Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 3

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Continued from: Romans Chapter 2

Romans 3 (CLV)
1 What, then, is the prerogative of the Jew, or what the benefit of circumcision? 2 Much in every manner. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."

What? Paul is saying that there is much benefit in EVERY manner for circumcision?

Wow! I don't hear this message being driven home from the modern pulpits.

What is this oracle?
a person (such as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak

Paul's defense, for circumcision having value, is the Torah. Obviously Paul is not abolishing the Torah.

3 For what if some disbelieve? Will not their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 May it not be coming to that!

YHWH is true to his word, regardless of whether or not you believe in it, or him.

Now let God be true, yet every man a liar, even as it is written: "That so Thou shouldst be justified in Thy sayings, And shalt be conquering when Thou art being judged." 5 Now if our injustice is commending God's righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God Who is bringing on indignation is unjust! (As a man am I saying it.)" 6 May it not be coming to that! Else how shall God be judging the world? 7 Yet if the truth of God superabounds in my lie, for His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner, 8 and why not say, according as we are calumniated and according as some are averring that we are saying, that "We should be doing evil that good may be coming"? - whose judgment is fair." 9 What, then? Are we privileged? Undoubtedly not, for we previously charge both Jews and Greeks to be all under sin, 10 according as it is written, that "Not one is just- not even one." 11 Not one is understanding. Not one is seeking out God. 12 All avoid Him: at the same time they were useless. Not one is doing kindness: there is not even one!" 13 A sepulcher opened is their throat. With their tongues they defraud."The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 Whose mouth with imprecation and bitterness is crammed. 15 Sharp are their feet to shed blood. 16 Bruises and wretchedness are in their ways, 17 And the way of peace they do not know." 18 There is no fear of God in front of their eyes.

Lawlessness.

Obviously those verses don't describe those who have come to faith.

19 Now we are aware that, whatever the law is saying, it is speaking to those under the law, that every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may become subject to the just verdict of God,

Paul makes it clear that those who break the law, are under the law; and that they'll be left speechless upon verdict. Those who break the law are under the consequence of breaking the law.

20 because, by works of law, no flesh at all shall be justified in His sight, for through law is the recognition of sin."

What is sin?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin, is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

Should we then abandon the law?

Of course not! Works of the law is obedience to the law. It's against the law to speed in the U.S.. People who respect that law make a conscious effort to stay within the limits; however they inevitably get distracted sometimes and exceed them. Maybe they don't get caught; because their normal mode of behavior is to respect the law. YHWH sees all.

Now, one day maybe a law abiding driver does get caught. Maybe it was the first time in his life that he was ever distracted. Is that a defense for the violation; that he never broke the law before? NO! He wasn't supposed to break the law. Keeping the law is what was expected of him; but a righteous judge will take the driver's will to obedience into consideration, and extend grace.

21 Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), 22 yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, 23 for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God. 24 Being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus" 25 (Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood, for a display of His righteousness because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God),

This passage pertains to YHWH's righteousness, as in his patience, he passes over former sins, for those who come to faith. Does this mean that the law is abolished? Of course not, When the judge shows grace for a misstep; it's not a free pass to continue in lawlessness.

(CLV) 1Jn 3:9
Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His seed is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God.

26 toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus." 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is debarred! Through what law? 28 Of works? No! But through faith's law.

Obviously it wasn't all aspects of the law that were nailed to the torture stake. Paul speaks of many varieties of law. I haven't been able to find second witnesses to define the terminology that Paul uses; but he has written many letters. As we go through these letters, hopefully we can gain an understanding of the definitions of these types of law that Paul refers to.

The law of faith. Very interesting. Which law was nailed to the torture stake? I suspect that it was the law of sin and death; the judgements as the passage beginning with verse 21 begins to reveal; but let's not get ahead of ourselves. We'll go through this step by step.

For we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law.

By YHWH's righteousness, grace, to his glory, as you submit to him in faith, thereby in obedience to his law.

