- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Can you not see the difference between what Paul said in 1 Cor 34-35 and what Jesus said in John 20:17? There is a big difference between talking in church and telling someone something, who is not church. Also your quote from Paul says "as the law says." Following the law is not an unscriptural Pharisaical practice. The law Paul was referring to was Gen 3:16.
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Prove it? Jesus thought the Pharisees were teaching properly.
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Upvote
0
catlynne333
Regular Member
- Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
- Matthew 16:11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:10-12&version=NIV
- Matthew 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:11-13&version=NIV
- Matthew 16:11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Upvote
0
TorahMan
Junior Member
Easy. Like the other Pharisees whom Jesus condemned so often, Paul invented many rules which have no basis in Scripture, and in some cases can be very detrimental:
- "I say this as a concession, not as a commandment... (married people should not withhold themselves from sexual relations)" (1 Cor 7:6) (thus obligating less fortunate women to unnatural, painful, or even dangerous sex by their husbands);
- "I say to the unmarried and to the widows... (it is better to remain single)" (1 Cor 7:8) (thus condemning them to loneliness);
- "I, not the Lord, say... (children are sanctified by a believing parent)" (1 Cor 7:12) (thus providing a handy excuse for sinful children to remain in sin);
- "I ordain... (do not become slaves of men)" (1 Cor 7:17) (ignoring the problem that for some, this might be the only source of employment);
- "I have no commandment from the Lord, yet I give judgment... (it is better not to get married)" (1 Cor 7:25) (what happened to the commandment to 'fill the earth and populate it?);
- "according to my judgment... (widows should not remarry)" (1 Cor 7:40) (thus condemning them to loneliness and poverty);
- "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head" (1 Cor 11:4) (huh?);
- "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" (1 Cor 11:13) (huh?);
- "Long hair dishonours a man" (1 Cor 11:14) (this contradicts the law of the nazirite);
- "Women are not permitted to speak in church... if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home" (1 Cor 14:34-35) (but women were prominent not only in Jesus's ministry, but in the history of Israel back to Judges and earlier).
These oral law additions are far from trivial, because entire denominations have been built upon them.
Yeshua had warned that "he who speaks from himself seeks his own glory" (John 7:18), but obviously this meant nothing to the Pharisee Paul.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thanks TorahMan for posting your interpretation of those verses. For a second I thought you might have some spiritual insight I was missing. Now I realize you simply are bent on twisting and distorting Paul's words to fit your bias.
I've been reading and believing the Bible for 17 years and can honestly say I've never reached the same conclusions that you have. Matter of fact I've never heard anyone, in all the studies I've done, share with me conclusions even similar to yours. If Paul meant what you were saying then me and everyone else who accepts his letters would be sliding downhill into the sexist and sinful mindset you claim he teaches.
I've been reading and believing the Bible for 17 years and can honestly say I've never reached the same conclusions that you have. Matter of fact I've never heard anyone, in all the studies I've done, share with me conclusions even similar to yours. If Paul meant what you were saying then me and everyone else who accepts his letters would be sliding downhill into the sexist and sinful mindset you claim he teaches.
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Sorry irrelevant! Paul clearly says this is not a commandment. Paul giving his opinion is not an unscriptural Pharisaical doctrine! Is this what we can expect from you, twisting scripture to support vehement anti-Paul presuppositions? I do not have a virulent hatred for Paul so I assume that anything he says is tempered by common sense and good judgement. Such as suggesting married couples can decline marital relations when appropriate, in vs. 5, which you conveniently omitted.
1Co 7:5-6
(5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
(6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
(5) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
(6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Saying something is better does not constitute an unscriptural Pharisaical command! And you ignore that elsewhere Paul said it was permissible to marry see 1 Cor 7:9. So still twisting scripture.
"I, not the Lord, say... (children are sanctified by a believing parent)" (1 Cor 7:12) (thus providing a handy excuse for sinful children to remain in sin);
More twisting of scripture. 1 Cor 78:12 says nothing about children. Have you ever read Eph 6:1 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right?"
