Harmonizing Paul and the Twelve

[stillseeking]

Quote

This is what You said:::

""""   This probably wasn't Peter.  2 Peter is one of the most disputed authorships of the entire NT - even ahead of Revelation:   """"

This was a response to the quote showing Peter called Paul a Brother in Christ..   So anything in scripture that has supported Paul as a Messenger of God you have attacked as being questionable in authenticity.. So don't tell me i am wrong.. Your own words speak for themselves..  For everyone to see..

Not sure what you're getting at here.  2 Peter is indeed one of the most disputed authorships in the entire NT.  What's your point?  

Read what I said again.  Neither add nor take away, and maybe you'll understand.  You attempt to draw further conclusions on that statement and are wrong.  It's clear that you don't understand my position, so if you are interested in what that actually is, I've written extensively on that already.  I see you're able to quote my posts, so feel free to reread them and find where I've made my agnostic position on Paul's validity clear.  

I've kindly rebuked posts that have been prideful/trolling/etc. and I'll continue to do so.  Please refrain from these things.  Thanks.  

If you've got questions on the specifics of my current position, feel free to ask...but this brash assumption of yours is neither helpful nor godly.  

I'll respond to the lengthy post next, as it deserves my time and attention.  

[stillseeking]

Quote

This fictional interview serves as a vehicle to present Paul’s life and doctrines. Luke’s account in Acts is distinctly Jewish and differs in emphasis from Paul’s letters. Luke’s intended audience was Jews and his purpose was to explain Israel’s fall from God’s favor and why the kingdom of God did not come. Paul’s letters addressed Gentiles primarily. In them, we find Church doctrine–doctrines the risen Lord gave for the Church, the body of Christ.

Thanks for posting this.  It was a long read!  

While imaginative, I'm not sure it offers much evidence for Paul's validity.  It certainly exemplifies the typical teaching of the doctrine of grace, but unfortunately, I am still looking for reasons to believe that such is valid instead of the teachings of Yeshua and the apostles, or how they might be harmonized.  

[stillseeking]

Quote

The Law contains ritual, administrative and moral rules. Therefore only a part of the law specifically pertains to sin. Sin also existed before the law. The law does not teach the spirit of morality, only the letter. In Christ, we don’t need to blindly follow a list of rules because we have the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and guide us into righteousness.

This idea is the closest to harmonization which I've heard, which is that while God's law never changes, the expression of it has perhaps changed.  One confusion about this notion, though, is the assertion that if one feels bound by one part of the law that he must keep all of it.  These are Paul's words: 

Galatians 5:3 "Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law"

Quote

Jesus taught that strict adherence to a list of rules is insufficient to attain the righteousness required for salvation.

And on this topic, he and Paul agree.  Regardless, though, it seems that new believers would still perhaps be expected to be observant, as a sign of devotion--what else could "love God with all your heart" mean?

There are also plenty of places where he makes it clear that loving God does indeed mean keeping his commandments, even the "least" of the commandments.  How else could these things be interpreted?  

Quote

More accurately, it was debated in the “early” church. Some thought it was necessary (e.g. compelled gentile converts to be circumcised). Paul convinced the early church leaders (including Peter and James) that it was not.

Perhaps Peter was convinced, but there was also this prophecy about how Peter would be led away one day.  This has many times been interpreted as foretelling that Peter would be deceived:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you bound yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will bind you and take you where you do not wish." John 21:18

Quote

The canon we have is the one that God has preserved for His believers throughout time. This canon was originally recognised as the compilation of works considered unanimously to be scripture at the time of canonisation. 

But that's just the thing - there are multiple canonized Bibles.   There isn't just "one" that we have today.  The Ethiopian Bible contains 80-some books, for example.  The truth is in there somewhere, but man put together the words of the teachers of the time, and the compilations differ.  Here are several canonization lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions  And before canonization, we had the early Christians, with nothing canonized, who varied in their textual selection even more so.  The above referenced Wikipedia touches on this as well.  

If textual canonization is even slightly disputed, we must recognize that these compilations are man-made and thus potentially subject to fallacy.  

We learn through Revelation that even many of the early churches were starting to get it wrong.  Paul made reference to groups such as the Ebionites and Ephesians which rejected him completely (Ephesians are later commended in Revelation for rejecting a false apostle...who else could that be?).  This happened before official canons became more than just private reading lists.  Is it any wonder that there's still confusion for us on this subject today?  

Quote

The early church agreed that Paul’s writings were scripture – and they were subsequently included and copied throughout history for our benefit (along with the other scriptures).

They didn't agree on this, though; see above.  