Paul covered this in the previous chapter.

(CLV) Ro 2:13
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.

29 Or is He the god of the Jews only? Is He not of the nations also?

One law.

(CLV) Ex 12:49
One law shall there be for both the native and for the sojourner sojourning in your midst.

30 Yes, of the nations also, if so be that God is One, Who will be justifying the Circumcision out of faith and the Uncircumcision through faith." 31 Are we, then, nullifying law through faith? May it not be coming to that! Nay, we are sustaining law."

...And that is the final word on this chapter. Paul makes it clear that even though our obedience to YHWH's law, is not the source of our salvation; YHWH's law will be sustained by those who have faith in him and his word. His law is truth.

(CLV) Ps 119:142
Your righteousness is eonian righteousness, And Your law is truth.

(CLV) 1Jn 2:4
He who is saying that "I know Him" and is not keeping His precepts, is a liar, and the truth of God is not in this one.

Remember, Paul opened this letter by saying that faith brings us to obedience.

In this chapter Paul has introduced his first legal title regarding law:

Faith's Law or The Law of Faith.

Let us carry this term with us throughout this letter.

============================================
UPDATE:

This chapter opens up talking about circumcision. That is what is being discussed in Galatians 2. There too, Paul mentions works of law, in the context of circumcision,

Food for thought:

Paul on the Law: Galatians 2

16 having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified."

What law is this? Let's look at what Paul said in Romans:

(CLV) Ro 2:13
For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.

Now I don't believe that Paul had mental issues. Obviously "Works of Law" is something different than the Torah.

Paul kept the Torah:

(CLV) Ac 24:14
"Yet I am avowing this to you, that, according to the way which they are terming a sect, thus am I offering divine service to the hereditary God, believing all that is written, according to the law and in the prophets,

I don't see "Works of Law" mentioned in the Torah. I don't see it mentioned of it by Yahshua. Where is Paul getting this?

It is mentioned 1 time in Romans and 6 times in Galatians.

It is also mentioned in the Qumran Scrolls.

Q394 (4QMMTa) 4QHalakhic Letter
Dead Sea Scrolls Project: 4QMMT

Definition of halacha
: the body of Jewish law supplementing the scriptural law and forming especially the legal part of the Talmud
Definition of HALACHA

==========================================

Legal Terms:

The Law of Faith (Ch 3)
A Different Law (Ch 7)
The Law of My Mind (Ch 7)
The Law of Sin (Sin's Law) (Ch 7)
God's Law (Ch 7)
The Spirit's Law of Life (Ch 8)
The Law of Sin and Death (Ch 8)
The Law of Righteousness (Ch 9)

Romans Chapter 4

dqhall · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
Continued from: Romans Chapter 2

Romans 3 (CLV)
1 What, then, is the prerogative of the Jew, or what the benefit of circumcision? 2 Much in every manner. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."

What? Paul is saying that there is much benefit in EVERY manner for circumcision?

Wow! I don't hear this message being driven home from the modern pulpits.

What is this oracle?
a person (such as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak

Paul's defense, for circumcision having value, is the Torah. Obviously Paul is not abolishing the Torah.

3 For what if some disbelieve? Will not their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 May it not be coming to that!

YHWH is true to his word, regardless of whether or not you believe in it, or him.

Now let God be true, yet every man a liar, even as it is written: "That so Thou shouldst be justified in Thy sayings, And shalt be conquering when Thou art being judged." 5 Now if our injustice is commending God's righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God Who is bringing on indignation is unjust! (As a man am I saying it.)" 6 May it not be coming to that! Else how shall God be judging the world? 7 Yet if the truth of God superabounds in my lie, for His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner, 8 and why not say, according as we are calumniated and according as some are averring that we are saying, that "We should be doing evil that good may be coming"? - whose judgment is fair." 9 What, then? Are we privileged? Undoubtedly not, for we previously charge both Jews and Greeks to be all under sin, 10 according as it is written, that "Not one is just- not even one." 11 Not one is understanding. Not one is seeking out God. 12 All avoid Him: at the same time they were useless. Not one is doing kindness: there is not even one!" 13 A sepulcher opened is their throat. With their tongues they defraud."The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 Whose mouth with imprecation and bitterness is crammed. 15 Sharp are their feet to shed blood. 16 Bruises and wretchedness are in their ways, 17 And the way of peace they do not know." 18 There is no fear of God in front of their eyes.

