Jesus vs Paul

ToBeLoved · Dec 5, 2015

BelieveTheWord said:
I didn't claim it was special.

The gospels really are the only books in the New Testament that quote Jesus specifically. That's why they are called the gospels.

ToBeLoved · Dec 5, 2015

BelieveTheWord said:
dysert, dispensationalism is unbiblical and circular reasoning.
- Yeshua and Paul taught different things
- Different teachings is not a contradiction because of different dispensations
- We know there are different dispensations because Yeshua and Paul taught different things.

The problem is that you do not understand what the Pauline Epistles were. They were letters to the different churches, Gentile churches that were started by the Apostle Paul. In that context, it is easy to see why they were written as they were written. Which usually because of issues that occured in the new churches AFTER Paul had left, that is why letters were sent back and forth.

Why would not the Son of God, who was in total agreement with God and was God teach about God. That makes sense.

Why would not the Apostle Paul teach the new churches how to follow the Christ. That makes sense.

Your saying that they should have taught the same thing is ludacris. None of the other Apostles taught what Jesus taught either. And the gospels DID NOT teach, they documented Jesus and His teaching.

You should really study the New Testament better and learn which books were written to whom.

ToBeLoved · Dec 5, 2015

LittleLambofJesus said:
How about a good lexicon/concordance?
Jesus makes mention of that in Revelation 2

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sea...a=food+sacrificed+idols&t=NIV#s=s_primary_0_1
"food" AND "sacrificed" AND "idols" occurs in 9 verses in the NIV.

Eze 16:20

“ ‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough?

Eze 23:37

for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, as food for them.

Act 15:29

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Act 21:25

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

1Co 8:1

Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up.

1Co 8:4

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”

1Co 8:7

But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

Rev 2:14

Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.

Rev 2:20

Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

.

Maybe you should read the verses before you post them.

Eze 16:20 is talking about sacrificing people to idols.
Rev 2:24 is talking about the Old Testament Israelites and food and idols, which is was against the OT Law. Not the New Testament.
Eze 23:27 is talking about committing adultery with idols.

A little misleading.

ToBeLoved · Dec 5, 2015

ewq1938 said:
There is a huge difference that isn't being understood here. Many that ate meat sacrificed to idols did so because they believed the meat would magically altered and thus more beneficial to their bodies. Those that knew there was no such thing as a real idol, and that meat is meat and does not go through any such change could eat this meat without disobeying the command not to eat meat sacrificed to an idol thinking it was more special meat.

So, it was wrong for a Christian to eat meat sacrificed to an idol if they believed the idol changed the meat to make it better somehow because they shows faith in this false idol/god.

But, it was NOT WRONG for a Christian to eat the same meat as long as everyone present knew it was just meat and the idol/god was false and they did not eat it in honor of the idol.god but simply ate it because they had opportunity to eat it. This was not to be done in front of those that thought the meat was special because it would be wrong to in any way encourage that idea that the meat was more special after being sacrificed to an idol/god. Paul was teaching on a high level regarding these meats and there are many that simply don't understand what he is actually talking about, 2Pe_3:15-16. What we Find in Rev 2 are those who believed in the idol and believed the meat was altered, and they committed adultery.

Gill:

1 Corinthians 8:7
Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge,.... The apostle is not speaking of Heathens, in whom there was no knowledge of the one true God, the author of all things, and of the one Lord Jesus, the only saviour and Redeemer; but of Christians, in whom there was the knowledge of these things, but not in all of them; the knowledge of this, that an idol was nothing; for though they knew that an idol was not God, and had no true deity in it, nor was it any true representation of God, yet fancied that it had an influence upon food that was offered to it, to defile it, and render it unclean, so that it ought not to be eaten; and since there were such persons that were so ignorant and weak, it became those who had more knowledge to be careful how they laid stumblingblocks in the way of such, to the prejudice of their consciences: that there were such, the apostle affirms,

