 

Polycarp is significant, though, because he was likely the leader of the blessed church at Smyrna at the time that the letter extolling its virtues, found in Revelation, was written. 

Sunday observance has, in its favor, popular acceptance and a few early adherents.  Saturday observance has what Jesus and the apostles did as well as what's written in stone into the 10 commandments.  I again do not see a definitive answer here (but see a more convincing story for Saturday). 

Quote

The point of Matthew 23 is an admonition to respect authorities – regardless of hypocrisy or immorality found in the individual leaders. Paul encourages the gentiles to do the same (Romans 13:1-7).

This is an interesting interpretation; what is it based on?  What evidence is there that Matthew 23 is about "obeying authority" rather than obeying Jewish law? 

Quote

Having claimed to have kept the Law, there was still something the requester lacked. He didn't have fellowship with Christ.

That's not what it says, though:

17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”[a]

20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.”

21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

You need to first understand the process of human witnessing. The twelve is to bear witness for Jesus Christ. It's more or less like recording down what Jesus said and did, instead of going deep to explain the in-depth meaning behind what Jesus said and did. Paul on the other hand, is to explain the New Covenant brought by Jesus at the theological level. Pauline teaching harmonize perfectly and logically with what Jesus said. Of course, you have to first understand Paul's stance and circumstances in order to have a better understanding of what he said, say in Romans. Certain parts of what Paul said may be difficult to understand, as pointed by Peter himself.

 

A typical example is that Jesus said the Law will not be abolished. It is said from the perspective of the nature of God's Law and covenants. Paul on the other hand ever put that Mosaic Law is abolish but from the perspective of the judgment effect of a covenant. Mosaic Law is abolished in a sense that it won't apply to humans under the protection of the New Covenant. Jesus' perspective on the other hand is, Mosaic Law itself as part of the covenant to the Jews will remain there all the times till at least the final judgment. Because it needs to be lawfully/legally effective till then in order to judge the Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

On 3/25/2018 at 1:55 PM, stillseeking said:

* sigh* I feel like we're going in circles.  

"The New Covenant was instituted at the time of Jesus death – consecrated through His blood."

I'm still wondering why Paul went to great lengths to prove he kept the law, or why favored early church leaders kept sabbaths and Jewish holy days (Polycarp was one I mentioned).  

 

It is crucially meaningful for Paul to say so. It defines the validity of the Mosaic covenant. By the old covenant the Jews need to observe Mosaic Law to a said level (with Moses as the accuser) in order to be saved. What Paul said is that even when a Jew (like himself) abides by the old covenant perfectly, he's not saved if he chooses to stand in the way of the New Covenant, and choose to persecute Christians. 

Paul's this point is echoed in Revelation.

Revelation 3:9 (NIV2011)
9  I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
 

Those Jews choose to stand in the way of the New Covenant are with Satan, disregarding how well they observe the Mosaic Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

On 2/2/2018 at 12:40 AM, stillseeking said:

Not exactly: I'm unsure of Paul.  I don't really have a position, except skepticism of modern Christian ideas which seem to contradict the practices and beliefs of the very earliest.  I mentioned that canons differ because they indeed do, showing that there isn't just "one canon" we can trust.  I don't see a problem with this, and neither did the early church who didn't even have the concept of of official NY canons.  God never seems to make things obvious.  We are told to test everything, and indeed with so many conflicting ideas of what is true, I don't see how you can form a belief in anything at all without looking at all of the evidence available. 

Again, if canons can be fallible at all, then one person's writings appearing in any or all of them is not valid evidence of it being truth.  That is the only point of the mention of canons, and it still stands. 

My goal was to understand how Paul and the twelve could be harmonized, and as I stated a few posts ago, the current evidence I have DOES allow me to see some level of harmonization between Paul and the twelve IF we can say that Paul was Torah observant and taught Torah observance...and, the more I read, the more I see evidence of such. 

 

No, Paul was not a Torah observant after his conversion. He even argued with Peter over the Jewish practice of not eating with the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV2011)
11  When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12  For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
13  The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14  When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

 

There's no contraction between modern Christians' ideas and early church practices. Paul was given a tough job simply because all the early churches in the Minor Asia area were a mixture of Jews and gentiles. Paul has to stand tough in fulfilling the requirements set forth by the New Covenant, just as how he confronted Peter himself in the verses above. At the same time, he has to make certain compromise in some non-critical areas in order not to offend the Christian Jews unnecessarily. If you offend the Jewish Christians unnecessarily in terms of their customs, they will leave the church and Christianity and go back to Judaism. If however you won't stand tough towards certain circumstances (such as Peter's deed), the Jews may gradually influence the gentle Christians to adapt the unnecessarily Jewish customs and to say that gentiles need to observe the Jewish customs in order to be saved. That's actually how Paul had to fight such a kind of Jews in his letter to Galatians.