Lawlessness.

Obviously those verses don't describe those who have come to faith.

19 Now we are aware that, whatever the law is saying, it is speaking to those under the law, that every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may become subject to the just verdict of God,

Paul makes it clear that those who break the law, are under the law; and that they'll be left speechless upon verdict. Those who break the law are under the consequence of breaking the law.

20 because, by works of law, no flesh at all shall be justified in His sight, for through law is the recognition of sin."

What is sin?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin, is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

Should we then abandon the law?

Of course not! Works of the law is obedience to the law. It's against the law to speed in the U.S.. People who respect that law make a conscious effort to stay within the limits; however they inevitably get distracted sometimes and exceed them. Maybe they don't get caught; because their normal mode of behavior is to respect the law. YHWH sees all.

Now, one day maybe a law abiding driver does get caught. Maybe it was the first time in his life that he was ever distracted. Is that a defense for the violation; that he never broke the law before? NO! He wasn't supposed to break the law. Keeping the law is what was expected of him; but a righteous judge will take the driver's will to obedience into consideration, and extend grace.

21 Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), 22 yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, 23 for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God. 24 Being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus" 25 (Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood, for a display of His righteousness because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God),

This passage pertains to YHWH's righteousness, as in his patience, he passes over former sins, for those who come to faith. Does this mean that the law is abolished? Of course not, When the judge shows grace for a misstep; it's not a free pass to continue in lawlessness.

26 toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus." 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is debarred! Through what law? 28 Of works? No! But through faith's law.

Obviously it wasn't all aspects of the law that were nailed to the torture stake. Paul speaks of many varieties of law. I haven't been able to find second witnesses to define the terminology that Paul uses; but he has written many letters. As we go through these letters, hopefully we can gain an understanding of the definitions of these types of law that Paul refers to.

The law of faith. Very interesting. Which law was nailed to the torture stake? I suspect that it was the law of sin and death; the judgements as the passage beginning with verse 21 begins to reveal; but let's not get ahead of ourselves. We'll go through this step by step.

For we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law.

By YHWH's righteousness, grace, to his glory, as you submit to him in faith, thereby in obedience to his law.

Paul covered this in the previous chapter.

"For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified."

29 Or is He the god of the Jews only? Is He not of the nations also?

One law.

(CLV) Ex 12:49
One law shall there be for both the native and for the sojourner sojourning in your midst.

30 Yes, of the nations also, if so be that God is One, Who will be justifying the Circumcision out of faith and the Uncircumcision through faith." 31 Are we, then, nullifying law through faith? May it not be coming to that! Nay, we are sustaining law."

...And that is the final word on this chapter.

Paul emphasized faith in Christ more than worshipping the Torah.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Dave-W · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
What is this oracle?
a person (such as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak

Paul is NOT using "oracle" to indicate person(s) (as the Greeks did) but rather the prophetic Word of God - the Bible.

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

dqhall said:
Paul emphasized faith in Christ more than worshipping the Torah.

I wasn't aware that Paul ever mentioned worshiping the Torah.

In this chapter Paul talks about YHWH justifying one who is of the faith of Yahshua.

"a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus."

That is a lot of faith! Yahshua walked the walk in the Torah, and beyond.

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Dave-W said:
Paul is NOT using "oracle" to indicate person(s) (as the Greeks did) but rather the prophetic Word of God - the Bible.

Do not prophetic words come through prophets?

Dave-W · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
Do not prophetic words come through prophets?