"I ordain... (do not become slaves of men)" (1 Cor 7:17) (ignoring the problem that for some, this might be the only source of employment);
More deliberate twisting of scripture, 1 Cor 7:17 says nothing about slaves. "as God hath distributed to every man" is absolutely not an unscriptural Pharisaical command.
1Co 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. .
More twisting of scripture. Paul giving his opinion is a far cry from giving an unscriptural Pharisaical commandment.
According to the Talmud this was the common practice of the Jews.
It was common practice of the Jews that women be covered in worship.
Once again I don't have a virulent hatred of Paul and I assume that he has common sense.
John Gill's commentary 1Co 11:14 -
The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Num_6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa_14:26, and Act_18:18.
The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Num_6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa_14:26, and Act_18:18.
More twisting scripture. You omitted the rest of the verse, "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." The law Paul referrred to was Gen 3:16. Obedience to the law is not an unscriptural Pharisaical commandment. According to the Talmud,
"a woman may not read (that is, in the law), בצבור, "in the congregation", or church, because of the honour of the congregation;''
As I have demonstated you have NOT shown any unscriptural Pharisaical traditions, only twirsted scripture.
Out-of-context proof text. Jesus was talking about Himself. He did not say or imply that a person could not express an opinion.
Joh 7:17-18
(17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
(18) He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
(17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
(18) He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
As you can see I have refuted all your out-of-context proof texts. I repeat my question, can you show me any scripture where Paul routinely associated with Pharisees, espoused Pharisaical doctrine or condemned people for not following Pharisaical doctrine?
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If it does not contradict scripture. Peter considered Paul's writings scripture. The church has considered Paul's writings scripture for 2000 years +/-. ¿Que es la problema?
2Pe 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.
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.
Upvote
0
TorahMan
Junior Member
Der Alter, I have no wish to cross swords with you. But in no way am I a newbie either, who needs 'educating'.
I got saved 17 years ago, was baptised by the Holy Spirit 6 months later, spent many years attending Pentecostal and Messianic churches, and then over a year as a church Pastor and street evangelist. I've also written a book about Paul, although there are no plans to publish it yet. After 8 years of intensive study, I'm still finding new things to add. So I do know my stuff.
Of course I used to treat Paul's writings as infallible, same as you. Doesn't everybody? That is until 8 years ago, when I tried to find the parallels between him and Jesus. That's when I discovered that he says one thing here, and another thing there. You just can't pin him down.
I also found many instances of him saying 'don't do such and such', and then going and doing exactly what he said not to do. One can easily find examples of him breaking almost every commandment he delivered.
He is the very last example of a decent, honourable man we should emulate. Of course he said great things about himself, but don't all successful conmen do that?
But as he said, 'he is all things to all men'. To the Christian he came to bury the Torah. To the Messianic he came to confirm the Torah. A person sees what they want to see.
I've no doubt that you can excuse away all the problems, of which there are many. But is this how we find the truth about anything? By taking a side and defending it to the hilt, like a football supporter? I prefer to let the Bible speak for itself, and if Paul comes out looking bad, then so be it.
To be fair, he teaches some very good things. Who cannot be moved by his exposition "Love is patient, love is kind (etc)"? Many other teachings are also helpful, such as "everything works together for the good of those who believe", techniques for spiritual warfare, and so on.
But where it all falls apart is his endorsement of doing our own thing, which he expressed most concisely in Colossians 2:16: "Let no-one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a New Moon or Sabbaths".
Now as an evangelist, who knew the commandments inside out, why would he put such a huge stumbling block in front of believers? It's one thing to teach salvation by grace, as rightly expressed in Eph 2:8-9 (yes I mean it). But it's a whole other thing to make this the basis for daily living, where we are expected, even required, to confirm our faith with ongoing good works and obedience to the commandments, as per James 2:14-26.
If Paul had been serious about building a strong, effective church, he would have been hammering new believers with reminders to now go and do a life of good works and obedience to the commandments. But no, we find him doing the very opposite, as in Col 2:16, Galatians and elsewhere.
So after 8 years, I've reluctantly concluded that it was his intention all along to destroy the church from within. He couldn't do it from outside by persecution, so now he would do it from within. He knew full well that if he could infuse a disrespect for the law, then she would lose her power, protection, and ultimately the respect of the broader community. And isn't that what we see today, by and large?