 

Today's churches are made of exclusively gentile Christians. That's why Jewish customs such as covering your head is no longer a practices simply because there's no longer any church being a mixture of Jewish and gentile Christians.

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

Hi there, Hawkins; welcome to the conversation!

Quote

By the old covenant the Jews need to observe Mosaic Law to a said level (with Moses as the accuser) in order to be saved.

As I've stated on this thread already, Jews were never saved through obedience to the law.  The Bible even records that no human ever kept it perfectly, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  Galatians 3:11 echoes Habakkuk 2:4 in asserting that the righteous live by faith. 

Quote

No, Paul was not a Torah observant after his conversion. He even argued with Peter over the Jewish practice of not eating with the Gentiles.

You cite Galatians 2:11 as support for your statement, but your own emphasis on the quoted verse highlights the concept of forcing Gentiles to observe Jewish customs.  Paul wasn't a Gentile, so please explain why you believe this was related.

Furthermore, I have cited already an example of Paul's intentional choice to take actions to prove he kept Jewish law; please share how your statement can harmonize with these things, as described in Acts 21:23:

“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them”

If Jewish laws were unnecessary within the new covenant, why didn't Paul simply TELL the Jews that...instead of going to great lengths to prove he kept Jewish laws? 

Quote

Today's churches are made of exclusively gentile Christians.

This is simply not true.  I have explored many denominations of churches, including visiting a Messianic Jewish church.  These are Jewish people who believe in Jesus. 

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:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 4/29/2018 at 12:38 PM, stillseeking said:

I find it interesting that you responded to a bunch of my specific points but then posted another post in the name of not wanting to do that.  A little confusing, but, ok...

I find it interesting that you responded to a bunch of my specific points but then posted another post in the name of not wanting to do that. A little confusing

I apologise for the confusion. In the first instance, I felt as though I had previously addressed the objections. Your response was to essentially say “I'm still not convinced” - which is fine, but it doesn't give me anything new to address. So my only response would be to repeat myself. When you re-asked for a response to these, I placed my responses in a separate post to break up the conversation.

 

I'm not sure I understand your objection here.

I still see this as a possible harmonization.

Your suggestion is that Paul and Torah observance may be harmonised by assuming that when Paul taught freedom from Law, he meant freedom from human traditions rather than freedom from the Mosaic covenant. My main objection to this approach is that Paul nowhere makes this very important distinction. The distinction doesn't come from the text itself, but rather from an attempt to fit Paul into Torah observance. By contrast, there are many instances where Paul specifies that he is using the terms “Law” and “commandments” to mean the Mosaic covenant.

 

The new covenant obviously does have rules...you seem to have rephrased them as "not doing things that offend God", but "don't do any of these individual things that offend God" is exactly the same as saying don't do X, Y, or Z in the Old Testament, since the very REASON not to do X, Y, or Z OT things was because X, Y, and Z offend God.

The new covenant either a) uses the rules from the original covenant or b) has its own set of rules.

I disagree. Grace is an entirely different system to Law. Under Law, there is a specific list of rules to which adherence determines reward or curse. The Law is holy, but it is weak in that it relies on corrupted humanity. Under grace, all of the requirements have been fulfilled in Christ. God is pleased by faith in His sacrifice, and all that His sacrifice accomplished; including freedom from obligation to Law and its associated curses. We cannot break the New covenant by personal disobedience because Christ fulfilled the requirements for us. The covenant is not between God and us, but between God and Christ, our Intercessor. For sincere Christians, an exchange has occurred – our disobedience for His righteousness.

Whilst morality is eternal, there is no explicit list of rules under grace. We obey because we love God, because we seek His will from a place of sincere devotion, and because we have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us; also because we understand that being governed by our corrupted flesh destroys us.