Of course. But by his wording the apostle was NOT talking about the people; rather the words themselves. Since the last Hebrew Prophet had died some 450 years before he penned that, the statement would have been pointless if he was talking about people.

The point Paul was making was about biblical interpretation (and I would include the NT in that, NOT JUST the OT) being given to the Jews. And according to chapter 11, that gift cannot be taken away.

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Dave-W said:
Of course. But by his wording the apostle was NOT talking about the people; rather the words themselves.

Since the last Hebrew Prophet had died some 450 years before he penned that, the statement would have been pointless if he was talking about the people.

We're splitting hairs here. That said, I would have liked to use a closer definition; but I chose Webster as my source, at the beginning of this series. I've remained consistent in that source, as well as using the CLV, so as not to open up the door to accusations of spin, through using sources which best suit my personal bias.

If you would like to introduce a definition from a different source; your contribution will be welcomed.

Deus Vult! · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
Continued from: Romans Chapter 2

Romans 3 (CLV)
1 What, then, is the prerogative of the Jew, or what the benefit of circumcision? 2 Much in every manner. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."

What? Paul is saying that there is much benefit in EVERY manner for circumcision?

Wow! I don't hear this message being driven home from the modern pulpits.

What is this oracle?
a person (such as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak

Paul's defense, for circumcision having value, is the Torah. Obviously Paul is not abolishing the Torah.

3 For what if some disbelieve? Will not their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 May it not be coming to that!

YHWH is true to his word, regardless of whether or not you believe in it, or him.

Now let God be true, yet every man a liar, even as it is written: "That so Thou shouldst be justified in Thy sayings, And shalt be conquering when Thou art being judged." 5 Now if our injustice is commending God's righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God Who is bringing on indignation is unjust! (As a man am I saying it.)" 6 May it not be coming to that! Else how shall God be judging the world? 7 Yet if the truth of God superabounds in my lie, for His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner, 8 and why not say, according as we are calumniated and according as some are averring that we are saying, that "We should be doing evil that good may be coming"? - whose judgment is fair." 9 What, then? Are we privileged? Undoubtedly not, for we previously charge both Jews and Greeks to be all under sin, 10 according as it is written, that "Not one is just- not even one." 11 Not one is understanding. Not one is seeking out God. 12 All avoid Him: at the same time they were useless. Not one is doing kindness: there is not even one!" 13 A sepulcher opened is their throat. With their tongues they defraud."The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 Whose mouth with imprecation and bitterness is crammed. 15 Sharp are their feet to shed blood. 16 Bruises and wretchedness are in their ways, 17 And the way of peace they do not know." 18 There is no fear of God in front of their eyes.

Lawlessness.

Obviously those verses don't describe those who have come to faith.

19 Now we are aware that, whatever the law is saying, it is speaking to those under the law, that every mouth may be barred, and the entire world may become subject to the just verdict of God,

Paul makes it clear that those who break the law, are under the law; and that they'll be left speechless upon verdict. Those who break the law are under the consequence of breaking the law.

20 because, by works of law, no flesh at all shall be justified in His sight, for through law is the recognition of sin."

What is sin?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin, is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

Should we then abandon the law?

Of course not! Works of the law is obedience to the law. It's against the law to speed in the U.S.. People who respect that law make a conscious effort to stay within the limits; however they inevitably get distracted sometimes and exceed them. Maybe they don't get caught; because their normal mode of behavior is to respect the law. YHWH sees all.

Now, one day maybe a law abiding driver does get caught. Maybe it was the first time in his life that he was ever distracted. Is that a defense for the violation; that he never broke the law before? NO! He wasn't supposed to break the law. Keeping the law is what was expected of him; but a righteous judge will take the driver's will to obedience into consideration, and extend grace.

