Do you believe and follow Jesus' words?

[Tellastory]

Surely you've heard of dispensationalism.

That term can mean something entirely than what christians think it means in general. We all may not be saying the same thing when it comes to that term.

I think of that term as meaning how disciples were to despense the gospel first to the Jews; and then when the majority of the Jews were rejecting Him, the gospel was being despensed to the Gentiles & to be given by the Gentiles until the falling away from the faith reaches its peak, that the pre trib rapture would come when God will judge His House first, and then leave those wayward & unrepentant saints behind to face the coming fire on the earth & the subsequent great tribulation, and at the same time, to give the despensation of the gospel back to the Jews, the 144,000 witnesses, to despense the gospel for the duration of the great tribulation.

And so others may see despensationalism to mean something else.

I have heard of the errant teaching of using Paul's writings in replacing Jesus's teachings, but scripture says it is not true. Paul is saying the exact same thing that Jesus was in how to be saved and even on the subject of how to follow Jesus as His disciples.

Peter validated Paul's writings along with the rest of scripture.

1 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

So whoever taught you that about Paul's epistles doing away with the teachings of Jesus are not gounded in the scripture of the N.T. to be teaching that. False teachings can creep into any church which is why Jesus is to be our personal Good Shepherd in understanding His words in the KJV, rather than have a church or an ever changing in the meaning of His words of so we can understand "hype" modern Bibles to be our good shepherd.

 

[oi_antz]

OP. I think it is wrong to take KJV as the only authoritative translation, because there is still translation going on. IMO, comparing translations can help to view the original meaning as it is understood by a variety of readers of the native language, and gives the best opportunity to really understand what was originally said. But we are always at the mercy of the translator anyway, unless we read Greek natively. I have not yet tried to find out what motivates KJV only proponents, but I reckon it is probably their view of reducing confusion by establishing a standard. However, St Paul warned us to not quibble about words. The point should be broadly visible, and we should examine rather the doctrines that we illuminate the scriptures with, because that tends to show up translation errors quite effectively.

 

[ananda]

What then do they claim Christianity to be, if it is not the observance of Jesus Christ's teaching?

Mainly Paul's teachings, as those of the resurrected Christ, superseding the teachings of the pre-resurrection Christ.

 

[ananda]

.. Also, why do you describe these as orthodox denominations? They are all protestant denominations.

"orthodox" with a little o as in mainstream/conventional Christianity, not "Orthodox" as in Eastern/Greek/Russian/etc. Orthodoxy.

 

[yesyoushould]

What about Luke 6:30, "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."?

I believe it its meant for true believers in God.

 

[ananda]

... I have heard of the errant teaching of using Paul's writings in replacing Jesus's teachings, but scripture says it is not true. Paul is saying the exact same thing that Jesus was in how to be saved and even on the subject of how to follow Jesus as His disciples ... So whoever taught you that about Paul's epistles doing away with the teachings of Jesus are not gounded in the scripture of the N.T. to be teaching that.

My former beliefs and the brand of Christianity I followed and represented recognized a difference in what Jesus taught (while on earth) and what Paul taught (allegedly representing the teachings of the post-resurrection Jesus). The "earthly" teachings of Jesus required obedience, whereas much of what was delivered through Paul did not (requiring faith only).

 

[yesyoushould]

It's not my trap, I didn't say it!

What's the "whole thing"? If you mean the surrounding verses, I am not sure how quoting them changes or modifies the meaning of Lk 6:30 itself.

Nothing wrong with posting the entire chapter.

 

[ananda]

OP. I think it is wrong to take KJV as the only authoritative translation, because there is still translation going on. IMO, comparing translations can help to view the original meaning as it is understood by a variety of readers of the native language, and gives the best opportunity to really understand what was originally said. But we are always at the mercy of the translator anyway, unless we read Greek natively. I have not yet tried to find out what motivates KJV only proponents, but I reckon it is probably their view of reducing confusion by establishing a standard. However, St Paul warned us to not quibble about words. The point should be broadly visible, and we should examine rather the doctrines that we illuminate the scriptures with, because that tends to show up translation errors quite effectively.