 

I still see a new covenant, which replaced the old, as a possibility. Sounds like we have some ambiguity on the requirements of this new covenant

The “ambiguity” is intentional because it is an entirely different system. Under Law, outward adherence was paramount. Motivation/sincerity/attitude were irrelevant to outcome (reward or curse). Under grace there is no curse – because the standards have already been fulfilled. We are therefore free to follow the spirit of righteousness (to do what is right because we know what is right in the specific circumstances) rather than strict adherence to the letter of the Law. Notice how often the Pharisees complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath – as though God cared more for strict adherence to Law than he did for those who were suffering. That's the difference between the letter that brings death, and the Spirit that gives life (2 Cor 3:6).

 

It's only 'exaggerated' if you doubt these Bible verses, which depict Paul indeed proving to the Jews that he DID keep the law:

Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them” (Acts 21:23-26).

This again seems strange if Jewish rules are no longer required, Jesus was the final sacrifice, etc. I have yet to see a good explanation of this which supports Jewish laws having been done away with.

A few posts ago, you expressed frustration that we were talking in circles. Here is a good example of why. I have several times provided verses where Paul specifically, explicitly, unequivocally addressed this behaviour (i.e. 1 Cor 9:19-22, 10:31-33). No speculation is required because Paul himself directly answered this question. Yet here you again claim a lack of “good explanation” for why Paul sometimes adhered to Law. If you won't hear Paul's own explanation, what chance do I have of convincing you about his motives?

 

I've raised a lot of doubts, and the responses received to such doubts are largely the repetition of the same interpretation rather than an explanation of why it's correct.

I think I have provided a strong, logically-consistent, solid overall argument which I have supported heavily by scripture. I have also addressed objections I have with the alternate interpretations (e.g. often reading concepts into the text rather than extracting them from the text). Some of my frustration stems from you commonly responding with general dismissals such as “There is still a huge lack of clarity here”. I can't clarify my arguments further if I don't know specifically what you're objecting to.

 

Jesus kept the Sabbath and biblical feasts and never alluded to these things going away. … I can mostly at this point accept that he does harmonize...but HOW is not clear

It's highly debatable to suggest that Jesus “never alluded” to imminent big changes. If we accept Paul as scripture, then what he teaches is a clarification of the information provided in the gospels (and visa versa). If we accept God as the ultimate Author of scripture, then it's all part of the same revelation.

 

There are writings referring to Polycarp preaching on the Sabbath, and even the date of his martyrdom is referred to as a Sabbath (which also could refer to a biblical holiday).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp records that he was taken on the day of the Sabbath and killed on a Great Sabbath. Those references would be fairly odd for someone who has done away with the Sabbath; one who keeps biblical holidays and preaches on Sabbath, referred to as Sabbath, likely doesn't do those things and then hold to a Sunday doctrine.

I find this a very weak argument supporting mandatory Sabbath observance. I agree with your statement; “the further we get from the apostles, the more we start to see ideas departing from them”. Our authority as Christians is scripture. As previously discussed, Paul taught that the specific day is less important than the underlying motive (Rm 14:5-6). Unsurprisingly, some Christians, especially Jewish Christians, maintained the tradition of setting aside Saturdays. Others adopted Sunday as their preferred day of fellowship and worship. So I don't think the fact that some continued to worship on Saturday strongly supports the idea that Sabbath observance (and by extension, Torah observance) was considered to be mandatory for all Christians.

 

What evidence is there that Matthew 23 is about "obeying authority" rather than obeying Jewish law?

The reason we are given to respect the authority of the scribes and Pharisees is that they hold the office of Moses. We then have to ask ourselves why would the people be tempted to disrespect their authority (i.e. what is the main point Jesus is addressing). The reason given is that the authorities are hypocrites. Jesus devotes the rest of chapter 23 criticising their hypocrisy. That is clearly, overwhelmingly the main point of the passage. As previously discussed, Jesus was obligated by His mission to point people to Moses, but it is a minor introductory point in this overall discourse.

Further supporting evidence was provided in Paul's admonition to respect authority (Rm 13:1-7).

 

Having claimed to have kept the Law, there was still something the requester lacked. He didn't have fellowship with Christ.

That's not what it says, though:

17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Do not defraud,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”[a]

20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.”

21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

In verse 21, Jesus invites the man to become a disciple. Even though the man thought he'd kept the Law, the “one thing” he still lacked (i.e. the thing he still needed to “inherit eternal life”) was to “follow” Jesus. It's the same thing we all lacked prior to salvation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  289
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   45
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/25/2008
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/5/2018 at 2:49 AM, stillseeking said:

Hi there, Hawkins; welcome to the conversation!

