Those who denounce Paul

[ananda]

No, not "more"; but you must follow it perfectly to enter the Kingdom. It is your righteousness (Deut 6). It is impossible to do so after 70ad. Quite the problem to have to do what is impossible, while rejecting the solution (Phil 3).

Where does it say that I must follow the Torah perfectly? I do not see it.

Instead, as I've written before with Scriptural proofs, we are commanded to follow diligently (to the best of my ability) - not perfectly.

Secondly, the Israelites were still expected to walk in obedience even in exile away from the Temple. Thirdly, they were also expected to walk in obedience even after the destruction of the First Temple and before the Second was built. The presence or absence of the Temple does not excuse us from diligent obedience otherwise.

 

[Frogster]

Where does it say that I must follow the Torah perfectly? I do not see it.

Instead, as I've written before with Scriptural proofs, we are commanded to follow diligently (to the best of my ability) - not perfectly.

Secondly, the Israelites were still expected to walk in obedience even in exile away from the Temple. Thirdly, they were also expected to walk in obedience even after the destruction of the First Temple and before the Second was built. The presence or absence of the Temple does not excuse us from diligent obedience otherwise.

perfectly? well....then get punished, cursed is he who does not DO ALL.. in the book, not some..ALL....., BUT HEY, WHO IS COUNTING, THE TORAH IS ABOLISHED, NO TEMPLE, 70 ad WAS A GLOABL HINT.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Perhaps for the same reason this other anti-Paul thread is on there

http://www.christianforums.com/t7773902/
What Gospel did Paul preach? (2)



.

Yes, I know the thread. That in truth is where this thread should have been posted originally. The entire topic is unorthodox theology. Rather than being posted here and providing opportunity for any number of conflicts due to that very fact.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, I know the thread. That in truth is where this thread should have been posted originally. The entire topic is unorthodox theology. Rather than being posted here and providing opportunity for any number of conflicts due to that very fact.

I had no idea there was so much conflict/controversy with Paul among some Christians until recently.

Besides, GT has more "traffic" than the UT board

http://www.christianforums.com/t7773902/#post64149689
Paul vs the Circumcsion



.

 

[Erose]

I have to say that this has so far been a very interesting thread. I do find it very entertaining that we have Protestants acting like Catholic apologists, defending the Christain canon. Except instead of it being between the Christian OT and the Pharisic OT, which Protestants use, we are talking about the NT. Incredible similarity.

 

[seeingeyes]

I have to say that this has so far been a very interesting thread. I do find it very entertaining that we have Protestants acting like Catholic apologists, defending the Christain canon. Except instead of it being between the Christian OT and the Pharisic OT, which Protestants use, we are talking about the NT. Incredible similarity.

It also calls to my mind the 'debate' between the Jews and the Samaritans (who did not accept the prophets). Jesus put the kibosh on that argument, too.

He's the monkey-wrench thrown into every theology.

 

[ananda]

I have to say that this has so far been a very interesting thread. I do find it very entertaining that we have Protestants acting like Catholic apologists, defending the Christain canon. Except instead of it being between the Christian OT and the Pharisic OT, which Protestants use, we are talking about the NT. Incredible similarity.

Astute observation.

That's why I'm trying to get a straight answer as to which is the authoritative "God given" canon. They know that the next question is indefensible on their part.

You're welcome to join the debate.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have to say that this has so far been a very interesting thread. I do find it very entertaining that we have Protestants acting like Catholic apologists, defending the Christain canon.
Except instead of it being between the Christian OT and the Pharisic OT, which Protestants use, we are talking about the NT. Incredible similarity.

Tis called unity


.

 

[from scratch]

Where does it say that I must follow the Torah perfectly? I do not see it.

Instead, as I've written before with Scriptural proofs, we are commanded to follow diligently (to the best of my ability) - not perfectly.

Secondly, the Israelites were still expected to walk in obedience even in exile away from the Temple. Thirdly, they were also expected to walk in obedience even after the destruction of the First Temple and before the Second was built. The presence or absence of the Temple does not excuse us from diligent obedience otherwise.

If you don't then you can't be without sin. In that case you'll have a warm retirement.

 

[ananda]

If you don't then you can't be without sin. In that case you'll have a warm retirement.

Where's your Scriptural proof that perfection is needed, instead of diligence as I've demonstrated?

 

[Erose]

Astute observation.

That's why I'm trying to get a straight answer as to which is the authoritative "God given" canon. They know that the next question is indefensible on their part.

You're welcome to join the debate.

Maybe shortly, I am really enjoying what I am reading. Don't want it to shift to focus on Catholic stuff, which it seems nearly every thread does eventually.

I do think this displays a weakness in Protestant understanding of Canon. For Catholics and other Apostolic Churches the authority question is simple. It is what has been determine by the bishops. When Luther and the other revolters rejected the authority of the bishops, then all bets were off. Surprisingly only 7 books authority was reduced and later removed.

And yet the group who 500 years ago had no problem removing books from the Christian Bible of the West, has an issue with others either removing or adding to the canon. I truly find this hilarious. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. (Southern saying)

 

[seeingeyes]

If you don't then you can't be without sin. In that case you'll have a warm retirement.

