Those who denounce Paul

[Frogster]

I thought you saw it all as "God's Word"? So why divide the OT from the NT for the purpose of this discussion? I recognize no division between the so-called "OT" and the "NT". My point is, there are disagreements over the canon of the Bible when viewed as a whole.

The Ethiopian Orthodox, consisting of 45 million believers in the world, has a Bible canon of 81 books, a much broader canon than the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. The Eastern Orthodox, in turn, has a broader canon than the Catholics and Protestants. The Catholics has a broader canon than the Protestants. The Protestants has a broader canon than my canon.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. In truth, my whole canon consists of 33 books according to the Hebrew reckoning. Nine of those are the Messianic writings (which you consider "NT" books): Matthew, John, Revelation, 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter, James, Jude, Luke-Acts, and Mark.

I am pretty sure, on a thread a while back, you were arguing against 2 peter as far as being in yur canon, or you said it was not inspired, something like that...did you chage you mind, even though he offers splendid Pauline support?

 

[Hentenza]

The 11/12 Jewish apostles were sent to the Gentiles by Messiah (see Mt 28:18-20), and He commanded them to teach the Gentiles to observe everything He taught them.

Jesus did not teach them to follow the Jewish law.

 

[from scratch]

Those questions cannot be answered until this is answered first: Which is the authoritative "Christian canon"?

I see above that you don't accept the Christian cannon or anything even close.

 

[from scratch]

That was my question to everyone, since you have all apparently already decided that my canon is wrong. I believe in my canon.

What other canons are wrong? The Ethiopian canon? The Orthodox canon? The Catholic canon? The Protestant canon? Luther's canon? Marcion's canon? The Assyrian canon? The Georgian Orthodox canon? The Ebionite canon? Origen's canon? Athanasius' canon?

"Which is the correct, authoritative canon?" That's one question I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone on this site.

I wonder why you can't get a pleasing answer.

 

[from scratch]

You don't read Acts too?
What's the problem with Paul? And if he was sent to the gentiles, why bother read his letters? He explains it to gentiles who don't understand the Torah. I don't bother so much to read the Old Testament.

Paul doesn't say what he likes.

 

[ananda]

Jesus did not teach them to follow the Jewish law.

You're right, He didn't.

But He did teach them to observe YHWH's Law.

 

[from scratch]

You're right, He didn't.

But He did teach them to observe YHWH's Law.

Nothing more than a play on words to deny the truth.

 

[ananda]

I see above that you don't accept the Christian cannon or anything even close.

Then correct me by giving me a straightforward answer, instead of the runaround: which is the "Christian canon"? Unless this is your answer to this question:

Nothing more than a play on words to deny the truth.

 

[from scratch]

Then correct me by giving me a straightforward answer, instead of the runaround: which is the "Christian canon"?

Doesn't much matter because you will only argue.

 

[ananda]

Paul doesn't say what he likes.

False witness.

The truth is, I obey Messiah's command to reject the teachings of the Pharisees.

 

[ananda]

Doesn't much matter because you will only argue.

Yes, it does matter to me. Can you not provide an answer for the reason of the hope that is in you in regards to the canon?

 

[Standing Up]

I mentioned this earlier.

Phil 3:6
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

To what is Paul referring?

Deut 5 lays out the 10 commandments. Deut 6 lays out more requirements. Therefore,

Deut 6:34 And it [the Law] shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Paul knew these things. He operated under that covenant from Sinai.

Christ made the requirement for righteousness even stronger under the Sinai covenant. He said your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees to enter the kingdom.

Poor Paul. He knew the OT canon (whether 81 or 22 books), inside and out he knew it. He was zealous for the law. Worked night and day to obey it. Thought himself blameless under the Sinai covenant. Yet he knew in his heart of hearts he wasn't there. Could never be there. And after 70 ad it has been even harder, in fact impossible to observe the Sinai covenant.

He turned to righteousness in Christ, by grace through faith. Thus he would say he wanted to

v 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

So, tossing Paul, falsely witnessing against him, is nothing more than simply not understanding what Paul knew. There's a choice. Righteousness from the law that must exceed their blamelessness or righteousness from grace through faith. To be found in your own works (the Sinai covenant) or in His works (the Zion covenant). Take your pick.

 

[Frogster]

False witness.

The truth is, I obey Messiah's command to reject the teachings of the Pharisees.

was Luke lying, when he said the prophets and the Holy Spirit, chose and sent Paul?


Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

 

[Frogster]

Yes, it does matter to me. Can you not provide an answer for the reason of the hope that is in you in regards to the canon?

but again, just checking, didn't you aregue against 2 Peter being in the canon in a debate here on the forum, or you seemed to question it's inspiration, or validity or soemthing like that?

 

[Frogster]

False witness.

The truth is, I obey Messiah's command to reject the teachings of the Pharisees.

oh come on! here is a good pharisee, and he even taught the law..


Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.

 

[from scratch]

Yes, it does matter to me. Can you not provide an answer for the reason of the hope that is in you in regards to the canon?

Do you understand the word futile?

 

[Messy]

You're right, He didn't.

But He did teach them to observe YHWH's Law.

Paul did too.
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Exactly the same as what James and John taught.

 

[Messy]

Yes, it does matter to me. Can you not provide an answer for the reason of the hope that is in you in regards to the canon?

If it doesn't go against the rest of the Bible it's good with me. I don't read Enoch for instance, there Jesus is an angel.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Those who denounce Paul

Are heretics!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretic
Christianity

Main article: Heresy in Christianity

According to Tit 3:10 a divisive person should be warned two times before separating from him.

The Greek for the phrase "divisive person" became a technical term in the early church for a type of "heretic" who promoted dissension.[7] In contrast correct teaching is called sound not only because it builds up in the faith, but because it protects against the corrupting influence of false teachers.[8]

The use of the word "heresy" was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents during the early centuries of the Christian community.[citation needed] He described the community's beliefs and doctrines as orthodox (from ὀρθός, orthos "straight" + δόξα, doxa "belief") and the Gnostics' teachings as heretical.[citation needed] He also pointed out the concept of apostolic succession to support his arguments.[9]

.

 

[from scratch]

Those who denounce Paul

Are heretics!


Heresy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christianity

Main article: Heresy in Christianity
According to Tit 3:10 a divisive person should be warned two times before separating from him.
The Greek for the phrase "divisive person" became a technical term in the early church for a type of "heretic" who promoted dissension.[7] In contrast correct teaching is called sound not only because it builds up in the faith, but because it protects against the corrupting influence of false teachers.[8]
The use of the word "heresy" was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents during the early centuries of the Christian community.[citation needed] He described the community's beliefs and doctrines as orthodox (from ὀρθός, orthos "straight" + δόξα, doxa "belief") and the Gnostics' teachings as heretical.[citation needed] He also pointed out the concept of apostolic succession to support his arguments.[9]

.