for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; that is, there were some persons even at that very time, though they had been so long converted from Heathenism to Christianity, yet had such an opinion of an idol, that they really thought in their own consciences, that there were something in an idol, they could not well tell what, that defiled meats offered to it, and made them unlawful to be eaten; and yet, through the influence of the example of others, were prevailed upon to eat of them, having at the same time a notion of such food, as if it was not common food, but had received some virtue from the idol; and not without some regret, and uneasiness of mind, as being polluted with it. The Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, συνηθεια "through custom of the idol"; and so the Ethiopic version seems to have read: and the sense is, that some having been formerly accustomed to worship idols, and to eat things offered to them, as having received some virtue from them, still retained an opinion, that there was some difference between such meats and others.

And their conscience being weak is defiled; because such act against the dictates of their own conscience; which, though weak, is binding, and sinned against, defiles, according to the rules given by the apostle, Rom_14:14.

1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Gill:

1 Corinthians 8:8
But meat commendeth us not to God,.... These words are said by the apostle, either as expressing the argument of such as had knowledge in favour of themselves, that what they did was a thing indifferent, by which they were made neither better nor worse; nor did they look upon it as meritorious, or expect any favour from God on account of it, and therefore were not to be blamed for using their liberty in the manner they did: or else they are spoken by him as his own sense: and the meaning is, that eating of meat, any sort of meat, and so that which is offered to idols, or abstinence from it, neither one nor the other recommends any to the love and favour of God; לא מקרבא, "does not bring near", or give access to God, as the Syriac version renders the phrase; does not ingratiate any into his affectionate regards, or make them acceptable unto him:

for neither if we eat are we the better; or "abound", not in earthly but spiritual things, in the graces of the Spirit, and particularly in the esteem and good will of God, upon which such an action can have no influence:

neither if we eat not are we the worse; or are deficient; meaning not in temporal things, but, as before, in spiritual; true grace and piety are not a whit the less; nor are such persons less in the love and favour of God, which is not to be known and judged of by any such action, or the omission of it.

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Gill:

1 Corinthians 8:9
But take heed lest by any means,.... This is either a reply to the instance of such as argued in favour of eating things offered to idols; or a limitation and explanation of the apostle's own concession, that it made a man, with respect to the favour of God, neither better nor worse: yet care should be taken, lest

this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak; he owns they had a liberty, or a right, or power, as the word may be rendered, of eating, or not eating, as they pleased; but then they ought to be cautious, lest they should be the means of offending, or causing to offend, such who were weak in the faith, and had not that knowledge of Christian liberty they had: not the use of their power and liberty is here denied, but the abuse of it is guarded against; for though the action itself was indifferent, yet as it might be used, it might be sinful, being attended with very bad consequences, such as hereafter mentioned.

EXACTLY!

Thank you for writing that all out so I didn't have to. :clap:

.Mikha'el. · Dec 5, 2015

ON!

Thread moved from General Theology to Contrversial Theology!

OFF!

ewq1938 · Dec 5, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
EXACTLY!

Thank you for writing that all out so I didn't have to.

It's all in the details as they say...most people gloss over the details and just focus on that one thing...eating meat sacrificed to idols but there are two very different ways to do that...one is wrong and one is not.

BelieveTheWord · Dec 5, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
The problem is that you do not understand what the Pauline Epistles were. They were letters to the different churches, Gentile churches that were started by the Apostle Paul. In that context, it is easy to see why they were written as they were written. Which usually because of issues that occured in the new churches AFTER Paul had left, that is why letters were sent back and forth.

Why would not the Son of God, who was in total agreement with God and was God teach about God. That makes sense.

Why would not the Apostle Paul teach the new churches how to follow the Christ. That makes sense.

Your saying that they should have taught the same thing is ludacris. None of the other Apostles taught what Jesus taught either. And the gospels DID NOT teach, they documented Jesus and His teaching.

You should really study the New Testament better and learn which books were written to whom.

interesting. You believe the disciples disobeyed what Yeshua said in Matthew 28:20. That isn't something I can accept.