Quote

I converted to Christianity as an adult.

Awesome.  I'm curious--what was it that convinced you?  I guess it's different for everyone.  

Quote

You are interpreting “his commandments” to mean the Law.

So far that seems like the most likely definition, yes.  Since all have sinned, then it seems fitting that the definition of sin would be the very Torah which none of us could keep successfully.  

That and Yeshua goes into detail on just a few of the commandments we are to keep...and they happen to be literal commandments, as in Torah commandments: 

Matthew 19:17 "17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ "

Quote

The truth of consistency between Paul and the other Apostles has prevailed for ~2000 years.

Among whom?  Today, there are flavors of Christianity that do teach Torah observance.  There are estimated to be over 30,000 Christian denominations.  They differ in doctrines.  

Plus, "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" - so majority belief here doesn't necessarily equal correctness.  (Matthew 7:14)

Quote

Your claim is inconsistency between the Gospels and Paul’s teaching

More specifically, between the twelve apostles and Paul; of which Luke was not a member.  

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, stillseeking said:

This idea is the closest to harmonization which I've heard, which is that while God's law never changes, the expression of it has perhaps changed.  One confusion about this notion, though, is the assertion that if one feels bound by one part of the law that he must keep all of it.  These are Paul's words: 

Galatians 5:3 "Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law"

And on this topic, he and Paul agree.  Regardless, though, it seems that new believers would still perhaps be expected to be observant, as a sign of devotion--what else could "love God with all your heart" mean?

There are also plenty of places where he makes it clear that loving God does indeed mean keeping his commandments, even the "least" of the commandments.  How else could these things be interpreted?  

Perhaps Peter was convinced, but there was also this prophecy about how Peter would be led away one day.  This has many times been interpreted as foretelling that Peter would be deceived:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you bound yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will bind you and take you where you do not wish." John 21:18

But that's just the thing - there are multiple canonized Bibles.   There isn't just "one" that we have today.  The Ethiopian Bible contains 80-some books, for example.  The truth is in there somewhere, but man put together the words of the teachers of the time, and the compilations differ.  Here are several canonization lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions  And before canonization, we had the early Christians, with nothing canonized, who varied in their textual selection even more so.  The above referenced Wikipedia touches on this as well.  

If textual canonization is even slightly disputed, we must recognize that these compilations are man-made and thus potentially subject to fallacy.  

We learn through Revelation that even many of the early churches were starting to get it wrong.  Paul made reference to groups such as the Ebionites and Ephesians which rejected him completely (Ephesians are later commended in Revelation for rejecting a false apostle...who else could that be?).  This happened before official canons became more than just private reading lists.  Is it any wonder that there's still confusion for us on this subject today?  

They didn't agree on this, though; see above.  

Awesome.  I'm curious--what was it that convinced you?  I guess it's different for everyone.  

So far that seems like the most likely definition, yes.  Since all have sinned, then it seems fitting that the definition of sin would be the very Torah which none of us could keep successfully.  

That and Yeshua goes into detail on just a few of the commandments we are to keep...and they happen to be literal commandments, as in Torah commandments: 

Matthew 19:17 "17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ "

Among whom?  Today, there are flavors of Christianity that do teach Torah observance.  There are estimated to be over 30,000 Christian denominations.  They differ in doctrines.  

Plus, "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" - so majority belief here doesn't necessarily equal correctness.  (Matthew 7:14)

More specifically, between the twelve apostles and Paul; of which Luke was not a member.  

“This idea is the closest to harmonization which I've heard, which is that while God's law never changes, the expression of it has perhaps changed. One confusion about this notion, though, is the assertion that if one feels bound by one part of the law that he must keep all of it. These are Paul's words: Galatians 5:3 "Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole Law" ”

The point of the Law is to demonstrate that God is perfectly just – and therein our need to be saved due to our inability to wholly keep that standard. Even one act of unrighteousness is enough to breach that perfect standard. The zero-tolerance nature of the Law is intended to reflect this perfection. If someone under the Law breaks the Law (at all), then they are condemned by the Law as transgressors.

James 2:10-11

10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

God's favour and salvation can therefore only be attained through grace – because we have all failed the test of earning God's favour. God paid a very high price so He could forgive us independently of our merit. Choosing to be under Law is a rejection of that grace – because if righteousness could be attained through adherence to the Law, there is no need for Christ to be sacrificed for our sins. Subjecting oneself to any aspect of Law is therefore a choice to be accountable to a perfect standard – in its entirety, rather than accepting the grace of God offered through Christ.
 

“it seems that new believers would still perhaps be expected to be observant, as a sign of devotion--what else could "love God with all your heart" mean?”

