- Oct 7, 2014
- 2,737
- 452
- 86
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
This begs the question, Was this re-write based up what Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 or did he hi-jack Christianity?
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.The OT was written to the Jews. Jesus's teachings to His apostles extend into Acts and the Epistles. Acts and the Epistles were written to Christians and thus are more authoritative than the OT.This statement assumes that most of the OT practices continue under the New Covenant. If that assumption is false, which is my view based upon my reading of Acts and the Epistles, then no repentance on Peter's part is necessary for living as a Gentile. Why would God command Peter to eat unclean animals in Acts 10 if He wanted to perpetuate Jewish dietary laws in the NT?
I notice you are a Charismatic, this presents a communication problem; I do not use religious jargon, at least not to the degree dispensationalists do; I believe Futurism is a false doctrine.
I have always called myself a Christian; by that I mean I follow Jesus, I keep His commandments and I expect His imminent return to set up His kingdom. I expect that the words “Christian and commandment”, mean something different to me than what they mean to you. I suggest Paul created what is commonly called Christianity, but not Paul the Person but Paul the epistles which are most likely edited.
First there was the Law of God that judged Cain and Nineveh, later came the blood covenant which was a contract where Israel was to do things and in return God would do things; mostly they did things together; Israel was to keep the Law as their part, God provides the kingdom and the king; there is much fine detail which I wont go into now, such as Israel the house that God built ,was the mother of the king.
There was the law/covenant according to Moses that produced the mother of Jesus, the woman mentioned in Revelation 12; this probably refers to both type and anti-type; the first and second coming although I think these two are one.
Then came the Law/covenant according to Jesus where no change is made to the covenant only renewed for the lost sheep who missed out the first time and of course new administration.
If Jesus did not abrogate the Law who did? The change is implemented first in Paul's epistles.
The OT (The Law and the Prophets) was written for Israel and their descendants; the Gospels are an account of the covenant being completed, fulfilled or confirmed, in part, fully completed when the prophesies in Revelation are completed.
The Koran was written after acts and the epistles, in which is claimed to be based on the Law of God and claims Jesus is the messiah, does the Koran have more authority that the OT, of course not and for the same reason.
Right, my position is all OT practices continue in some form, under new administration. Jesus is the Sanctuary, and baptism is a sanctuary service; The priests baptised their hands each time they entered the Sanctuary, we wash the sin off our whole body ideally once; Jesus as the daily sacrifice was/is sacrificed once but still in accordance with the same Law.
It is unlikely that Peter lived like a Gentile, if he did he would need to repent; my point was a Israelite only has to repent, in accordance with the Gospel Jesus preached, “repent, the kingdom of God is at hand”, a gentile on the other hand has to change such that he is no longer a stranger in Israel.
Upvote
0