false apostle Paul is the 1st AntiChrist! Christians quote Paul to counter radical teachings of Jes

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

How about we pick one or two and you state them yourself? I can't debate a web site.

For starters...take the "law" for example.
God, the OT prophets and Jesus all taught that a person who keeps the "law" is righteous.
Then Paul comes along and spoke against the law.

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight"
(Rom 3:20)

Paul's rationale here is not that the Law is irrelevant -- morality and adhering to God's will are still vital components of Christ's teachings -- but rather that, if adherence to the Law was all that was required, then what was the point of Christ? This is further exemplified by Luther and the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" -- that salvation comes through faith alone, a person's works plays no role in their redemption.

The "Christ counterpoint" is pretty much the same thing -- why would Christ sacrifice himself, and suffer the humiliation and torture of the Jewish and Roman persecution, if it served no purpose, because people were saved through the Law?

Clearly, Christ presents a new covenant, which supersedes the Law, and establishes a relationship between God and the believer, with Christ as the intermediary. The Law is still crucial, as adherence to it demonstrates a true faith, but it is Christ who saves, not the Law.

Paul is in harmony with Christ. Next?

reply to post by adjensen

if adherence to the Law was all that was required, then what was the point of Christ?
...
why would Christ sacrifice himself, and suffer the humiliation and torture of the Jewish and Roman persecution, if it served no purpose, because people were saved through the Law?

1.Well, what did Jesus say he was here for?
Did he say he was here to abolish the law? Unless you can show me where Jesus said that the law is done away with, Paul will keep contradicting Jesus. Because your belief that the law is done away with comes from Paul.

2. Also, you are attempting to connect the law with Jesus persecution at the hands of the Jews.
Jesus persecution was the result of the jewish leaders who had a problem with him. His execution was standard Roman procedure and not a sin sacrifice as christians believe.
(If you are interested, read my more detailed thread on the subject of Jesus execution www.abovetopsecret.com... )

3. Therefore his "death" had no co-relation with keeping the law... but Paul teaches that Jesus' death changed the need to keep the law. Throughout the bible, keeping the law is consistently equated with being righteous. Only Paul was singing a different tune, contradicting God, Jesus and the OT prophets.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Yes, Jesus said that it's through faith one is saved.

"Faith without works is dead"

Paul is very specific "salvation is through faith APART from works"

Paul said salvation is free, Jesus says it will cost you everything, all your possessions, your relationships, even your status in this world.

Paul makes it sound so easy, Jesus makes it so damn morbid.

Paul's way is the 'broadway' Jesus way is the narrow way.

A lot of Christians is breaking the 1st law - Love your God with all your strength, with all your mind and with all your soul.

They are spending more time with their work, their hobbies, their family, their car, worldly relationships, watching sports/movies than seeking God

Jesus is not joking when he said, only few will find the narrow gate and the narrow way. Jesus teachings are clear cut and to be taken literally. He speaks of parable but explains them in the real world context. To take his teachings figuratively is to water down his radical message of how it is to be true follower of Jesus

Only few can follow his radical teachings in its literal form. I really wish there can be more but the truth is people just love their money, worldly activities more than anything. They only wanted God for the promise of material or financial security and a sure slot in heaven. They would only help others after helping themselves first or keeping most of the blessings

That is really selfish, not worthy being called sons of God. To love God is to love and do what he loves not to sit it out and think that God can do everything in his power and not need our help. Sitting down and doing nothing while evil is all over world, you are in league with the devil himself, you can't be called sons of God.

reply to post by ahnggk

The God of the OT who promises men worldly riches is probably the same entity that promised Jesus kingdoms and riches.

I think I have moderated my position on that a bit lately, as I learn about more extra-canonical books around the time of Christ, where some extreme views current then may have been more in the mind of the Gospel writers, rather than a more mainstream view of the OT god being the main culprit.
The Gospel of John works towards allowing even for demons a choice to follow Jesus, rather than a sense of the inevitable where everyone's fates are locked in place.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I'd like to hear your opinion on how Christians can reconcile the mind of the OT God vs the God of Jesus...

reply to post by Akragon


The God of the OT was the God who Jesus prayed to.

My theory is that the ancient Israelites did bad things (genocide etc) on their own and then attributed it to God in their writings... which became included in the genuine scriptures. So the bibles we have today are corrupted, but the truth is still there in places.

reply to post by Akragon

I'd like to hear your opinion on how Christians can reconcile the mind of the OT God vs the God of Jesus...

You have the gods (in the old) as these wild and dangerous forces than need to be tamed by wise humans who instill into them their morality and bend the wills of the gods to be their servants. It looks like they are exalting the gods but it is more for their own status as having superior "gods" or "God".
I don't see a reconciliation but what transfers over well is probably a notion of piety centered on holiness rather than doing great horrific deeds to "appease" the gods. People have a tendency to fall into that trap of self-glorification evidenced by things like a view of Jesus' self-sacrifice as appeasing some evil desire from a god rather than what it was, the exposure of how bad that spirit is where they thought they were making their god happy by killing Jesus.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

The God of the OT was the God who Jesus prayed to

While i don't agree with that theory, i will star you for your reply

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Merely because Marcion was quite anti-Semetic. He also heavily altered Paul's epistles for his 130ish AD Gnostic bible, again to align with their doctrines. They were known for "mutilating" the texts.