As I've stated on this thread already, Jews were never saved through obedience to the law.  The Bible even records that no human ever kept it perfectly, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  Galatians 3:11 echoes Habakkuk 2:4 in asserting that the righteous live by faith. 

You cite Galatians 2:11 as support for your statement, but your own emphasis on the quoted verse highlights the concept of forcing Gentiles to observe Jewish customs.  Paul wasn't a Gentile, so please explain why you believe this was related.

Furthermore, I have cited already an example of Paul's intentional choice to take actions to prove he kept Jewish law; please share how your statement can harmonize with these things, as described in Acts 21:23:

“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them”

If Jewish laws were unnecessary within the new covenant, why didn't Paul simply TELL the Jews that...instead of going to great lengths to prove he kept Jewish laws? 

This is simply not true.  I have explored many denominations of churches, including visiting a Messianic Jewish church.  These are Jewish people who believe in Jesus. 

Paul is not a Torah observant, as the term observant can be a very misleading term. A Torah observant could mean someone insists on abiding the Mosaic Law to a high extent and tend to reject Christianity. Thus it shouldn't be used to describe Paul. The verse I gave you is to say that Paul shouldn't be described as an observant as it's not a proper term to use.

You are confused about what Law and covenants are. 

Everyone, both Jews and gentles, are born with and bound by an older covenant. The New Covenant doesn't come with your birth. It's a covenant chosen with consent when you are grown up.

You as gentile is bound by an old covenant (could well be from Noah), you thus need to act by your conscience and moral code to the best as you are aware of. However, this won't save you because you are expected to fail at some point. You need the New Covenant for your salvation. Even Christians need to deal with their sins, it is because you may consider covenants have the 'overlapping' effect. Even when you are a Christian saved by your faith, you need to act by conscience and moral code. It is a misunderstand to say because you are a Christian thus you have no law thus you can break every single piece of law acting upon you. This is never a biblical idea. To put it another way, you need to always act in accordance to the covenant born and bound with you. As gentiles, the law given to us through an older covenant is the "law written in our hearts" which is our conscience and moral code.

Gentiles:

- Need to act in accordance to conscience and moral code (from an older covenant, possibly from Noah, which is applicable to all mankind)

- Need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved (from the New Covenant)

 

Jews:

- Need to act in accordance to conscience and moral code (from an older covenant, possibly from Noah, which is applicable to all mankind)

- Need to observe the Mosaic Law (from the covenant brought by Moses, which is only applicable to the Jews and early converts)

- Need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved (from the New Covenant)

 

Anyone (Jews or gentiles) will be judged by an older covenant on the Judgment Day if the New Covenant is not chosen with consent. That said, Jews need to observe Mosaic Law even when you are a Jewish Christian. Or rather to say, Jewish Christians can choose to observe Mosaic Law as that's part of the covenant they are born and bound with. After they become Christians they also have the option not to observe Mosaic Law. In this case, they subject themselves to the same covenant as gentiles' and have made themselves literally gentile Christians. 

To sum it up from the perspective of God's Law and covenants, a Jew is;

- one who is by bloodline a Jew

- circumcised on the 8th day if he's a male (today's practice is till several months after birth)

- he has a consent to abide by Mosaic Law when he becomes an adult (today only the Orthodox Jews choose to abide by Mosaic Law, from what I heard)

- he must not stand in the way of Christianity (by the definition of Rev. 2:9Rev. 3:9

 

Argument however may rise from how strict or to what extent the Jews should abide by the Mosaic Law. The Bible said that the proclaiming of Law and Prophets is till John the Baptist, since then the Gospel shall be preached. This is so because observing the OT laws won't bring in salvation. It's no point to force the gentile to observe the OT laws. Even the Jews should not practice OT customs if these customs affect the correctness of the faith of the gentiles. That's basically what Paul's deeds are about.

Moreover, the verse provided by you is between Paul and James when Paul was in Jerusalem. It's more about the queries from the Jews in Jerusalem about what customs should be adapted by those Jews living among gentiles outside Palestine but in Minor Asia (Paul's region of ministry). Paul's stance is basically whatever the Jews (who are living among the gentiles) do should be something building up the gentiles (i.e., their Christian faith) and beneficial to them.