However you do have one thing right. Paul wrote his letters, primarily, to churches he had preached at. Since we don't have the backround information, we can't know for certain what he meant on every statement. That is why we must go back to the Torah, prophets, and gospels to make sure we don't contradict what God has already taught. This is what Peter advises us. 2 Peter 3:16

You really should study the New Testament better.

ToBeLoved · Dec 5, 2015

BelieveTheWord said:
interesting. You believe the disciples disobeyed what Yeshua said in Matthew 28:20. That isn't something I can accept.

You really should study the New Testament better.

What EXACTLY did I say that said the Apostles were not obeying Christ?

I'm very interested in hearing this.

timewerx · Dec 6, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
Okay, I'll stop you there. The apostles taught us, not Jesus. They are the one's who wrote the gospels. Therefore, you don't really know the meaning of what is quoted of Jesus without their given edification.

Your opinion is only valid if the disciples are perfect or at least never make mistakes when delivering the Word.

We know for certain, there is no Christian alive that can manage such perfection.

Not to mention, Christ told us to be more righteous (more perfect) than the scribes (of whom some contributed significantly to the Bible)

We also know for certain, God does NOT protect the accurate dissemination of the Word TODAY. Most scholars agree in the presence of errors in translation into English.

Why do it only in the PAST but NOT TODAY so we don't need thousands of denominations?

Under these circumstances, I would classify the assumption of the inerrancy of the Bible, even in the original Greek translation as extremely doubtful. To assume as such, you are eventually accusing of God of inconsistency.

BelieveTheWord · Dec 6, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
None of the other Apostles taught what Jesus taught either. And the gospels DID NOT teach, they documented Jesus and His teaching.

Matthew 28 '18Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.'

tulipbee · Dec 6, 2015

There are no Jesus vs Paul cause God inspired Paul to write. What Paul wrote IS the word of God. The topic is word vs word. Can't respond to topics like that

timewerx · Dec 6, 2015

tulipbee said:
There are no Jesus vs Paul cause God inspired Paul to write. What Paul wrote IS the word of God. The topic is word vs word. Can't respond to topics like that

The fallibility of humans make it possible.

I keep saying Christ said: "be more righteous than the scribes"

I don't think we can just ignore it. It is human nature to go the "easy way" and pretend nothing is wrong. But is is the right way?

Strong in Him · Dec 6, 2015

tulipbee said:
There are no Jesus vs Paul cause God inspired Paul to write.

And Paul preached Jesus.

ToBeLoved · Dec 6, 2015

BelieveTheWord said:
Matthew 28 '18Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 19Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.'

This is about what Paul taught and what Jesus taught. You still have not made any point.

What I said was that the gospels contained Jesus teachings and life.

The Pauline Epistles were to the new churches.

Paul did not pretend to be anyone, but what he was. The Apostle chosen by Christ to the Gentiles.

tulipbee · Dec 6, 2015

timewerx said:
The fallibility of humans make it possible.

I keep saying Christ said: "be more righteous than the scribes"

I don't think we can just ignore it. It is human nature to go the "easy way" and pretend nothing is wrong. But is is the right way?

The bible is infallible and inerrent

timewerx · Dec 7, 2015

I once held the belief that the Bible is infallible for 20 years.

I was once a Catholic, then Pentecostal, then Baptist.....

This means I know exactly what you think about the religion and I was kinda expecting that one-liner response. Not surprising at all.

The purpose of Paul is an esoteric one, one most of you would not bother to try to investigate because you're too busy with your lives than the matters of the Spirit.

As I've said, most Christians just follow human nature, go the easier way, try to look Godly enough.

Strong in Him · Dec 7, 2015

timewerx said:
I once held the belief that the Bible is infallible for 20 years.

It's surprising, and rather sad, if you believe that the Bible is fallible - i.e. that God is capable of making mistakes.

timewerx said:
The purpose of Paul is an esoteric one,

The purpose of Paul - i.e the reason the Lord saved and called him - was to preach the Gospel and take it to the Gentiles. The idea that only a small group of people had "knowledge" and could understand spiritual matters was called Gnosticism and was one of the fallacies that Paul was preaching against.

timewerx said:
one most of you would not bother to try to investigate because you're too busy with your lives than the matters of the Spirit.