21 Yet now, apart from law, a righteousness of God is manifest (being attested by the law and the prophets), 22 yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, 23 for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God. 24 Being justified gratuitously in His grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus" 25 (Whom God purposed for a Propitiatory shelter, through faith in His blood, for a display of His righteousness because of the passing over of the penalties of sins which occurred before in the forbearance of God),

This passage pertains to YHWH's righteousness, as in his patience, he passes over former sins, for those who come to faith. Does this mean that the law is abolished? Of course not, When the judge shows grace for a misstep; it's not a free pass to continue in lawlessness.

26 toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus." 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is debarred! Through what law? 28 Of works? No! But through faith's law.

Obviously it wasn't all aspects of the law that were nailed to the torture stake. Paul speaks of many varieties of law. I haven't been able to find second witnesses to define the terminology that Paul uses; but he has written many letters. As we go through these letters, hopefully we can gain an understanding of the definitions of these types of law that Paul refers to.

The law of faith. Very interesting. Which law was nailed to the torture stake? I suspect that it was the law of sin and death; the judgements as the passage beginning with verse 21 begins to reveal; but let's not get ahead of ourselves. We'll go through this step by step.

For we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law.

By YHWH's righteousness, grace, to his glory, as you submit to him in faith, thereby in obedience to his law.

Paul covered this in the previous chapter.

"For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified."

29 Or is He the god of the Jews only? Is He not of the nations also?

One law.

(CLV) Ex 12:49
One law shall there be for both the native and for the sojourner sojourning in your midst.

30 Yes, of the nations also, if so be that God is One, Who will be justifying the Circumcision out of faith and the Uncircumcision through faith." 31 Are we, then, nullifying law through faith? May it not be coming to that! Nay, we are sustaining law."

...And that is the final word on this chapter. Paul makes it clear that even though our obedience to YHWH's law, is not the source of our salvation; YHWH's law will be sustained by those who have faith in him and his word. His law is truth.

(CLV) Ps 119:142
Your righteousness is eonian righteousness, And Your law is truth.

(CLV) 1Jn 2:4
He who is saying that "I know Him" and is not keeping His precepts, is a liar, and the truth of God is not in this one.

Remember, Paul opened this letter by saying that faith brings us to obedience.

I do not see any relevant point or angle on anything you wrote. The Faithful already know the Apostolic Faith. It was handed down faithfully from the beginning down to the Prelates and clerics of the Church today. The Deposit of Faith has been guarded and the promises of Christ do not fail. The gates of hades have not - nor will they - prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ. In accordance with the Nicene Creed the Church is : One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
But beware of Judaizers and those who mislead the faithful from the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.

9 "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." -Titus (1:9-11)

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Deus Vult! said:
I do not see any relevant point or angle on anything you wrote. The Faithful already know the Apostolic Faith. It was handed down faithfully from the beginning down to the Prelates and clerics of the Church today. The Deposit of Faith has been guarded and the promises of Christ do not fail. The gates of hades have not - nor will they - prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ. In accordance with the Nicene Creed the Church is : One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

(CLV) Mk 16:15
And He said to them, "Go into all the world; herald the evangel to the entire creation.

Deus Vult! said:
But beware of Judaizers and those who mislead the faithful from the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.

Yahshua was of the tribe of Judah.

The Apostles weren't working off of tradition. They were working off of Yahshua and the Torah.

Yahshua rebuked the traditions of men.

(CLV) Mt 15:3
Now He, answering, said to them, "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?

Deus Vult! said:
9 "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." -Titus (1:9-11)

Are you suggesting that I do this for money? My treasure is in the kingdom.

(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

Deus Vult! · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
(CLV) Mk 16:15
And He said to them, "Go into all the world; herald the evangel to the entire creation.

Yahshua was of the tribe of Judah.

The Apostles weren't working off of tradition. They were working off of Yahshua and the Torah.

Yahshua rebuked the traditions of men.

(CLV) Mt 15:3
Now He, answering, said to them, "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?

Are you suggesting that I do this for money? My treasure is in the kingdom.

(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.