Like I said, Paul was given a tough job. And I don't think "Torah observant" is a proper term to describe him when his stance is that he can give up any Jewish customs standing in the way of Christianity. He's a "New Covenant observant" instead if you have to put it this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

  • 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

I had said: * Possibility: Since we know that the apostles were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus told people to follow Jewish commandments, Paul's letters, which are confusing the the apostles' admission, can indeed be interpreted as opposition to the traditions of MAN rather than opposition to any of the laws God gave to Moses. We're left with the question of why he seemed to tell the Gentiles not to be under the law, or if indeed he did.

To which you replied:

Quote

My main objection to this approach is that Paul nowhere makes this very important distinction. The distinction doesn't come from the text itself, but rather from an attempt to fit Paul into Torah observance

Why would he need to make a distinction?  Jesus went around doing exactly this (opposing the man-made laws and establishing the Torah laws). 

I had said:

The new covenant obviously does have rules...you seem to have rephrased them as "not doing things that offend God", but "don't do any of these individual things that offend God" is exactly the same as saying don't do X, Y, or Z in the Old Testament, since the very REASON not to do X, Y, or Z OT things was because X, Y, and Z offend God.

The new covenant either a) uses the rules from the original covenant or b) has its own set of rules. 

You voiced that you disagreed and cited grace, and what you said sounds like a dangerous hyper-grace perspective:

Quote

Grace is an entirely different system to Law. Under Law, there is a specific list of rules to which adherence determines reward or curse.

...

We cannot break the New covenant by personal disobedience because Christ fulfilled the requirements for us.

If there are no rules, then why do you adhere to rules such as insisting that being gay is wrong (I'm not convinced of the same, for the record, but you did voice that you feel it's wrong)?  Why do you even bother to avoid any sin at all?  And since sin is the transgression of the law, how are you picking and choosing which ones are ok to transgress? 

Maybe we ourselves can't break the new covenant, but would you agree that we can leave it?  Especially considering such verses as: 

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Quote

Notice how often the Pharisees complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath – as though God cared more for strict adherence to Law than he did for those who were suffering.

Jesus didn't violate any old testament rules by healing on the sabbath. 

Quote

It's only 'exaggerated' if you doubt these Bible verses, which depict Paul indeed proving to the Jews that he DID keep the law:

Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.’ 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them” (Acts 21:23-26).

This again seems strange if Jewish rules are no longer required, Jesus was the final sacrifice, etc. I have yet to see a good explanation of this which supports Jewish laws having been done away with.

A few posts ago, you expressed frustration that we were talking in circles. Here is a good example of why. I have several times provided verses where Paul specifically, explicitly, unequivocally addressed this behaviour (i.e. 1 Cor 9:19-22, 10:31-33). No speculation is required because Paul himself directly answered this question. Yet here you again claim a lack of “good explanation” for why Paul sometimes adhered to Law. If you won't hear Paul's own explanation, what chance do I have of convincing you about his motives?

Because those verses aren't in reference to that act.  That act I cited was one of Paul's last before he was killed.  We see his actions (Jewish sacrifices/purifications) and his motive (proving he still kept Old Testament law).  Unrelated passages that seem to generically say something else are irrelevant since Paul's actions and motives are already recorded here together.  My objection remains. 

Quote

If we accept Paul as scripture, then what he teaches is a clarification of the information provided in the gospels (and visa versa).

That's your opinion of how Paul harmonizes.  You assume I share this position, and I'm not sure I do. 

I can see how he's accepted and corroborated by the real apostles, which at least gives his writings a bit of credibility.  That doesn't convince me he's infallible, especially on any points which he makes which appear nowhere else in the Bible.  The history recorded of Paul also make it clear that he was not only a law-abiding Jew but that he made a point to prove that to those who doubted.  To add to the confusion, his writings are interpreted a number of different ways...so the way in which Paul's writings can harmonize really isn't clear. 

In regards to the Sabbath, you wrote:

Quote

As previously discussed, Paul taught that the specific day is less important than the underlying motive (Rm 14:5-6).

Here's the verse: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

^ Why do you think that's about Sabbaths? 

If we read the verse in context, we learn why many understand this verse to be simply saying that it doesn't matter which fasting days a person takes:

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

Then, of course, we've got the 10 commandments, Jesus' admonition of woe to those who might have to flee on a Sabbath (clearly after his resurrection), and also Isaiah's reference to Sabbath in the context of worshiping God when in heaven.  So there's that, but I could really see Sabbath as its own potential thread if that's something we end up wanting to discuss further. 