Thanks. I quote the KJV because it is unencumbered by copyright, but I tend to use the RSV and the Greek more often.

 

[ananda]

I believe it its meant for true believers in God.

Thanks for your perspective.

 

[ananda]

Nothing wrong with posting the entire chapter.

I didn't, because my question was only specific to this verse.

 

[yesyoushould]

My former beliefs and the brand of Christianity I followed and represented recognized a difference in what Jesus taught (while on earth) and what Paul taught (allegedly representing the teachings of the post-resurrection Jesus). The "earthly" teachings of Jesus required obedience, whereas much of what was delivered through Paul did not (requiring faith only).

Paul stopped killing Christians. Very Literal. If Paul continued to kill Christians, he would have no doubt been against Christians.

 

[oi_antz]

Thanks. I quote the KJV because it is unencumbered by copyright, but I tend to use the RSV and the Greek more often.

Ok. I am not against using KJV translation (except it is a foreign language). I am against believing it is the best translation without considering other translations first. You know, predetermined, unreasonable beliefs. I am against that.

You use the word "orthodox" when it shouldn't be used. They might be orthodox denominations in one sense of the word, but when you describe those beliefs, the word "apostate" is more appropriate. "Orthodox" implies some claim to the original message, so it's actually not orthodox to say that Jesus' teachings are obsolete. Otherwise it is not a Christian religion but a Pauline religion, and nothing then stops it from becoming a New Age religion.

You said this though: The "earthly" teachings of Jesus required obedience, whereas much of what was delivered through Paul did not (requiring faith only).

I wonder why you have believed this, can you please show me the statements St Paul made that have given you this impression?

 

[oi_antz]

Nothing wrong with posting the entire chapter.

I find it more specific to actually identify the statement in issue. It would actually be wrong to post the whole chapter because it is distracting. The whole chapter is freely available to you if you need it. If you think that OP is failing to apply proper context to this verse, you should explain why. I haven't seen that happen yet.

 

[ananda]

Ok. I am not against using KJV translation (except it is a foreign language). I am against believing it is the best translation without considering other translations first. You know, predetermined, unreasonable beliefs. I am against that.

You use the word "orthodox" when it shouldn't be used. They might be orthodox denominations in one sense of the word, but when you describe those beliefs, the word "apostate" is more appropriate. "Orthodox" implies some claim to the original message, so it's actually not orthodox to say that Jesus' teachings are obsolete. Otherwise it is not a Christian religion but a Pauline religion, and nothing then stops it from becoming a New Age religion.

Yes, I'm aware that various denominations within orthodox Christianity considers other denominations apostate to various degrees

You said this though: The "earthly" teachings of Jesus required obedience, whereas much of what was delivered through Paul did not (requiring faith only). I wonder why you have believed this, can you please show me the statements St Paul made that have given you this impression?

Where to begin? Compare Eph 2:15, Col 2:14, 2Cor 3:11-17, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Rom 7:1-3, Gal 3:19 vs Mt 5:17-19, Mt 19:27-29, Mt 10:37-39, Lk 16:17, Jn 5:24, Jn 12:25-26, etc.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, I'm aware that various denominations within orthodox Christianity considers other denominations apostate to various degrees

I wonder whether this is a basic difference in understanding the meaning of that word, or whether it is something else. I just want to check: if someone believes that Jesus Christ's teaching is no longer relevant, have they not left the religion that Jesus Christ institutes and joined a different religion? That is what apostate means to me. It certainly is not what "orthodox Christianity" means.

Where to begin? Compare Eph 2:15, Col 2:14, 2Cor 3:11-17, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Rom 7:1-3, Gal 3:19 vs Mt 5:17-19, Mt 19:27-29, Mt 10:37-39, Lk 16:17, Jn 5:24, Jn 12:25-26, etc.