Marcion was not Gnostic or antisemitic. He just did not see the OT version of God being accurately portrayed as YHWH.
The fact that he made his own version of a canon is not evidence of widespread "mutilation" of NT texts.
You keep making this claim without any support.

edit on 7-8-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

I already showed you support you dismissed it because of contempt for the majority text.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That actually comes from Irenaeus 2ns in apostolic succession from John the apostle.

There was never such a thing in order to be passed on, and was a later invention by the Catholic Church to legitimize the authority of Bishops.

edit on 7-8-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

I meant he was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a direct disciple of John the Apostle. 2nd from John.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . one needs to go to the Christian epistles for Christian doctrine because the church was not born until Pentecost. The new covenant of grace being instituted at the last supper and the old covenant being completely fulfilled with His crucifixion. . . .

Pentecost is in Acts, not the Epistles.
The new covenant was not instituted at the last supper, but a celebration of his death was instituted. The actual putting into effect of the covenant would have been after Jesus' final ascension into heaven.
The old covenant was never "completely fulfilled" seeing how Hebrews and 2 Corinthians describe it as just being made old and fading away. Jesus ransomed us from the old system administered by angels, and did not "satisfy" its demands.

edit on 7-8-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

I'm talking about the feast of Pentecost, the birth of the church. And Christ said the cup and bread was the institution of the new covenant.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

How about we pick one or two and you state them yourself? I can't debate a web site.

For starters...take the "law" for example.
God, the OT prophets and Jesus all taught that a person who keeps the "law" is righteous.
Then Paul comes along and spoke against the law.

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight"
(Rom 3:20)

Paul's rationale here is not that the Law is irrelevant -- morality and adhering to God's will are still vital components of Christ's teachings -- but rather that, if adherence to the Law was all that was required, then what was the point of Christ? This is further exemplified by Luther and the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" -- that salvation comes through faith alone, a person's works plays no role in their redemption.

The "Christ counterpoint" is pretty much the same thing -- why would Christ sacrifice himself, and suffer the humiliation and torture of the Jewish and Roman persecution, if it served no purpose, because people were saved through the Law?

Clearly, Christ presents a new covenant, which supersedes the Law, and establishes a relationship between God and the believer, with Christ as the intermediary. The Law is still crucial, as adherence to it demonstrates a true faith, but it is Christ who saves, not the Law.

Paul is in harmony with Christ. Next?

I would check what Peter says in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council that the law and it's demands are not binding for gentile Christians. That it is a yoke that neither they not their forefathers could maintain. Christ gave two commands that encompasses all the law and prophets. Saying His yoke was easy and His burden was light.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

The law being done away with in christianity is a result of Pauls influence.
Of course, this is backed up by a strange teaching that the law is done with because Jesus fulfilled the law.

Jesus said the law is to remain till heaven and earth pass away...
Jesus did NOT say "I'm going to fulfill the law once and for all".

Be honest! Christ said the law would remain till it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfill it. And Peter and James agreed at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 that Christians are not bound to the law of Moses.

reply to post by ahnggk


Okay, James said that quote, not Jesus. And secondly, James is highlighting the fruit of genuine faith not the path to redemption. Paul is addressing " Here is how one is saved", and James is saying " Here is what saved folks look like". They both say the same thing just take it in another direction. James is talking about the fruit of genuine faith will result in good works. The only exception would be a babe in Christ who was just recently converted who likely would not evidence the same level of sanctification as a mature believer at that point in time.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I'd like to hear your opinion on how Christians can reconcile the mind of the OT God vs the God of Jesus...

I think the entire chapter of Ezekiel 37 gives us some insight to God's will for all of those who were slain and the big picture/plan for why God (in the Old Testament) did what he did.

Ezekiel 37

9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.

10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.

12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

As it stands now, a lot more are going to be "cut off" before he brings them all back together again.

Originally posted by NOTurTypicalPaul is addressing " Here is how one is saved", and James is saying " Here is what saved folks look like". They both say the same thing just take it in another direction. James is talking about the fruit of genuine faith will result in good works.

Thanks for the correction.

Your argument can be valid because we all have Bibles and all can read...

...But during Paul's time, the Gentiles did not have the scriptures and if they did, they probably couldn't read it. They could be depending entirely on Paul's speeches to understand the Gospel...

...So if Paul missed out on something and/or said something different, the early Gentiles are in trouble don't you think? It would make him either irresponsible or a false prophet.

On the other hand, Jesus told it completely in his teachings, how to be saved, and the evidence of the transformation. Jesus was clear, concise, and complete on the 'How Tos' of salvation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Be honest! Christ said the law would remain till it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfill it. And Peter and James agreed at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 that Christians are not bound to the law of Moses.

Very well... lets go over the full verse then


For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus never said that the law would be done with once he "fulfills" it.
That teaching came from Paul.

My question is when did Jesus ever say that the law would be terminated, after his death?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The key word in these verses you quoted from Matthew 5 is "commandments".

Now all you have to do is read the rest of Matthew, Chapters 5, 6 & 7 for more detailed specifications as to what Jesus was talking about here.

reply to post by Deetermined


"these commandments" = the commandments that comprise the "law".

The two are synonymous.

As for Matthew 5, 6 and 7... they were his unique teachings on how to live and look at life.... not exclusively about the "law" he was talking in Matthew 5:17-20.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


But if you continue on in Matthew 5, past verse 20, you see Jesus starts to address a couple of the commandments by expanding on them as well as making changes to some of their own written laws.

Matthew 5

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.