That's rather unkind and judgemental.

timewerx · Dec 7, 2015

Strong in Him said:
It's surprising, and rather sad, if you believe that the Bible is fallible - i.e. that God is capable of making mistakes.

If God ensured infallibility of the Bible, why did God allowed errors in the English translations? Why NOT safeguard His "Word" NOW? Can God change His policies or did God never cared about the Bible in the first place because the Holy Spirit is all we need?

The purpose of Paul - i.e the reason the Lord saved and called him - was to preach the Gospel and take it to the Gentiles. The idea that only a small group of people had "knowledge" and could understand spiritual matters was called Gnosticism and was one of the fallacies that Paul was preaching against.

Read 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul spoke of himself and his followers having "special" knowledge, other Christians don't have.

If Paul wrote the same article at the very least, we can say that Paul is not perfect and not consistent in the delivery of the Word. Maybe not evil, but also far from perfect just like you and me.

That's rather unkind and judgemental.

Every once in a while, someone has got to make the wake up call, even if how extremely unpopular that job is.

It is always the easier way to assume nothing is wrong but we know, it never changes anything for good. Christ challenged the status quo of religion and you read this on the Bible and I'm afraid nothing has changed.

ToBeLoved · Dec 7, 2015

timewerx said:
Read 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul spoke of himself and his followers having "special" knowledge, other Christians don't have.

If Paul wrote the same article at the very least, we can say that Paul is not perfect and not consistent in the delivery of the Word. Maybe not evil, but also far from perfect just like you and me.

What verses particularly are you talking about when you say that Paul is not consitent in delivery of the Word? Why would you not provide the text as proof unless you just want to express your opinion?

Strong in Him · Dec 7, 2015

timewerx said:
If God ensured infallibility of the Bible, why did God allowed errors in the English translations?

I don't think they were errors about important doctrine; things that matter or pertain to salvation.

The Bible is true, points to Jesus who is the truth, and tells us that he sent his Spirit, the Spirit of truth, to live in us. Jesus says that God's word is truth, John 17:17.
If God has made a mistake about any of that, or got it wrong, then how can we trust him about anything?

timewerx said:
Can God change His policies or did God never cared about the Bible in the first place because the Holy Spirit is all we need?

It was the Holy Spirit who communicated God's words to the prophets - "thus saith the Lord" - and then inspired them to be written down. Peter said that "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21. And Paul says that all Scripture is God breathed, 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul also said that the words he spoke came from the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 2:13.

timewerx said:
Read 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul spoke of himself and his followers having "special" knowledge, other Christians don't have.

No, Paul was writing to people who had been influenced, or were being brainwashed by, the Gnostics. This group of people taught that salvation was by some kind of special knowledge or wisdom. Salvation was limited to a few because not everyone had, or would be able to possess, this knowledge. Those who believed that they did have it, or were "in the know", often believed, and acted as if, they were superior to everyone else.
Paul wrote to counteract this - see, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31; 1 Corinthians 2:1-16; 1 Corinthians 3:18-19.
In chapter 8 verse 1 he says that they all possess knowledge - of course, all people have some amount of knowledge. The question is, what kind is it? In these chapters he contrasts his supposed foolishness with their so called wisdom, and reflects on the fact that God's foolishness is wiser than any human wisdom.

timewerx said:
Every once in a while, someone has got to make the wake up call, even if how extremely unpopular that job is.

It wasn't a wake up call because it was wrong. And why would you think that it is your job to administer a "wake up call" to this forum, anyway?

Jesus vs Paul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

7x13=28

I love you three.

Hebrew Roots Christian

Well-Known Member

the village i--o--t--

Hebrew Roots Christian

Worker of the Hive

the village i--o--t--

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Worker of the Hive

the village i--o--t--

Great is thy faithfulness

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Similar threads