"The Apostles weren't working off of tradition. They were working off of Yahshua and the Torah.

Yahshua rebuked the traditions of men."

- The Apostle St.Paul was not working off of the Traditions of the Apostles that were before him? The Apostles themselves were not following the Traditions of Christ Himself? When Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me" is this not an everlasting command that we should do until He returns? Would this by definition then not become a Sacred Tradition?
2 Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

"(CLV) Mt 15:3
Now He, answering, said to them, "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?"

- Our Lord is referring to the traditions of men, i.e. the precepts that had been introduced over time to the law of Moses that had obscured the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith.
This is obviously NOT a prohibition against the Sacred Traditions that He Himself was installing such as Trinitarian Baptism John 3:5, Eucharist (Offering of Thanksgiving, or Communion), Matthew 26:17-30,Mark 14:12-26,Luke 22:7-30
, Forgiveness of sins through confession
John 20:23, etc.

"Are you suggesting that I do this for money?..."

- Are you suggesting that the only reason St.Paul warns against false teaching is because it is always done for money? There are many reasons that people spread false teaching. Money is but one of those reasons. The next three verses after Titus (1:9-11) says this:
"12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."

Obviously we do not just rebuke a false teaching if the teaching explicitly states that "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies", neither was St.Paul's warning in Titus (1:10-11) only against those of the circumcision because they spread false teaching because of money. St.Paul added this:"for filthy lucre's sake" because this is what he observed some of the circumcision doing. This should not then be concluded that St.Paul only finds fault in Judaizers who spread false teaching if they are doing it for money. This should be obvious. We also rebuke those who spread Jewish fables, and commandments of men that turn the Faithful away from the Sacred Tradition of Our Lord that was given to His Apostles before His death, resurrection, and ascension on high.

I don't even know if this is what you are doing. It was hard to see the point you were trying to make. Your message came off like you are suggesting we hold Saturday as our Holy Day of obligation or that we must be circumcised or something like that. Is that in fact what you are preaching?

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Deus Vult! said:
I don't even know if this is what you are doing. It was hard to see the point you were trying to make. Your message came off like you are suggesting we hold Saturday as our Holy Day of obligation or that we must be circumcised or something like that. Is that in fact what you are preaching?

Apparently you have as much difficulty understanding me as you do understanding Paul.

So what's your knee jerk reaction; when you fall short of comprehension. You go on the attack? Is that what your faith calls you to? I don't believe that was the tradition that Paul was rallying YHWH's people to.

Instead of resorting to ad hominem antics; why not go back to the OP and read for comprehension. If you can't handle that on your own; just ask me for help. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

Shalom

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Deus Vult! said:
Your message came off like you are suggesting we hold Saturday as our Holy Day

The Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, pg. 111, said, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we (The Roman Catholic Church) never sanctify.

The Catholic Mirror (a publication by Cardinal Gibbons) Sept. 2, 1893- "...the Redeemer, during His mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday."

The Catholic Mirror Sept. 9, 1893- "Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the identity of Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the people of Israel have been keeping the Saturday from the giving of the Law, A.M., 2514 to A.D. 1893 (to the present day)..."

The Catholic Mirror Sept.9, 1893- "We deem it necessary to be perfectly clear on this point....The Bible- the Old Testament- confirmed by the living tradition of weekly practice for 3383 years by the chosen people of God, teaches, then, with absolute certainty, that God had, Himself, named the day "to be kept holy to Him"- that the day was Saturday, and that any violation of that command was punishable with death."

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine Third Edition"1). Question: Which is the Sabbath day? "Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. 2). "Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?"Answer. "We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea, transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

Martin J. Scott- Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927) "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."

John Laux- A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936) "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."

Peter R. Kraemer- Catholic Church Extension Society (1975), Chicago, Illinois. "Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man."2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws. "It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."

Would you like some more quotes? This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding what I've collected on this subject. If so, just let me know.

P.S. I almost forgot. I created a thread dedicated specifically to this subject. Maybe I'll see you there.

