Galatians; The two sons of Abraham

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Othello420
You seem to be referring to a scene which took place before Paul appealed to Caesar.
It is not recorded that Paul was making his statements under oath.

Human code of honor would suggest otherwise. If you testify, you are under oath. It was a Jewish court and there is no way you are going to tell me that he was not, as far as every one present was concerned, testifying before God. Use common sense.

Regardless, NO converted Christian would ever say "I am a Pharisee." Ever.

Saul was both the wolf of the tribe of Benjamin, the leaven of the Pharisees, and he taught the "doctrine of Balaam" that Jesus spoke of in the book of Revelation which includes the teaching that it is NOT OK under ANY circumstances, to eat meat sacrificed to Idols.

Saul claims that it is OK as long as it's not in front of a weak person. More like don't let the real Apostles CATCH YOU doing it.

If this is the teaching of the spiritually weak, as Saul claims, that makes Jesus spiritually weak.

DON'T FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF BALAAM/SAUL

FOLLOW JESUS.

Jesus purists like me and the 12 Apostles know Saul is a false prophet, and one of those "who say they are apostles, but are not." That Jesus spoke of in Revelation in his letter to Ephesus. If the Ephesians turned from him, as he admits all of Asia has done in 2 Timothy, I am certain Jesus was congratulating them for rejecting liars like Saul and Saul specifically. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. I've prayed on it, asked the Holy Spirit, and I have recieved my answer.

By all means ask him yourself.

Thats what James and company did when Saul camefor advice on circumcision. They consultedthe Holy Spirit, and were content with circumcision being not an issue, and 4 simple instructions for living are given him. Among the 4 instructions the Holy Spirit gives James are don't eat meat sacrificed to Idols.

The Holy Spirit said don't eat meat sacrificed to Idols.

Jesus said don't eat meat sacrificed to Idols.

How much clearer could it be, Saul says it is OK as long as your spiritually weak brother is not around to eat meat sacrificed to Idols. So if I listen to the Holy Spirit and Jesus and refrain from eating meat sacrificed to Idols, I am spiritually weak?

I don't think Saul has the authority to over rule 2/3 of the Holy Trinity but I'm just a Jesus purist so what do I know.

Lets examine what Saul does with these 4 instructions given Saul by Peter through the Holy Spirit. Ill tell you: Acts 12:28-29

"...For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these NECESSARY things: that you abstain from things offered to Idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep from these things you will do well. Fare well."

Whats legalistic about that???James confirms this in 21:25

When Saul returns with these easy instructions he doesn't teach this easy to follow doctrine. He even lies and says they only said "remember the poor" and invents this charge that the Apostles are Judaisers, and gets in a confrontation with Peter later in the book. Peter tried to help Saul and the gentile, so where does he get this?

He makes it up out of the blue.

And 2000 years later Disraeli wants us to believe that legalism comes from not Saul, but the Apostles!!!

Prove it Disraeli, show us this legalism you speak of (it only exists IN the letters of Saul).

Show us.

In Pauls confrontation with Peter he accuses Peter of hypocrisy. Peter! Galatians 2:14"...If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews."

Peters reply, however, isn't recorded!! Why not record it? Because Peter never compelled, as I have already proven, the Gentiles to live like Jews. Never. Paul is a liar and a hypocrite, as he boasts out of grandiosity, " I have become all things to all men." Meaning that whoever he is preaching to, he will conform to their standards if it means gaining a convert.

Saul is a liar, a hypocrite, and a fraud.

a reply to: Othello420
The issue in this letter is the demand that Gentile converts should be circumcised.
This is not coming from the Apostles themselves. Paul explains in ch2 (for which, see a separate thread) that the demand, when made in Antioch, came from "false brethren secretly brought in" from outside. He recounts how the gathered leaders in Jerusalem agrred with him that it was not necessary.
On this question, Paul and the rest of the Apostles are on the same side, agreeing that this symbol of submission to the Law of Moses is not needed.

1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak, I have become weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by ALL MEANS save SOME. I do it for the sake of the gospel SO THAT I MIGHT SHARE IN ITS BLESSINGS."

Emphasis mine. What he just said is that he has no problem acting like someone he's not (lie), If it means gaining a convert:

So he can be blessed by the gospel!!! He announced his selfish motivation to one and all and tries real hard to sound noble about it. It worked, he's conned many.

Has it worked on you?

