Baptism is a work.

[rturner76]

"tempered"? Why?

I believe that the New Testament should be looked at as a whole. Paul while having divine revelation was not capable of teaching the entirety of the gospel by himself. We must read all of the books of the New Testament to glean the entirety of the gospel as Jesus taught it.

i) If the James who wrote the book was one of the 12, then he wasn't the Lord's brother.
ii) Are you implying that Paul's writing is not as reliable/trustworthy because he wasn't one of the 12?

I have heard him described that way. I am of the mind that Jesus considered all of his disciples his brothers.

?? Such as?

The book of James

So because Paul had a past before he met Jesus, and because he didn't meet/know Jesus before the crucifixion, he cannot be trusted?

I would never say that Paul can't be trusted and I don't think I did say that. What I meant (if I didn't make my opinion clear, I apologize), was Paul has his message and we must compare and contrast that message with the other author's messages. It's not just Paul's testament but it is the New Testament which has many authors. What I mentioned about Paul being a Christian killer and having never had a conversation with the living Christ was meant to convey that though divinely inspired, he was not a perfect man (nor is any man perfect except Jesus).

 

[rturner76]

Interesting.

What in your opinion constitutes a truly biblical church?

Most churches if not all are "biblical" The question really is what churches have correctly interpreted the Bible? I tend to lean toward the Church that assembled the Bible as we know it.

 

[rturner76]

Lol, I love it.

People have badmouthed us for years, and GOD keeps growing us no matter what. John MacArthur wrote his first book denouncing Pentecostals way back in 1978, now I think we recently outgrew his baptist denomination, I think possibly two-fold.

Once Jesus removes your candle, it's a guaranteed crash and burn scenario.

I apologize if I have "badmouthed" your particular denomination. At the heart of my argument is the question: What makes your denomination any more or less Biblical or "correct" than any of the other 100,000 ways Protestants have interpreted the scripture? On who's authority does your church stand other than some guy who chose to interpret scripture in a brand new and unique way, and whip people up into a frenzy?

The reason I ended up choosing The original 2000-year-old Church is because it was founded by Christ himself and built by his disciples. I my humble opinion, the 12 disciples had a better knowledge of the gospel than anyone. Do you agree with that or do you think that you are able to interpret scripture more accurately than the men who wrote it?

 

[Guojing]

Well to clarify, yes. I believe the New Testament should be taken as a whole and completed work. I believe that is why The Church decided to include all of the writings that they did. I believe that every point of view the Apostles wrote about are useful. I don't believe that there is just one person's writings that should be considered above all others but they all should be taken into account, keeping in mind that the Epistles were written to specific Churches at specific times and addressed the issues that people were struggling with in their differing congregation. Issues that often appear still in our modern churches to this day which make the writings relevant for all time..

The 12 disciples (Apostles) all had individual gifts and individual points of view concerning the Gospel. As I said earlier, Peter and James are more focused on obedience, and Paul's writings are more focused on the gift of grace. I don't believe that scripture cntradicts itself but I believe in the same way the Apostles had different gifts and talents while each having a point of view that was relatable to different groups of people, the same is true today that different Priests/Pastors/Bishops have each their own talents and message that different people can relate to.

The Christian Church (or catholic church in that catholic means universal) It was the first religion that was not based on ethnicity so a wide range of people with different backgrounds were preached to and I believe that different Apostles each had their own talents when it came to reaching different people with the gospel (meaning good news) who were from different places and had different backgrounds and customs.

So can you imagine a hypothetical world where a gentile believer only has the 13 letters of Paul to read, and nothing else.

Would he be justified in believing that salvation is by grace thru faith alone, without works?

If you cannot imagine that, I understand, thanks.

 

[Strong in Him]

I believe that the New Testament should be looked at as a whole. Paul while having divine revelation was not capable of teaching the entirety of the gospel by himself.

He certainly was.
He didn't repeat all of Jesus' teaching and parables, if that's what you're thinking; that wasn't his purpose in writing.

We must read all of the books of the New Testament to glean the entirety of the gospel as Jesus taught it.

Jesus revealed, and taught about, God.
He predicted, and spoke of, his death, said that it would be for the sins of the world, Matthew 26:28, and a ransom for many, Mark 10:45. He spoke of his resurrection, the coming of the Holy Spirit and, briefly, about end times.
He did not address problems faced by individual congregations - there weren't any. Nor did he address some of the false teachings that the early church faced.
Apart from that, which bits of the Gospel did Jesus miss out that can only be found in the rest of the NT?

I have heard him described that way. I am of the mind that Jesus considered all of his disciples his brothers.

