First Defense for Paul: Spoken by Jesus

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I thought Paul said that the law was abolished and nailed to the cross etc.

That's in Colossians, a book probably not written by Paul, but could have been written (after his death, or otherwise leaving the public scene) by people close to Paul and who were familiar with his beliefs.
It does not say the law itself was nailed to the cross but those decrees against us that are found in the totality of the body of written works going under the description of, The Law.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I got that.
So are you telling me its ok for people to be gay... because Paul abolished the law... which includes the law being against gays?

Paul did not "abolish the law".
He said that the main advantage that the Jews had had over the gentiles is that they knew the law.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I don't wish to hijack your thread but you are giving me the impression that Paul was a hypocrite for teaching that the law (inlcuding the law against homosexuality) was abolished.... yet maintains that homosexuals are damned.

But you are the one who seems to be agreeing with Paul....a hypocrite who says the law is abolished... but still condemns homosexuals referring to either the Old Testament law against it... or speaking from his own bias.

Paul never said or taught that the law was "abolished".
He was saying there is another way to be considered righteous by God, that was outside the Law, meaning the totality of that written body of works going by the description, The Law.
Paul was not saying that the law was of no value but that we don't have to follow things that are not strictly speaking the moral code but were more symbolic, such as circumcision.
Being moral people was always uppermost in Paul's teaching, but it was by the path of what he termed, Faith, which was through the guiding of the spirit of God given to us by Jesus when we believe in him.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by Theflyingweldsman

 

Jesus knows Paul, and He knows you, I and everyone else.

The world would also be full of falsehood.

and read Leviticus 18:22 if you think it is paul's fault for anti homosexuality.

edit on 113030p://111 by backcase because: (no reason given)

I dare you to say judging words about homosexuals in front of god or any of the blessed ONES/Angels. If you believe god judges true symbiotic love between two souls that god itself created the feeling in, then do this. I am in fact telling you to do an idiotic thing but some people need to do stupid things to learn. It is like putting you hand on a hot plate even if someone have told you not to.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


Jesus taught us NOT to judge others.

Not even ourselves.

If we live as he taught, we have no need to.

reply to post by backcase


I believe that Jesus did speak of Paul.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


Your hostility and egotistical nobility have no bearing.

A sin of the flesh is a sin of the soul. But I do not judge homosexuals, they have souls and I love them as myself, but I do not love homosexual practices.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Check Romans 10:4, Paul clearly states that Jesus was the end of the law and Romans was most definitely written by him.

reply to post by windword


He talked about him here too.

Mark 7
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Paul was no different from the Pharisee that Jesus is talking to in this passage. He claims to honor Jesus with his words, but he doesn't honor him in his heart.

Paul's teachings are human traditions. Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion", I don't think that's just a coincidence.

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Well the guy I was talking to said that it is Paul's fault for religion being against homos.

I put that the root goes deeper than paul.

ATTENTION:

I wrote this and I would like to apologize for my word choice. I assure you that I have nothing against gay people, I just do not think that the practices and theories of pro homosexuality are ethical.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Check Romans 10:4, Paul clearly states that Jesus was the end of the law and Romans was most definitely written by him.

I would suggest that you 'check' it yourself.

Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
New International Version (©2011)

The Greek word here is Telos. The other day I was talking about Teleos, which is translated in the New Testament often as, perfection. Telos is directly related to Teleos, in that it means a goal.
Jesus reached the goal of the law, to reach perfection, or righteousness.
Jesus' life represents the highest standard of righteousness (according to the law) that is achievable.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul was no different from the Pharisee that Jesus is talking to in this passage. He claims to honor Jesus with his words, but he doesn't honor him in his heart.

Paul's teachings are human traditions. Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion", I don't think that's just a coincidence

I would not want to be you on judgement day.
You set a very high bar for acquittal.
How many times have you been nearly beaten to death for preaching the name of Jesus?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Funny, because the KJV says "end". Culmination is the same as end anyways.

Telos translates as "end" in English, there's no way around that fact. Google it yourself and you will know that.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I think you set the bar too low with your trust. Paul's whole story of persecution then conversion is fishy, especially since he was a Roman, the ones who nailed Jesus to the cross.

You may want to compare Paul's letters to Jesus' words. They are nothing alike.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Funny, because the KJV says "end". Culmination is the same as end anyways.

I don't raise the KJ to a glorified status.

Telos translates as "end" in English, there's no way around that fact. Google it yourself and you will know that

I don't think the translators for the NIV are fools.

5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results
Word studies

reply to post by jmdewey60


But you do with the NIV? The KJV is the most popular version on the planet.

So you listing a definition saying it means the "end goal" proves me wrong how?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think you set the bar too low with your trust. Paul's whole story of persecution then conversion is fishy . . .

So why do you believe it?
I would trust Paul's own writings to get the story of his life, rather than a piece of historical fiction filled with obvious plagiarism and inaccuracies.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Believe what?! I don't believe anything having to do with Paul. You obviously haven't seen any of my threads before. I don't believe a man named Paul ever existed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you listing a definition saying it means the "end goal" proves me wrong how?

Nice that you focus on one of several definitions, and then slant your interpretation of that, to suite your already decided conclusion, in order to be able to hate on the people who wrote the New Testament.
The other thing you should work on is seeing how the context of a word helps to determine its usage, rather than forming a 'proof text' theology by cherry picking bits and pieces from here and there to support what you already believed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Believe what?!

The Book of The Acts of the Apostles.
You act as if you do believe it, the whole thing about how he participated in the murder of the first Christians.
The letters of Paul supports none of that, and goes beyond that , to refuting it.