Quote

What evidence is there that Matthew 23 is about "obeying authority" rather than obeying Jewish law?

The reason we are given to respect the authority of the scribes and Pharisees is that they hold the office of Moses. We then have to ask ourselves why would the people be tempted to disrespect their authority (i.e. what is the main point Jesus is addressing). The reason given is that the authorities are hypocrites. Jesus devotes the rest of chapter 23 criticising their hypocrisy. That is clearly, overwhelmingly the main point of the passage. As previously discussed, Jesus was obligated by His mission to point people to Moses, but it is a minor introductory point in this overall discourse.

That explanation doesn't work since it ignores the fact that Jesus singled out specific things they said to follow, not all.  Jesus isn't telling them to respect the authorities.  He's saying, "Obey these specific commands they give you from the old testament" and "don't obey any of these man-made teachings".  He specified the Moses seat--and that's the only time these people were instructing obedience to God.  At all other times, they were instructing people to follow the rules of men--which Jesus and his followers did NOT follow-- and you've already cited verses that show you're aware that Jesus did NOT advocate that people obey THOSE things.  (healing on the sabbath was one such verse). 

Re: the rich young man story:

Quote

In verse 21, Jesus invites the man to become a disciple. Even though the man thought he'd kept the Law, the “one thing” he still lacked (i.e. the thing he still needed to “inherit eternal life”) was to “follow” Jesus. It's the same thing we all lacked prior to salvation.

Except he also told him to sell everything he owned.  We're not all required to do that, are we?  So how can you assert that the item which you cherry picked (becoming a disciple) is the qualifier to eternal life? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, stillseeking said:

I had said: * Possibility: Since we know that the apostles were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and Jesus told people to follow Jewish commandments, Paul's letters, which are confusing the the apostles' admission, can indeed be interpreted as opposition to the traditions of MAN rather than opposition to any of the laws God gave to Moses. We're left with the question of why he seemed to tell the Gentiles not to be under the law, or if indeed he did.

To which you replied:

Why would he need to make a distinction?  Jesus went around doing exactly this (opposing the man-made laws and establishing the Torah laws). 

I had said:

The new covenant obviously does have rules...you seem to have rephrased them as "not doing things that offend God", but "don't do any of these individual things that offend God" is exactly the same as saying don't do X, Y, or Z in the Old Testament, since the very REASON not to do X, Y, or Z OT things was because X, Y, and Z offend God.

The new covenant either a) uses the rules from the original covenant or b) has its own set of rules. 

You voiced that you disagreed and cited grace, and what you said sounds like a dangerous hyper-grace perspective:

If there are no rules, then why do you adhere to rules such as insisting that being gay is wrong (I'm not convinced of the same, for the record, but you did voice that you feel it's wrong)?  Why do you even bother to avoid any sin at all?  And since sin is the transgression of the law, how are you picking and choosing which ones are ok to transgress? 

Maybe we ourselves can't break the new covenant, but would you agree that we can leave it?  Especially considering such verses as: 

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus didn't violate any old testament rules by healing on the sabbath. 

Because those verses aren't in reference to that act.  That act I cited was one of Paul's last before he was killed.  We see his actions (Jewish sacrifices/purifications) and his motive (proving he still kept Old Testament law).  Unrelated passages that seem to generically say something else are irrelevant since Paul's actions and motives are already recorded here together.  My objection remains. 

That's your opinion of how Paul harmonizes.  You assume I share this position, and I'm not sure I do. 

I can see how he's accepted and corroborated by the real apostles, which at least gives his writings a bit of credibility.  That doesn't convince me he's infallible, especially on any points which he makes which appear nowhere else in the Bible.  The history recorded of Paul also make it clear that he was not only a law-abiding Jew but that he made a point to prove that to those who doubted.  To add to the confusion, his writings are interpreted a number of different ways...so the way in which Paul's writings can harmonize really isn't clear. 

In regards to the Sabbath, you wrote:

Here's the verse: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

^ Why do you think that's about Sabbaths?  

