the Apostle Paul kept the Torah!

[weathered]

When I sit down and eat with Jewish or Muslim friends, I don't serve or eat pork because it is offensive to them. If they ask, I tell them I do eat pork. Paul's statement wasn't about pretending to be something he is not, it was about adapting purely cultural practices because it allowed him to have a greater influence among those to whom he was ministering. In Galatians, Paul made it very clear that requiring a Christian to observe the Law was wrong, in Corinthians he made it clear that giving up our freedoms in order to allow us to more effectively minister is preferable; in some cases giving up those freedoms could mean that we follow the Law but in other cases it may mean we do things that are against the OT Law (For example, when God gave Peter the vision about eating "unclean" food).

Paul didn't teach them law but he did teach Gentiles to observe Gods will though. At least that's what i see in scripture

 

[Standing Up]

Do you believe Paul practiced Acts 24:14?

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

They accused Paul of following what they called heresy. What is the way?

 

[Frogster]

Not sure what you mean with the allegory but...do you believe that God's Torah no longer serves as instruction, correction, reproof and training in righteousness so that we may be adequate unto good works before God?

u always omit the definition, it was not law, he said in his previous letter, get the law boys ouuta tim's church, they don't know what they r talking about, but here is what paul meant, faith, not law..look at eh verse before, it was not law...

context!! was faith and salvation by law?





2 tim 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Frogster]

Froggy, if you were to be honest with yourself and the text you would agree that EVERY time Paul addressed the judaizers or spoke "against the law" it was in reference to those who MISUSED the Law of God.

[It was always, "don't think you can be saved by the law" "don't think that you are going to be justified by works of the law" "don't think that circumcising is going to do anything for your salvation" "don't think that you are meriting your redemption and salvation by obeying any of the commandments".]

The Holy Law of God is good, but ONLY to those who use it lawfully!
When you read Psalm 119, what do you see?

no no, u r wrong, they were trying to add law to the church, so that they would always live as jews.

would they be jew for just a day, or the rest of theor lives?

they woukd have to continue, abide..live by faith or live by law in the future...live..live..Paul now lived by faith, u r wrong..live by faith, or live by law..fact.

3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

 

[Frogster]

Paul: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

In what sense? One thing taught was spiritual (Zion-children of promise) vs (Sinai-children of bondage).

We know per Galatians that Peter "fell back" into bondage when those from James son of Joseph/Mary came to town. Paul set him straight. (Same issue--spiritual or physical).

So, yes, written for our learning, just be careful to learn what is to be properly learned.

yup!, and he used Abraham and david, WHAT DOES THE OT SAY, in Rom 4:3, the gospel was in the OT, rom 1;2, and 16;26..Paul used the OT, like in Acts, to show the resurrection, or the gosepl, he dod not go around pushing law..

 

[Frogster]

Paul: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

In what sense? One thing taught was spiritual (Zion-children of promise) vs (Sinai-children of bondage).

We know per Galatians that Peter "fell back" into bondage when those from James son of Joseph/Mary came to town. Paul set him straight. (Same issue--spiritual or physical).

So, yes, written for our learning, just be careful to learn what is to be properly learned.

yup!, and he used Abraham and david, WHAT DOES THE OT SAY, in Rom 4:3, the gospel was in the OT, rom 1;2, and 16;26..Paul used the OT, like in Acts, to show the resurrection, or the gosepl, he did not go around pushing judaism.

 

[Standing Up]

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

They accused Paul of following what they called heresy. What is the way?

And Stephen, full of faith and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people, ...

They did stir up also the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and having come upon [him], they caught him, and brought [him] to the sanhedrim;
they set up also false witnesses, saying, `This one doth not cease to speak evil sayings against this holy place and the law,
for we have heard him saying, That this Jesus the Nazarean shall overthrow this place, and shall change the customs that Moses delivered to us;'

The witnesses were false. It was true in 70ad.

 

[Frogster]

In other words...Paul was a hypocrite --according to your understanding of his "temperatism".

Question: how does one "act like a Gentile"?

you tell us? if it was not ignoring sabby, and food laws, as u think, as you think "living as a gentile" in chapter 2 meant that they were drunk in the streets partying, then we must think when Paul rebuked all of them, they were supposed to go back to paganism!

party on Peter, and all you guys, go back to the way you were, prior to the rebuke!