Who Changed Shabbat?

Deus Vult! · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
The Catholic Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, pg. 111, said, "You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we (The Roman Catholic Church) never sanctify.

The Catholic Mirror (a publication by Cardinal Gibbons) Sept. 2, 1893- "...the Redeemer, during His mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday."

The Catholic Mirror Sept. 9, 1893- "Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the identity of Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the people of Israel have been keeping the Saturday from the giving of the Law, A.M., 2514 to A.D. 1893 (to the present day)..."

The Catholic Mirror Sept.9, 1893- "We deem it necessary to be perfectly clear on this point....The Bible- the Old Testament- confirmed by the living tradition of weekly practice for 3383 years by the chosen people of God, teaches, then, with absolute certainty, that God had, Himself, named the day "to be kept holy to Him"- that the day was Saturday, and that any violation of that command was punishable with death."

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine Third Edition"1). Question: Which is the Sabbath day? "Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. 2). "Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?"Answer. "We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea, transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

Martin J. Scott- Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927) "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday."

John Laux- A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1 936) "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days."

Peter R. Kraemer- Catholic Church Extension Society (1975), Chicago, Illinois. "Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:"1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man."2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws. "It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."

Would you like some more quotes? This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding what I've collected on this subject. If so, just let me know.

P.S. I almost forgot. I created a thread dedicated specifically to this subject. Maybe I'll see you there.

Who Changed Shabbat?

The ancient Christian Tradition has always been to gather and break bread on "the Lords Day". Just so you know the Lords Day would be in fact Sunday. You see almost immediately in the book of Acts that the Apostles and Faithful began observing the day after the Sabbath as the Holy Day to be observed. I could dump a mountain of quotes from the Saints, Church Fathers, and Apostles on the fact that it was Sunday that became for the followers of Christ the day to observe as the day of rest and Holy Day of Obligation. But you know typical to the spirit of protestantism we just pick a few people out of history that maybe objected to the Faith of the whole and then that becomes the rule. Nonsense. By the way your quotes from the "Catholic Mirror" did not object to the Holy Day now for the follower of Christ being Sunday, and to that point your other quotes were helpful to establish the authority of the Body of Christ establishing the Lords Day as the Holy Day of rest and of obligation, thank you for that.

By the way, very deceitful for you to leave out the first half of the quote by Cardinal Gibbons. Here it is:
“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from any unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers(1917 edition)pg.72-73 (16th edition)pg.111 (88th edition) pg. 89.

Deus Vult! · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
Apparently you have as much difficulty understanding me as you do understanding Paul.

So what's your knee jerk reaction; when you fall short of comprehension. You go on the attack? Is that what your faith calls you to? I don't believe that was the tradition that Paul was rallying YHWH's people to.

Instead of resorting to ad hominem antics; why not go back to the OP and read for comprehension. If you can't handle that on your own; just ask me for help. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

Shalom

St.Paul did not attack and neither am I. I would make the case that St.Paul defended - as I am - the Sacred Tradition of our Lord and His Apostles that was being attacked by the then Jews that did not believe in the Lord and His Gospel. You know the Gospel that says this:
Matthew 12:8
“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Deus Vult! said:
St.Paul did not attack and neither am I. I would make the case that St.Paul defended - as I am - the Sacred Tradition of our Lord and His Apostles that was being attacked by the then Jews that did not believe in the Lord and His Gospel. You know the Gospel that says this:
Matthew 12:8
“For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.”

You're pulling this tread way off topic. If you'd like to discuss the Sabbath, you can take it to the link I posted above.

Deus Vult! · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
You're pulling this tread way off topic. If you'd like to discuss the Sabbath, you can take it to the link I posted above.

Very well. You could admit the truth that you intentionally left out the first half of the quote by Cardinal Gibbons though. Or you could say that you did not know that this was what preceded what you quoted from the Cardinal.