If we read the verse in context, we learn why many understand this verse to be simply saying that it doesn't matter which fasting days a person takes:

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

Then, of course, we've got the 10 commandments, Jesus' admonition of woe to those who might have to flee on a Sabbath (clearly after his resurrection), and also Isaiah's reference to Sabbath in the context of worshiping God when in heaven.  So there's that, but I could really see Sabbath as its own potential thread if that's something we end up wanting to discuss further. 

That explanation doesn't work since it ignores the fact that Jesus singled out specific things they said to follow, not all.  Jesus isn't telling them to respect the authorities.  He's saying, "Obey these specific commands they give you from the old testament" and "don't obey any of these man-made teachings".  He specified the Moses seat--and that's the only time these people were instructing obedience to God.  At all other times, they were instructing people to follow the rules of men--which Jesus and his followers did NOT follow-- and you've already cited verses that show you're aware that Jesus did NOT advocate that people obey THOSE things.  (healing on the sabbath was one such verse). 

Re: the rich young man story:

Except he also told him to sell everything he owned.  We're not all required to do that, are we?  So how can you assert that the item which you cherry picked (becoming a disciple) is the qualifier to eternal life? 

 

*******************************************************************

"

Here's the verse: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

^ Why do you think that's about Sabbaths?"

*******************************************************************

Romans 14: 6, He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God 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:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

21 hours ago, stillseeking said:

I had said: ...

Paul's letters ... can indeed be interpreted as opposition to the traditions of MAN rather than opposition to any of the laws God gave to Moses.

My main objection to this approach is that Paul nowhere makes this very important distinction.

Why would he need to make a distinction?

When Paul uses the term “Law”, there are almost always qualifiers in the context that specify that he means “the laws God gave to Moses”. For example, when Paul said, “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), he was explicitly referring to “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years” after the covenant God made with Abraham (verse 17); an unequivocal reference to the Law given to Moses. When Paul said, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Galatians 4:30), he was explicitly referring to the covenant “from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage” (verses 21-25); i.e. Sinai - where Moses received the Law from God. And in continuing that thought, Paul compels Christians to “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1); that is, having been set free, don't enslave yourself to the bondage of the Sinai covenant (aka the Law given to Moses). And if there was still any doubt, he uses circumcision (a requirement of the Law) as a more specific example (verses 2-3).

And that's all just from one short letter. So if Paul ever uses “the Law” to mean “the traditions of MAN”, it would be incumbent upon him to make that equally obvious – since in the majority of contexts he qualifies his usage as “the laws God gave to Moses”.

 

If there are no rules, then why do you adhere to rules such as insisting that being gay is wrong (I'm not convinced of the same, for the record, but you did voice that you feel it's wrong)? Why do you even bother to avoid any sin at all?

I think you are confusing the issue by conflating a system of “rules” (i.e. law) with the basic concept of morality. That somewhat misses the point.

The Law is system by which ancient Israel related to God; i.e. an explicit list of rules through which blessing or cursing were determined by obedience or disobedience. However, God knows we are too corrupted to be able to measure up to His standards. Therefore, if we are to be saved, a new system is required – a system that doesn't rely on us obeying a list of rules. So the New Covenant is a different system altogether; one that doesn't require our perfection. It is a covenant of grace – meaning unmerited favour; That is, our personal morality has no bearing on God's favour towards us. We are considered by God to be righteous because the penalty for our sin has been paid. So when we who are in this covenant do commit sins, we have an advocate standing between us and God's justice. Justice has no legal right to condemn or curse us because the punishment has already been inflicted on our Saviour. The main purpose of the Old Covenant of Law (i.e. the list of rules) was to guide us to the New Covenant. But then its job is done (Galatians 3:24-25).

So grace actually reinforces the concept of sin – i.e. that there are, in fact, actions that are morally wrong? Without the concept of sin, grace would be meaningless. Nevertheless, the system of grace renders lists of rules logically “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

Christians avoid sin because we understand that sin both offends God and destroys us. Sin is bad for us. “For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption” (Galatians 6:8) and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Sin enslaves us (Romans 6:16-17) and is something we need to be saved from. In choosing morality over immorality, we are not obeying a written rule, but deciding to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than succumbing to temptation and the lusts of our flesh. “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).

 

And since sin is the transgression of the law, how are you picking and choosing which ones are ok to transgress?