It's OK, you have to come to terms with this eventually. Jesus message was corrupted by the prototypical wolf in sheep's clothing. Examine everything I have said for yourself. Don't listen to me, listen to the Holy Spirit, he never lets anyone who wants the truth go without it. He just plain never lets you down, period. Saul will let you down.

a reply to: Othello420
This is a thread on the theology of Galatians ch 4, relating to the contrast between dependence upon the law and dependence on faith.
I am not going to be drawn off into other areas.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You mentioned legalism, it's a detailed and misunderstood by misrepresenting, topic. I'm explaining it. You will have to live with it. Saul was the author of legalism, and by conning people, convinced them that it was the Apostles who were doing it.

I'm just exposing his lies and yours.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So don't reply. I don't need your help or permission to discuss a topic you brought up.

a reply to: Othello420

Did Jesus teach the Law of Moses was abolished, as did Saul? No, he didn't.

He said he came to fulfill the law, that not one letter shall dissapear from the Law until the end of time.

If you and Saul want to teach otherwise it's my duty to expose you both.

You are teaching lies and the doctrine of Balaam, as I have proven. I understand if you don't like it, so you can stop teaching it or I will biblically expose you every time. I have the knowledge.

a reply to: Othello420
"Legalism" is defined in the dictionary as "exaltation of law or formula".
It means expecting obedience to the details of a law.

Paul in this letter is opposing the expectation of obedience to the details of the Law (such as the demand for circumcumcision,the refusal to associate with the uncircumcised), etc.

In other words, he is opposing legalism.
If you claim that he supports it, you are only demonstrating your ignorance of what the word means.

And you can only criticise him as a supporter of legalism if you think legalism is a bad thing.
Since Paul himself thinks legalism is a bad thing, you then find yourself agreeing with him.

I have already pointed out that your two lines of argument are contradicting each another.
You should make up your mind, one way or another.

a reply to: DISRAELI

NOBODY was teaching the law of Moses OR that they had to submit to circumcision. Your argument is irrelevant. The Apostles NEVER demand any Gentile should be circumcised and Saul was dealing with the Gentiles. Still, no Apostle ever demands circumcision of anyone against their will so who even cares? Saul is inventing a false scenario of the Apostles.

Saul however is a hypocrite because HE forces Timothy to get circumcised.

I'm not criticizing, I'm exposing a false prophet. Big difference.

a reply to: DISRAELI


I know in your brain you have a need to refute me but can't. All you can do is lie and say my argument is contradictory but it isn't. It's pure facts. You can't refute pure facts. Not once did I contradict my self and none of my arguments are contradictory. You can throw words around all day but they are meaningless and you have no valid refutation so you mimick Saul and invent a charge but your lying or just wrong.

originally posted by: Othello420
NOBODY was teaching the law of Moses OR that they had to submit to circumcision... The Apostles NEVER demand any Gentile should be circumcised and Saul was dealing with the Gentiles.

Your first sentence is mistaken.
In the earlier episode in Antioch,"false brethren secretly brought in" were insisting that new disciples should be circumcised, and the whole point of Paul's journey to Jerusalem was to protest against this idea and get the opinion of the jerusalem leaders.
The episode is described in ch2, and it s the same story that we find in Acts;
"Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts ch15 v1)

And the whole point of this letter to the Galatians is that a similar set of "false brethren" are now making the same demand in Galatia- "there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ".
That is why Paul spends the entire letter arguing against the necessity of circumcision. If nobody was arguing for the necessity of circumcision, he could have saved himself the trouble of arguing against them.

On the other hand, that second sentence is correct. As Paul himself points out, the leadership in Jerusalem did NOT agree with the demand for circumcision.
In short, Paul and the Apostles are agreed together on one side of the argument, and the "false brethren" are opposing them on the other side.
So I take it that you want to align yourself with the false brethren?

a reply to: DISRAELI

You have such a weak argument it's pathetic. I am comfortable letting the people decide for themselves. We're done, I don't need to convince you. I know how much you love your false prophet and the doctrine of Balaam.

This thread is part of a series which began here;
Getting the gospel from Christ

a reply to: DISRAELI


Why would you say getting the gospel from Christ when clearly you favor the teachings of Paul? It's misleading.

a reply to: Ophite
if you checked the linked thread, you would see that Paul is the one who is "getting the gospel from Christ". That's what the title means.
"For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (ch1 v12). This refers to the event on the Damascus road, and probably also the time he spent "in Arabia".
If you want to know more about that, see the other thread.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I wonder, have you ever noticed that Jesus doesn't mention Saul when he gives John his vision? That says to me he never appeared to Paul.