Here it is again:
“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from any unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday,
a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers(1917 edition)pg.72-73 (16th edition)pg.111 (88th edition) pg. 89.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 26, 2020

HARK! said:
Continued from: Romans Chapter 2

Romans 3 (CLV)
1 What, then, is the prerogative of the Jew, or what the benefit of circumcision? 2 Much in every manner. For first, indeed, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God."

What? Paul is saying that there is much benefit in EVERY manner for circumcision?

Wow! I don't hear this message being driven home from the modern pulpits.

I don't think that Paul was referring to the act of circumcision. He was speaking of the Jews in general. Paul used the word "circumcision" to describe the Jews. He called them "the Circumcision", because it was the act that made them separate from the pagan nations around them.

Paul values the Jews because it was them who kept the sacred oracles of God. This has nothing to do with pagan oracles. Paul uses the word to describe Moses and the Prophets (the Torah).

To say that there is benefit in the act of circumcision, is a contradiction of what Paul said about it: that to be circumcised or uncircumcised has no value in itself for Christian believers. He said that the person who is circumcised should not be uncircumcised, and the person who is uncircumcised should not be circumcised to give them a higher status with God. This is because having the righteousness of Christ bestowed on a believer as a free gift gives them the highest status with God that they can achieve.

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Oscarr said:
This has nothing to do with pagan oracles.

I didn't even begin to mean to imply that it did. Far from it. Again, that was the closest definition that was in Webster. For consistency sake , I've used Webster throughout this Romans Series. If this keeps up; I might have to reevaluate my choice for the next thread.

HARK! · Feb 26, 2020

Oscarr said:
I don't think that Paul was referring to the act of circumcision. He was speaking of the Jews in general. Paul used the word "circumcision" to describe the Jews. He called them "the Circumcision", because it was the act that made them separate from the pagan nations around them.

Paul went into a little more detail on this subject in the previous chapter. There's a link to it at the top of the OP.

I'm fairly sure that he's really talking about circumcision; this hold especially true when he uses the words Jew and circumcision in the same paragraph.

HARK! said:
24 For because of you the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations, according as it is written." 25 For circumcision, indeed, is benefiting if you should be putting law into practice, yet if you should be a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision."

It doesn't seem like Paul is abolishing the law here.

26 If the Uncircumcision, then, should be maintaining the just requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? 27 And the Uncircumcision who, by nature, are discharging the law's demands, shall be judging you, who through letter and circumcision, are a transgressor of law." 28 For not that which is apparent is the Jew, nor yet that which is apparent in flesh is circumcision;" 29 but that which is hidden is the Jew, and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, whose applause is not of men, but of God."

Much like baptism, outward circumcision is an outward sign of what has already happened inside. Outward circumcision was never intended to take the place of spiritual circumcision.

(CLV) Dt 10:16
Hence you will circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and you should not longer stiffen your neck.

What this verse is saying is to submit to YHWH's Torah. Once one has submitted in spirit; in obedience he will want to show the outward sign to the glory of YHWH.

(CLV) Gn 17:13
He shall be circumcised, yea circumcised, the manservant born in your household or acquired with your money. Thus will My covenant be marked in your flesh as an eonian covenant.

So then when one has the Torah; yet he is not obedient to it; and claims to be a child of YHWH; he blasphemes the name of YHWH. The non believers see this.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 27, 2020

HARK! said:
Paul went into a little more detail on this subject in the previous chapter. There's a link to it at the top of the OP.

I'm fairly sure that he's really talking about circumcision; this hold especially true when he uses the words Jew and circumcision in the same paragraph.

It is not that the Law is abolished, but the sinfulness of man prevented him from observing it, thereby making it ineffective for justification and salvation.

Paul on the Law: Romans Chapter 3

שמע

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

שמע

שמע

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

שמע

Active Member

שמע

Active Member

שמע

שמע

Active Member

Active Member

שמע

Active Member

Senior Veteran

שמע

שמע

Senior Veteran

Similar threads