 

[Cribstyl]

Gotta love those amplified English Bibles.
You can get them to say pretty much anything you want

But I do agree, NO ONE is justified by works of the law.

The Law was not given to bring redemption.
It was given to give Instruction.
Then and now

Your commentary will skew the facts......
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gal 5:4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

 

[Frogster]

Do you believe Paul practiced Acts 24:14?

oh my,,I showed u over and over, the next verse u never quote, just like in Acts 26 befor agrippa, paul stressed the resurrrection in the following verses, not legalism, yet,,yet,,u just keep posting that one verse..:o

look at more,,u totally don't understand upper acts, and paul's defense at all, with all due respect..really i keep showing u, but why do u ignore the next verse? look at 15, then reply...





Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Gotta love those amplified English Bibles.
You can get them to say pretty much anything you want

As with *any* translation .

But I do agree, NO ONE is justified by works of the law.

Every time that I have read this from you , you backtrack not too long after .

The Law was not given to bring redemption.
It was given to give Instruction.
Then and now

So , why do you not present it in that manner ?

 

[New_Wineskin]

Froggy, if you were to be honest with yourself and the text you would agree that EVERY time Paul addressed the judaizers or spoke "against the law" it was in reference to those who MISUSED the Law of God.

[It was always, "don't think you can be saved by the law" "don't think that you are going to be justified by works of the law" "don't think that circumcising is going to do anything for your salvation" "don't think that you are meriting your redemption and salvation by obeying any of the commandments".]

It was always someone saying "The Scriptures say *this* so obey it .

The Holy Law of God is good, but ONLY to those who use it lawfully!
When you read Psalm 119, what do you see?

Ok , so why do you not reprimand all of those in these Sabbath threads telling people to use it unlawfully ?

 

[Frogster]

Do you believe Paul practiced Acts 24:14?

Acts 21. Paul goes to Jerusalem with his heart wide open, even bringing money he collected from the Gentiles, to show good will and unity. Paul arrives in Jerusalem, only to hear from James that they thought Paul taught apostasy in verse 21, the Greek for “forsake” Moses, same word used in Thessalonians about who some deem the “Antichrist”, serious accusation. Did Paul preach apostasy? No. James, understandably fearing the thousands said, "do what we tell you", to Paul, so Paul, who said in 1 Corinthians 9, that he did certain things to further the gospel, become as a Jew or Gentile etc, along with 2 Corinthians 4, while saying commended himself to others, commended himself to James. So yes, Paul took the vow, no big deal really, so what!? In a transitional stressful time, in an unfolding history of the apostleship of Paul and the church, along with the integration of Jew and Gentile populations, Paul did not want to freak out James, he took the silly vow..

Ok now at the trial, Paul was right, he did not in that incident, break a law in the temple, and no, Paul did not go around commiting adultery, but to use the trial, contextually, we can in no way say Paul promoted Sabbath or festivals or antiquated food laws, but no, Paul did not teach people to commit adultery, as I don’t.

Bottom line, when Paul spoke of the OT in 24 before Felix, and 26 before Agrippa, he stressed the resurrection, as Festus mentioned in chapter 25 also, but some people don’t post the following verses, because it will prove their paste wrong, as they make like Paul promoted law, when he mentioned the OT here, but if we read on, he stressed the resurrection, not legalism in the OT.



Acts 24;14-15 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.


Before Agrippa, the hope was not the law, but resurrection.



Acts 26:8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?
More before Agrippa.


Acts 26:22_23To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: 23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

Ok, we all see Paul stressed the resurrection, but no doubt, we will still see a paste acting like Paul was promoting law, as they omit the other verses, and just paste what they want, when Paul was talking about resurrection, which is in complete accord with his theology.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ok, we all see Paul stressed the resurrection, but no doubt, we will still see a paste acting like Paul was promoting law, as they omit the other verses, and just paste what they want, when Paul was talking about resurrection, which is in complete accord with his theology.