I missed the part where Netzarim denied the saving work of Christ. Perhaps you could quote that?

Or perhaps stop threatening people who call on Jesus with hellfire?

 

[BlunderAngel]

I had no idea there was so much conflict/controversy with Paul among some Christians until recently.

Besides, GT has more "traffic" than the UT board

http://www.christianforums.com/t7773902/#post64149689
Paul vs the Circumcsion



.

Google search keywords, "Paul false prophet" sometime. Over 2 million results.
This issue has been hot for a very long time.
At least if this thread had been started in unorthodox theology forum it would not give the opportunity for the reporting as relates to any such venture being unorthodox because it questions Paul's apostleship.

Any thread that stands to do that is always unorthodox in nature. That makes for the question as to why this topic would have ever been thought to be discussed in a forum where the rules prohibit such a debate.

But, oh well.

 

[ananda]

Maybe shortly, I am really enjoying what I am reading. Don't want it to shift to focus on Catholic stuff, which it seems nearly every thread does eventually.

I do think this displays a weakness in Protestant understanding of Canon. For Catholics and other Apostolic Churches the authority question is simple. It is what has been determine by the bishops. When Luther and the other revolters rejected the authority of the bishops, then all bets were off. Surprisingly only 7 books authority was reduced and later removed.

And yet the group who 500 years ago had no problem removing books from the Christian Bible of the West, has an issue with others either removing or adding to the canon. I truly find this hilarious. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. (Southern saying)

Indeed.

As you observed straightforwardly:

1. Catholics depend on Catholic church tradition regarding the Catholic canon.
2. Protestants depend on Protestant church tradition regarding the Protestant canon.
3. I depend on a separate tradition/interpretation regarding my canon.

As much as Protestants would like to deny it, they do rely on their own tradition. Yet if they can admit that they are saying that their canon is inspired and authoritative and that my tradition is invalid, they are - in effect - rejecting the canons of the divisions with an even greater majority than theirs when combined - namely, the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Ethiopian/Assyrian/etc. canons.

 

[from scratch]

Where's your Scriptural proof that perfection is needed, instead of diligence as I've demonstrated?

If you live by the law and transgress it, are you a sinner and unrighteous or still righteous even though you transgressed?

If and when you're forgiven as a transgressor what are you? I think you'd be a forgiven transgressor. One should note that they're still a transgressor and not righteous.

The righteousness a Christian possesses transcends the law. For those who don' understand the word transcends - as I have used it in accordance with the dictionary it means to be above and not dependent on the law. This is called grace and only received a s totally free gift from God.

 

[ananda]

I missed the part where Netzarim denied the saving work of Christ. Perhaps you could quote that?

Or perhaps stop threatening people who call on Jesus with hellfire?

Thank you, seeingeyes.

I do not deny the saving work of Messiah.

The only major difference between myself and the majority of mainstream Protestants here is that I believe obedience is an integral part of salvation, in addition to trust and repentance.

 

[ananda]

If you live by the law and transgress it, are you a sinner and unrighteous or still righteous even though you transgressed?

In my interpretation, the "righteous" includes those who not only believe, and trust in Messiah, they also follow Him in diligent obedience as a habit in their lives, all as their expression of love for Him. They may inadvertently fail from time to time, but they do not make a habit of it, and instead, diligently fight against it. It is no different than an earthly wife diligently loving her husband.

The "unrighteous" are those who walk in disobedience as an ongoing habit or because of carelessness in their lives, whether or not they believe in Messiah. The "self-righteous" are in this category. They follow their own traditions which are not grounded in YHWH's Word, yet believe they are righteous.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you, seeingeyes.

I do not deny the saving work of Messiah.

The only major difference between myself and the majority of mainstream Protestants here is that I believe obedience is an integral part of salvation, in addition to trust and repentance.

Posting on 2 anti-Paul threads on 2 different boards at the same time is really getting tiresome for me

http://www.christianforums.com/t7773902-7/#post64148895
What Gospel did Paul preach? (2)

Originally Posted by netzarim

In other places, he teaches against obedience (e.g. Galatians).
​

Paul uses the word "obedience" 10 times in his epistles, out of the 14 times that word is mentioned in the Bible.


NKJV Search Results for "obedience"
"obedience"
occurs 14 times in 14 verses in the NKJV.

2Cr 9:13
while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men,


2Cr 10:5
casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God,
bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ




.

 

[from scratch]

I missed the part where Netzarim denied the saving work of Christ. Perhaps you could quote that?

Or perhaps stop threatening people who call on Jesus with hellfire?

I generally quote Gal 5:4 for this. The fact is netzarim is requiring the law for salvation and doesn't need to make a direct statement. But then Galatians isn't in his cannon of Scripture.

Netzarim is threatening people with hell fire if they don't take his position.

I guess make of it what you will.

 

[ananda]

I generally quote Gal 5:4 for this. The fact is netzarim is requiring the law for salvation and doesn't need to make a direct statement. But then Galatians isn't in his cannon of Scripture. Netzarim is threatening people with hell fire if they don't take his position. I guess make of it what you will.

I'm not threatening anyone, nor am I judging anyone here. All I am is a messenger merely presenting Scripture as I see it from my perspective, that is all. What you do with it is your concern.