I view that Jesus Christ came to abolish corrupt human rulership of the kingdom of God, and the man-made traditions of enforcing God's law, replaced instead by those who obey earnestly, by worshipping in spirit. They worship in truth, not appearing justified by the law in the eyes of their religious leaders, but knowing through direct communion with God, as their conscience testifies to them, that they have been accepted because they are truly obeying Him. These days, He has written the law on our hearts, and we can have this confidence despite accusations from religious leaders ("law enforcers"), because we know that He has entered the holy place that is not made with human hands. This is how I view that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it, and this is the purpose of the new covenant, the fulfilment of His prophecy against the religious leaders of a wicked and adulterous generation. Given that we now do not have the law applied to us in a human sense, but we answer directly to God, made possible through our advocate Jesus Christ, do you still view St Paul's words as indicating that obedience is not required? I tend to view his words as an attempt to express his understanding of this new arrangement, though we know he is difficult to read and easily misunderstood. If you do still believe so, can you please explain why?

 

[ananda]

I wonder whether this is a basic difference in understanding the meaning of that word, or whether it is something else. I just want to check: if someone believes that Jesus Christ's teaching is no longer relevant, have they not left the religion that Jesus Christ institutes and joined a different religion? That is what apostate means to me. It certainly is not what "orthodox Christianity" means.

In my prior interpretation of dispensationalism, I would say that Jesus' teachings are relevant - his post-resurrection teachings. I understand that this may not be your understanding of orthodoxy, but to my knowledge, it is considered part of orthodoxy here on CF.

I view that Jesus Christ came to abolish corrupt human rulership of the kingdom of God, and the man-made traditions of enforcing God's law, replaced instead by those who obey earnestly, by worshipping in spirit. They worship in truth, not appearing justified by the law in the eyes of their religious leaders, but knowing through direct communion with God, as their conscience testifies to them, that they have been accepted because they are truly obeying Him. These days, He has written the law on our hearts, and we can have this confidence despite accusations from religious leaders ("law enforcers"), because we know that He has entered the holy place that is not made with human hands. This is how I view that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it, and this is the purpose of the new covenant, the fulfilment of His prophecy against the religious leaders of a wicked and adulterous generation. Given that we now do not have the law applied to us in a human sense, but we answer directly to God, made possible through our advocate Jesus Christ, do you still view St Paul's words as indicating that obedience is not required? I tend to view his words as an attempt to express his understanding of this new arrangement, though we know he is difficult to read and easily misunderstood. If you do still believe so, can you please explain why?

The thing about Paul is, I thought he taught that obedience was both required and not-required ... depending on his audience 1Cor 9:20-21. Yet in my former tradition, we believed that obedience to the Law as taught pre-resurrection was not required.

 

[oi_antz]

In my prior interpretation of dispensationalism, I would say that Jesus' teachings are relevant - his post-resurrection teachings. I understand that this may not be your understanding of orthodoxy, but to my knowledge, it is considered part of orthodoxy here on CF.

They can consider it orthodoxy if they want to and I will tell them their beliefs are not consistent with Jesus Christ's teaching:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24:35&version=NIV

If they want to put their own words above His, I will force them to admit it.

The thing about Paul is, I thought he taught that obedience was both required and not-required ... depending on his audience 1Cor 9:20-21. Yet in my former tradition, we believed that obedience to the Law as taught pre-resurrection was not required.

Do you understand it properly now?

 

[sunshineforJesus]

I do my best to

 

[ananda]

They can consider it orthodoxy if they want to and I will tell them their beliefs are not consistent with Jesus Christ's teaching: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24:35&version=NIV If they want to put their own words above His, I will force them to admit it.

They would say that his words are eternal but are no longer applicable, to this age, or to Gentiles.

Do you understand it properly now?

Lk 6:30? Not really. I can see how it may apply to enemies in context, but "every man" seems to preclude only enemies.

 

[ananda]

I do my best to

Cool!