I'm sure he did.
I was talking about his family; half brother. Though I suppose, being a Catholic, you don't believe Mary had any more children.

The book of James

The book of James isn't a Gospel. It's an epistle written several years after Jesus died and addressed to the 12 scattered tribes.

I would never say that Paul can't be trusted and I don't think I did say that.

No, I asked "are you implying that ....?" it wasn't meant to be an accusation.

What I meant (if I didn't make my opinion clear, I apologize), was Paul has his message and we must compare and contrast that message with the other author's messages. It's not just Paul's testament but it is the New Testament which has many authors. What I mentioned about Paul being a Christian killer and having never had a conversation with the living Christ was meant to convey that though divinely inspired, he was not a perfect man (nor is any man perfect except Jesus).

Well, yes.
Firstly, Paul wrote 13 of the letters in the NT, but not all of them.
Secondly an epistle is not a Gospel. These were written so that people who lived after the Apostles would know about Jesus' life, ministry, teaching, death and resurrection. A lot of the epistles are either correcting false teaching, answering any questions that the church had raised, addressing pastoral issues/behaviour or answering questions which the churches had raised. They are important, unpack, and apply, the meaning of the Gospel and contain doctrine. But they were written in different circumstances and for different audiences/congregations.
Thirdly, Paul called himself the chief of sinners, and would not have claimed to be perfect. He did say that he was inspired by the Spirit, however, and told people to "follow me as I follow Christ".

 

[ARBITER01]

That is a very good question and I'm impressed that it even enters your mind (written out of respect and not a mocking heart at all). Well, I believe what the Scriptures tell us as the Eternal Plan of God is described:

Ephesians 3:9-11 NLT - "I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning. God's purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord."

Paul takes us all the way "back" to the Heavens before God created the physical world, teaching us that there is an Eternal Plan kept hidden to the vast majority of humans, even to this day. But there is a Holy Purpose of the Church, for at the core of the Plan of God is to demonstrate His Almighty Power to the unseen Rulers and Authorities in the Heavenly Realms. We are on display, my friend.

So . . . the answer to your question is an option that you hadn't provided. Paul is clearly teaching us that God is using us like a tool to show His Supreme Power and ability to create a Plan and see that it happens without fault. So again, we are mere clay in the Potter's hands to be used at His discretion, for who are we to question the Potter and His ways?

Let's have a more literal translation of that section you posted,...

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which from all ages hath been hid in God who created all things;
Eph 3:10 to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11 according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Here was my original question,....

Let me ask you one more question, does a church operate in the power of GOD or does an individual?

I think you may have confused wisdom with power,.... they are not the same.

Let me answer my own question here. GOD operates through individuals, always has, always will. We see Jesus confirm this,...

Joh 14:12 Truly, truly, I say unto you the-one believing into Me, the works which I do, shall that-one do also, and greater than these shall he do, because I am going unto My Father.

I highlighted the article's of the Greek. Any believing person should be doing those works of The Spirit that Jesus did. Jesus didn't say any believing "church."

The reason why I asked you this, was because you have proposed an impossible scenario for yourself. You want to walk into a church that is teaching about the power of GOD,........ when they have no experience in it to teach about it.

You can't correctly teach about such a topic without GOD showing you that power, without you actually experiencing it firsthand. And because they have never experienced it, it is not a topic that they will ever teach about since it is not something important to them.

It's always ever been individuals in the past that GOD has operated through in power, not church assemblies. It takes a person a lot of years to learn to carry their cross and deny themselves, to know the absolute importance of holiness with GOD, and a lot of years for GOD to trust you with that power before you ever see Him operate it through you. He's not raising people up just so they can turn around and betray Him and take the credit for themselves.

 

[rturner76]

So can you imagine a hypothetical world where a gentile believer only has the 13 letters of Paul to read, and nothing else.

Would he be justified in believing that salvation is by grace thru faith alone, without works?

If you cannot imagine that, I understand, thanks.

Strictly speaking as a yes or no question I'd have to say yes. However I don't believe that "works" result in salvation but works are evidence of your faith. That may be a bit of a contradictory statement strictly speaking however, I am a firm believer that if you do have working faith, it will show in your actions. Not to say you must do ABC to obtain salvation but at the heart of it, if you have no repentance, nor a will to live as a Christian, what is your faith worth? I mean if you aren't willing to at least try to obey the commandment of your God, how can you really say you have faith?

I think what I am saying is the crux of the discussion about the faith/works argument. I think that someone on either side of the argument can be extreme in that some believe that you must qualify for heaven by accomplishing ABC and the extreme of the other side being once you proclaim Christ as your savior you can remain in your sinful lifestyle with no repercussions. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle in that if one truly has faith, their actions will bear witness to their faith. Especially considering that the Bible is very clear in saying that there will be a day of judgment and the sheep will be separated from the goats.