Sin is only a “transgression of the law” to those who are under Law; i.e. to those who are subject to its tenets. Sin existed long before the Law – and so cannot be defined exclusively by the Law. Christians are not obligated to any rule listed in the Law – none whatsoever – no exceptions!!! Christians are not under Law, and therefore cannot transgress the Law. The Law has no authority whatsoever over Christian thought or behaviour. Nevertheless, Christians are obligated to our own conscience towards God; to our sincere love for God; and to the knowledge that sin destroys, enslaves and kills whereas righteousness brings health, freedom and life.

 

Maybe we ourselves can't break the new covenant, but would you agree that we can leave it? Especially considering such verses as:

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

This is a topic all on its own. I tend to approach this issue from the perspective of, if someone's faith doesn't “endure unto the end”, then they likely never had a saving faith to begin with – i.e. they weren't really in the covenant. As Mark 4:13-20 suggests, there are a variety of reasons why some people have a seemingly temporary faith. So their eventual falling-away from the faith calls into question the ultimate sincerity of their initial faith confession.

But I would definitely claim that we can reject the offer to enter into the covenant. That is a matter of free-will.

 

those verses aren't in reference to that act. That act I cited was one of Paul's last before he was killed. We see his actions (Jewish sacrifices/purifications) and his motive (proving he still kept Old Testament law). Unrelated passages that seem to generically say something else are irrelevant since Paul's actions and motives are already recorded here together. My objection remains.

You cited an example of Paul deciding to keep the Law as evidence that Paul considered himself doctrinally obligated to keep the Law. I cited quotes from Paul's own words stating explicitly that he sometimes keeps the Law for the specific purpose of gaining an opportunity to win over those who are under Law. If that's not directly relevant to your “objection”, then we are from different planets.

 

If we accept Paul as scripture, then what he teaches is a clarification of the information provided in the gospels (and visa versa). 

That's your opinion of how Paul harmonizes. You assume I share this position, and I'm not sure I do.

I did not assume you “share this position”. It was clearly stated as a conditional proposition.

Nevertheless, this continues to highlight the importance of choosing a standard (or canon) for scripture before considering how or whether Paul harmonises. If you decide that Paul is not scripture, then we have different faiths. My faith considers Paul to be scripture. As a prolific author of the New Testament, Paul's writings heavily influence how I understand my faith. If you decide that Paul is scripture, then there is no question that Paul does harmonise. The only question is how. But trying to discuss both issues at once is self-defeating. There is little point to discussing Paul's doctrine until you decide whether or not Paul is scripture.

 

I can see how he's accepted and corroborated by the real apostles, which at least gives his writings a bit of credibility. That doesn't convince me he's infallible

So by what standards do you accept other scriptures as scripture? Why is Exodus and Matthew scripture? What are the standards you'll accept? Either Paul meets your chosen standards, or he doesn't. That's the first logical step in this process. We've been approaching this conversation from the wrong direction.

 

especially on any points which he makes which appear nowhere else in the Bible

This is irrelevant. If Paul is scripture, then these “points” are scripture.

 

Here's the verse: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

^ Why do you think that's about Sabbaths?

Why do you think Sabbaths are excluded? It's a general statement that some people think some days are more important to God than others, whilst others believe that every day is equally important. Sabbaths clearly fall under the purview of this statement.

 

If we read the verse in context, we learn why many understand this verse to be simply saying that it doesn't matter which fasting days a person takes:

I don't think anyone truly examining the context could sincerely come to this conclusion. In Romans 14, verse 2, Paul introduces an example distinguishing between those who eat “only vegetables”, and those who eat “all things”. In verse 5 Paul introduces another example distinguishing between the one who “esteems one day above another” and the one who “esteems every day alike”. Verse 6 is a summary of the point of those two examples. Nothing to do with “fasting days”.

 

Regarding Matthew 23 you said, “Jesus isn't telling them to respect the authorities. He's saying, "Obey these specific commands they give you from the old testament" and "don't obey any of these man-made teachings".

But Jesus doesn't make that distinction. He said, “whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do” (verse 3) – which would include the “man-made teachings”. It's a general statement to respect the office of those in authority, but without being tempted to emulate their poor example of hypocrisy.

 

Regarding Mark 10:17-22 you said, “he also told him to sell everything he owned. We're not all required to do that, are we? So how can you assert that the item which you cherry picked (becoming a disciple) is the qualifier to eternal life?

You are being persnickety. Jesus described the whole process as “One thing”. For this man, selling his possessions was first step in following Jesus – which was clearly the outcome Jesus was referring to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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