He put on a good show, and managed to fool the apostles for a while. Despite his evident lack of sincerity, he was still able to raise up many godly believers, all Torah-observant, in Thessalonica and Berea (1 Thess 2:13-14 and Acts 17:12). However his true intentions came out with his new teachings at Ephesus (Acts 19:8-9), and as Jeremiah said, "Can the leopard change it spots?" (Jer 13:23). The implied answer is no.
Paul has fulfilled his purpose, but we are on the verge of tremendous persecution, and his gospel just won't hack it anymore. Paul himself listed the fruits of his gospel as "infirmities, reproaches, poverty, persecution, distress, weakness, foolishness" (2 Cor 12:9-10). I invite you to compare his gospel of defeat with Yeshua's gospel of victory, which emphasises good works and obedience to the commandments. The fruits of that are resistance to disease (Ex 15:26), long life (Ex 20:12; Deut 4:40; 32:46-47), and protection and victory (Deut 28:1-14). That's what's needed to endure the Great Tribulation, not the weakness of Paul's gospel.
Please don't come back in attack mode. I've been gracious to you, and expect the same in return. Thank you.
TorahMan
I got saved 17 years ago, was baptised by the Holy Spirit 6 months later, spent many years attending Pentecostal and Messianic churches, and then over a year as a church Pastor and street evangelist. I've also written a book about Paul, although there are no plans to publish it yet. After 8 years of intensive study, I'm still finding new things to add. So I do know my stuff.
Of course I used to treat Paul's writings as infallible, same as you. Doesn't everybody? That is until 8 years ago, when I tried to find the parallels between him and Jesus. That's when I discovered that he says one thing here, and another thing there. You just can't pin him down.
I also found many instances of him saying 'don't do such and such', and then going and doing exactly what he said not to do. One can easily find examples of him breaking almost every commandment he delivered.
He is the very last example of a decent, honourable man we should emulate. Of course he said great things about himself, but don't all successful conmen do that?
But as he said, 'he is all things to all men'. To the Christian he came to bury the Torah. To the Messianic he came to confirm the Torah. A person sees what they want to see.
I've no doubt that you can excuse away all the problems, of which there are many. But is this how we find the truth about anything? By taking a side and defending it to the hilt, like a football supporter? I prefer to let the Bible speak for itself, and if Paul comes out looking bad, then so be it.
To be fair, he teaches some very good things. Who cannot be moved by his exposition "Love is patient, love is kind (etc)"? Many other teachings are also helpful, such as "everything works together for the good of those who believe", techniques for spiritual warfare, and so on.
But where it all falls apart is his endorsement of doing our own thing, which he expressed most concisely in Colossians 2:16: "Let no-one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a New Moon or Sabbaths".
Now as an evangelist, who knew the commandments inside out, why would he put such a huge stumbling block in front of believers? It's one thing to teach salvation by grace, as rightly expressed in Eph 2:8-9 (yes I mean it). But it's a whole other thing to make this the basis for daily living, where we are expected, even required, to confirm our faith with ongoing good works and obedience to the commandments, as per James 2:14-26.
If Paul had been serious about building a strong, effective church, he would have been hammering new believers with reminders to now go and do a life of good works and obedience to the commandments. But no, we find him doing the very opposite, as in Col 2:16, Galatians and elsewhere.
So after 8 years, I've reluctantly concluded that it was his intention all along to destroy the church from within. He couldn't do it from outside by persecution, so now he would do it from within. He knew full well that if he could infuse a disrespect for the law, then she would lose her power, protection, and ultimately the respect of the broader community. And isn't that what we see today, by and large?
He put on a good show, and managed to fool the apostles for a while. Despite his evident lack of sincerity, he was still able to raise up many godly believers, all Torah-observant, in Thessalonica and Berea (1 Thess 2:13-14 and Acts 17:12). However his true intentions came out with his new teachings at Ephesus (Acts 19:8-9), and as Jeremiah said, "Can the leopard change it spots?" (Jer 13:23). The implied answer is no.