It “could mean” choosing the system of grace purchased at such a high price; focussing our efforts on being reconciled to God and seeking His kingdom – rather than rejecting that grace by trying to earn our own righteousness through adherence to Law. It “could mean” recognising that the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem us from anything we owed to either justice or the Law.

 

“There are also plenty of places where he makes it clear that loving God does indeed mean keeping his commandments, even the "least" of the commandments. How else could these things be interpreted?”

We need to read such claims in context. In Matthew 5, Jesus is explicit that adherence to Law is insufficient in God's eyes. The Law is a shadow of God's perfection. But what God really expects is that people be righteous in their hearts, not just their actions. This could only be accomplished through Jesus' vicarious fulfilment of the Law on behalf of the Jews (remembering that Jesus was talking to Jews (not gentiles) pre-sacrifice (i.e. pre-fulfilment) – and that only Jews were ever obligated to the Law to begin with).

A person enters into a higher standard of righteousness than the Law when we surrender ourselves to Christ in faith – because we now have His righteousness and His Spirit. In a sincere believer, the influence of the Holy Spirit will trend a person's behaviour towards righteousness and away from sin. As Paul states, if we walk in love, peace, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faith, gentleness and self-control, then there is no breach of Law (Gal 5:22-23). Ritual Law is also fulfilled in Christ; e.g. Jesus is our Sabbath rest (from the burden of sin and the Law), our tithe (the first-fruit offering), our circumcision (the removal of our flesh nature), and most importantly, our atoning sacrifice (without blemish).

No one is encouraging anyone to break the Law – we are rather admonishing people to recognise Jesus' fulfilment of the Law; to accept that we have been purchased from further obligation or debt to either justice or the Law.

 

“Perhaps Peter was convinced, but there was also this prophecy about how Peter would be led away one day. This has many times been interpreted as foretelling that Peter would be deceived: "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you bound yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will bind you and take you where you do not wish." John 21:18 ”

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”.

 

“But that's just the thing - there are multiple canonized Bibles. There isn't just "one" that we have today. The Ethiopian Bible contains 80-some books, for example. The truth is in there somewhere, but man put together the words of the teachers of the time, and the compilations differ. Here are several canonization lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions And before canonization, we had the early Christians, with nothing canonized, who varied in their textual selection even more so. The above referenced Wikipedia touches on this as well.

If textual canonization is even slightly disputed, we must recognize that these compilations are man-made and thus potentially subject to fallacy.”

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

 

“We learn through Revelation that even many of the early churches were starting to get it wrong. Paul made reference to groups such as the Ebionites and Ephesians which rejected him completely (Ephesians are later commended in Revelation for rejecting a false apostle...who else could that be?).”

Where is this information sourced? Paul was the founding Apostle of the church at Ephesus. Paul encountered problems with some of the Jews at Ephesus (and Diana worshippers), but not by the church.

Also, the Ephesians are “commended in Revelation” for rejecting false “apostles” (plural) – not any particular “false apostle”.

 

“This happened before official canons became more than just private reading lists. Is it any wonder that there's still confusion for us on this subject today?”

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).

 

“Awesome. I'm curious--what was it that convinced you? I guess it's different for everyone.”

It was a process. I'd studied several belief systems (including secular beliefs) and found Christianity to be the most consistent by far with the reality I experience. At the time, there was a prophecy in Daniel that put me over the top. But looking back, I'd say that prophecy was more a case of 'the straw that broke the camels back' – rather than the weightiest factor in my conversion.

 

“So far that seems like the most likely definition, yes. Since all have sinned, then it seems fitting that the definition of sin would be the very Torah which none of us could keep successfully.”

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.

Obviously, if the context justifies it, commandments can refer to the Law. But the take home message of Matthew 19 (in which Jesus does use the Law) is that we cannot enter eternal life without following Jesus – no matter how righteously we think we have behaved. Nevertheless, Jesus was right to say that if we keep the Law without fault, we earn the right to eternal life (but we know that is not a viable option – nor the intent of the Law).
 

“Today, there are flavors of Christianity that do teach Torah observance. There are estimated to be over 30,000 Christian denominations. They differ in doctrines.”

We are different parts of the whole body of Christ. Not all have the same revelation of grace. But even though some struggle to reconcile Paul with adherence to Law, Paul's inclusion in scripture has been consistently accepted by the Christian church throughout church history.