Paul also talke a lot about that in 1 Corin 15.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G386 matches the Greek ἀνάστασις (anastasis), which occurs 42 times in 40 verses in the Greek concordance

1 corin 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection/anastasiV <386> of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching [is] empty and your faith [is] also empty.
21 For since by man [came] death, by Man also [came] the resurrection of the dead.
42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

386. anastasis an-as'-tas-is from 450; a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):--raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.
303. ana an-ah' a primary preposition and adverb; properly, up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.):--
2476. histemi his'-tay-mee a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively):--abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand

 

[Cribstyl]

Paul also talke a lot about that in 1 Corin 15.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G386 matches the Greek &#7936;&#957;&#8049;&#963;&#964;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#962; (anastasis), which occurs 42 times in 40 verses in the Greek concordance

1 corin 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection/anastasiV <386> of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching [is] empty and your faith [is] also empty.
21 For since by man [came] death, by Man also [came] the resurrection of the dead.
42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

Your posts are pretty impressive at times

 

[tzadik]

When I sit down and eat with Jewish or Muslim friends, I don't serve or eat pork because it is offensive to them. If they ask, I tell them I do eat pork. Paul's statement wasn't about pretending to be something he is not, it was about adapting purely cultural practices because it allowed him to have a greater influence among those to whom he was ministering. In Galatians, Paul made it very clear that requiring a Christian to observe the Law was wrong, in Corinthians he made it clear that giving up our freedoms in order to allow us to more effectively minister is preferable; in some cases giving up those freedoms could mean that we follow the Law but in other cases it may mean we do things that are against the OT Law (For example, when God gave Peter the vision about eating "unclean" food).

The only problem with your above post is that "eating or not eating pork" as far as Scriptures is not a matter of culture, but rather obedience to God's Instructions.

--and as far as Peter's vision is concerned, I will be all ears, if you can find me ANY reference where Peter eats anything unclean.

Remember I said, reference of him eating, not assumptions.
Last time I checked, Peter TWICE told fellow believers what God taught him from the vision. (Both times he said nothing about eating pork chops)

 

[Frogster]

Paul also talke a lot about that in 1 Corin 15.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G386 matches the Greek &#7936;&#957;&#8049;&#963;&#964;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#962; (anastasis), which occurs 42 times in 40 verses in the Greek concordance

1 corin 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection/anastasiV <386> of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching [is] empty and your faith [is] also empty.
21 For since by man [came] death, by Man also [came] the resurrection of the dead.
42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

386. anastasis an-as'-tas-is from 450; a standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):--raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.
303. ana an-ah' a primary preposition and adverb; properly, up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.):--
2476. histemi his'-tay-mee a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively):--abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand

the lambster lives on...

 

[Frogster]

The only problem with your above post is that "eating or not eating pork" as far as Scriptures is not a matter of culture, but rather obedience to God's Instructions.

--and as far as Peter's vision is concerned, I will be all ears, if you can find me ANY reference where Peter eats anything unclean.

Remember I said, reference of him eating, not assumptions.
Last time I checked, Peter TWICE told fellow believers what God taught him from the vision. (Both times he said nothing about eating pork chops)

there were all kinds of unclean animals on the sheet, besides, why were there not people on the sheet? Did god want peter to rise, kill and eat gentiles?


peter could not go there and refrain from their food, that would delcare them unclean, totally going against what jesus told him not to do, read 10:14, and 10;28, unclean levitically..

 

[Frogster]

The only problem with your above post is that "eating or not eating pork" as far as Scriptures is not a matter of culture, but rather obedience to God's Instructions.

--and as far as Peter's vision is concerned, I will be all ears, if you can find me ANY reference where Peter eats anything unclean.

Remember I said, reference of him eating, not assumptions.
Last time I checked, Peter TWICE told fellow believers what God taught him from the vision. (Both times he said nothing about eating pork chops)

well,,u challenged the meaning given in the amplified..

so..what did paul mean, by he became as them in gal 4;12?

i await...

 

[tzadik]

there were all kinds of unclean animals on the sheet, besides, why were there not people on the sheet? Did god want peter to rise, kill and eat gentiles?


peter could not go there and refrain from their food, that would delcare them unclean, totally going against what jesus told him not to do, read 10:14, and 10;28, unclean levitically..

yawn.

Still waiting for that verse that tells us that Peter ate unclean foods.

I already know that the vision was in reference to people. Peter told us so. Twice.