Paul has fulfilled his purpose, but we are on the verge of tremendous persecution, and his gospel just won't hack it anymore. Paul himself listed the fruits of his gospel as "infirmities, reproaches, poverty, persecution, distress, weakness, foolishness" (2 Cor 12:9-10). I invite you to compare his gospel of defeat with Yeshua's gospel of victory, which emphasises good works and obedience to the commandments. The fruits of that are resistance to disease (Ex 15:26), long life (Ex 20:12; Deut 4:40; 32:46-47), and protection and victory (Deut 28:1-14). That's what's needed to endure the Great Tribulation, not the weakness of Paul's gospel.
Please don't come back in attack mode. I've been gracious to you, and expect the same in return. Thank you.
TorahMan
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Read that VERY carefully and do as they taught us in English class -match up all the "words" to what they are
"referring to" ... you may change your mind ... !?
The RedRose
Upvote
0
I "word chked" those "verse-words" that TorahMan quoted in my online Bible and they were correct -not "twisted" any -Please share your conclusions of these verses and meanings -with 17 yrs of Bible study you must Know Much that could help me out understanding what you are saying here ...
-Thanks !!
The RedRose
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by Der Alter
"Do what they say but do not do what they do" ? I don't understand ?
"Don't actions speak louder than words" ? I am confused with this saying ?
Please explain
The RedRose
Catlynne333 said:
I see that the last two Proves your point that Jesus thought the Pharisees and Sadducees spoke lies -
but does the first one?
Did you mean to quote this verse instead?
Mt 16:
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Don't mean to tell you your "business" but I was confused ...
Thanks,
The RedRose
Der Alter,
"Do what they say but do not do what they do" ? I don't understand ?
"Don't actions speak louder than words" ? I am confused with this saying ?
Please explain
The RedRose
Catlynne333 said:
Catlynne333,
I see that the last two Proves your point that Jesus thought the Pharisees and Sadducees spoke lies -
but does the first one?
Did you mean to quote this verse instead?
Mt 16:
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Don't mean to tell you your "business" but I was confused ...
Thanks,
The RedRose
Upvote
0
Der Alter,
Is this "a law" ?
Gen 3:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I never thought of that as a "law" -so it is one I should follow? and how?
Thanks,
The RedRose
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
"Do what they say but do not do what they do" ? I don't understand ?Der Alte said:
"Don't actions speak louder than words" ? I am confused with this saying ?
Please explain
Why are you arguing with me? I did not say it, I was quoting Jesus. I understand Jesus to be saying whatever the Pharisees commanded people to do they should do it but do not do as the Pharisees do. Evidently the Pharisees were not walking their talk. They were telling the people to do things they were not doing themselves. Hope this helps.
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Der Alter,
Is this "a law" ?
Gen 3:
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I never thought of that as a "law" -so it is one I should follow? and how?
Thanks,
The RedRose
Paul was a Jew. The Jews considered the first 5 books of the OT to be "The Law." I believe that whenever a law or requirement from the OT is reiterated in the NT as binding on Christians it is something we are required to follow. Peter reiterated the requirements of Gen 3:16 in 1 Pet 3:1, Paul did the same in Eph 5:23-24, Col 3:18.
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
NO !!
I have MANY "opinions" and no one yet thought any were Scripture
The RedRose
Have your opinions been recorded in the NT?
Upvote
0
- Aug 21, 2003
- 28,578
- 6,064
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Sorry I have not been gifted with the power to read minds. I have read the verse I quoted in English and the original Greek. If there is something you wish me to understand, then you are going to have to spell it out. I repeat my question. If it [Paul's judgement or opinion] does not contradict scripture. Peter considered Paul's writings scripture. The church has considered Paul's writings scripture for 2000 years +/-. ¿Que es la problema? What is the problem?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
catlynne333
Regular Member
Reread the original post by Der Alter. My response makes sense then.The RedRose
Catlynne333 said:Catlynne333,
I see that the last two Proves your point that Jesus thought the Pharisees and Sadducees spoke lies -
but does the first one?
Did you mean to quote this verse instead?
Mt 16:
6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Don't mean to tell you your "business" but I was confused ...
Thanks,
The RedRose
Upvote
0
Similar threads