 

“majority belief here doesn't necessarily equal correctness. (Matthew 7:14)”

Paul's writings meet the same critical standards of other scriptures – in terms of overwhelming preservation and presence in the church since authorship, doctrinal consistency with the rest of scripture and acceptance by Godly authority throughout church history (from the earliest Apostles on). In the light of such strong support, the onus is on those opposing to make a convincing case against. Anyone can apply unreasonably rigid standards against any New Testament work they wish to dismiss. Jews dismiss the New Testament because they think its inconsistent with their understanding of God. Other non-Christians dismiss the entire Bible for like reasons. Paul's inclusion in scripture is at least as well supported as the rest of the New Testament by any objective standard.

[Blood Bought 1953]

“Luke was a supporter of Paul.  Anything that Luke wrote, Paul might as well have written”

 

Tristen......thank you so much for writing a masterpiece.

I would only add that the author of the Bible whether it be Moses or Paul was The Holy Spirit. Those that put the pen to paper were merely secretaries. Thanks again for your excellent postings!

[Unfailing Presence]

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 3:07 PM, stillseeking said:

Christianity is said to be the only religion that didn't start as the result of a supernatural vision experienced by its charismatic leader.  Yet, this description absolutely DOES fit Christianity if we recognize that it precisely describes what happened in the early church: Paul experienced a vision and spread a new version of Christianity--the one we actually follow today--to the non-Jewish people. 

 

            " For I determined not to know anything among you SAVE JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED . " ( 1 Corinthians 2 : 2 ) 

To say the main thrust of Paul's preaching to literally the entire known world at the time  was anything other than the above scripture is a lie .

[stillseeking]

 

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

Quote

Choosing to be under Law is a rejection of that grace – because if righteousness could be attained through adherence to the Law, there is no need for Christ to be sacrificed for our sins. Subjecting oneself to any aspect of Law is therefore a choice to be accountable to a perfect standard – in its entirety, rather than accepting the grace of God offered through Christ.

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? 

Quote

It “could mean” choosing the system of grace purchased at such a high price; focussing our efforts on being reconciled to God and seeking His kingdom – rather than rejecting that grace by trying to earn our own righteousness through adherence to Law. It “could mean” recognising that the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem us from anything we owed to either justice or the Law.

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. 

Quote

We need to read such claims in context. In Matthew 5, Jesus is explicit that adherence to Law is insufficient in God's eyes. The Law is a shadow of God's perfection. But what God really expects is that people be righteous in their hearts, not just their actions. This could only be accomplished through Jesus' vicarious fulfilment of the Law on behalf of the Jews (remembering that Jesus was talking to Jews (not gentiles) pre-sacrifice (i.e. pre-fulfilment) – and that only Jews were ever obligated to the Law to begin with).

A person enters into a higher standard of righteousness than the Law when we surrender ourselves to Christ in faith – because we now have His righteousness and His Spirit. In a sincere believer, the influence of the Holy Spirit will trend a person's behaviour towards righteousness and away from sin. As Paul states, if we walk in love, peace, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faith, gentleness and self-control, then there is no breach of Law (Gal 5:22-23). Ritual Law is also fulfilled in Christ; e.g. Jesus is our Sabbath rest (from the burden of sin and the Law), our tithe (the first-fruit offering), our circumcision (the removal of our flesh nature), and most importantly, our atoning sacrifice (without blemish).

No one is encouraging anyone to break the Law – we are rather admonishing people to recognise Jesus' fulfilment of the Law; to accept that we have been purchased from further obligation or debt to either justice or the Law.

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. 

 

[Marilyn C]

On ‎18‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 6:28 PM, Blood Bought 1953 said:

 

 

Hi Blood Bought,

So, so wonderful to read the refreshing, living waters of truth. Good on you bro or sis, for writing that. May it be a clarion call for many to read, study and come to the fullness of truth of Christ and His purposes.

Blessings, Marilyn.

[Blood Bought 1953]

1 hour ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi Blood Bought,

So, so wonderful to read the refreshing, living waters of truth. Good on you bro or sis, for writing that. May it be a clarion call for many to read, study and come to the fullness of truth of Christ and His purposes.

Blessings, Marilyn.

 

 

Thank you you for the kind words, Marilyn .....are you referring to the fictional interview with Paul? If so, I got another one from Peter. Let me know if you want to see it. God bless.       Btw....I am a bro.    Lol

Edited January 27, 2018 by Blood Bought 1953

[Marilyn C]

Just now, Blood Bought 1953 said:

 

 

Thank you you for the kind words, Marilyn .....are you referring to the fictional interview with Paul? If so, I got another one from Peter. Let me know if you want to see it. God bless

Hi Blood Bought,

yes please. You can PM it to me if you would like or post it here if not off topic.

regards, Marilyn.