At the end of the day I do agree that works in and of themselves are not required for salvation but I am a firm believer that if one does have faith there will be some evidence of it.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Guojing]

Strictly speaking as a yes or no question I'd have to say yes. However I don't believe that "works" result in salvation but works are evidence of your faith. That may be a bit of a contradictory statement strictly speaking however, I am a firm believer that if you do have working faith, it will show in your actions. Not to say you must do ABC to obtain salvation but at the heart of it, if you have no repentance, nor a will to live as a Christian, what is your faith worth? I mean if you aren't willing to at least try to obey the commandment of your God, how can you really say you have faith?

I think what I am saying is the crux of the discussion about the faith/works argument. I think that someone on either side of the argument can be extreme in that some believe that you must qualify for heaven by accomplishing ABC and the extreme of the other side being once you proclaim Christ as your savior you can remain in your sinful lifestyle with no repercussions. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle in that if one truly has faith, their actions will bear witness to their faith. Especially considering that the Bible is very clear in saying that there will be a day of judgment and the sheep will be separated from the goats.

At the end of the day I do agree that works in and of themselves are not required for salvation but I am a firm believer that if one does have faith there will be some evidence of it.

Does that make any sense?

If you are saying yes to that hypothetical question of mine, then you are actually saying that Paul must be understood by what Peter and James, those that actually learn from Jesus's first coming, are teaching.

That is fine, many believers, not just Catholics, also believe that.

 

[rturner76]

He certainly was.
He didn't repeat all of Jesus' teaching and parables, if that's what you're thinking; that wasn't his purpose in writing.

Apart from that, which bits of the Gospel did Jesus miss out that can only be found in the rest of the NT?

I didn't say that Jesus missed anything. I was trying to convey what you very clearly and insightfully explained later in your response. That the letters were meant to clarify and "unpack" the gospels (a great word to use by the way).

I'm sure he did.
I was talking about his family; half brother. Though I suppose, being a Catholic, you don't believe Mary had any more children.

From my understanding, cousins were often described as brothers in those days. I think that regardless of the DNA comparison, he was very close to Jesus' heart and was considered his brother weather by DNA or by an emotional bond.

The book of James isn't a Gospel. It's an epistle written several years after Jesus died and addressed to the 12 scattered tribes

Correct but it was meant to clarify and magnify the message that Jesus Christ brought to the world.

They are important, unpack, and apply, the meaning of the Gospel and contain doctrine. But they were written in different circumstances and for different audiences/congregations.

Agreed and very well stated.

Thirdly, Paul called himself the chief of sinners, and would not have claimed to be perfect. He did say that he was inspired by the Spirit, however, and told people to "follow me as I follow Christ".

And that is why I think many people have magnified Paul's writings over all others. Some I would even say were more "Pauleans" than Christians. He was an Apostle and there were other Apostles. I don't know why people place Paul and his writings somehow above the other Apostles (not accusing you of doing that). I take Paul's message, compare, contrast, and "unpack" his and other's writings. I think that early reformers focused so much on Paul's letters that they lost sight of the other messages contained within the New Testament.

The doctrine of "faith alone" must be tempered with the other teachings about obedience, the golden rule, and things like repentance and loving your neighbor. Some (not saying you) end up with a distorted view of faith alone. Seeming to believe that once one proclaims Christ the work is finished. If one truly has faith there will be evidence of that faith in their actions. Not to say that one must accomplish ABC works in order to enter heaven. It is one's faith that brings them closer to God and his kingdom but like I said if one truly does have faith, they will at least try the best they can to do God's will and spread the gospel. It's not works that save a person but works are the evidence of one's saving faith.

 

[Oneofhope]

You can't correctly teach about such a topic without GOD showing you that power, without you actually experiencing it firsthand. And because they have never experienced it, it is not a topic that they will ever teach about since it is not something important to them.

I'm uncertain if I fully comprehend your entire post, but I must say, the above is absolutely brilliant. I am astounded by your wording and phrasing . . . for what you wrote was Wisdom itself.

 

[Guojing]

I don't know why people place Paul and his writings somehow above the other Apostles (not accusing you of doing that). I take Paul's message, compare, contrast, and "unpack" his and other's writings. I think that early reformers focused so much on Paul's letters that they lost sight of the other messages contained within the New Testament.

To understand why some of us do so, you must go back to Moses in Exodus.

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, it will help to understand why Moses is the lawgiver, why the entire Law is summed up as the "Law of Moses", even though the Law was given by God.

Even Jesus himself referred to the Law as "The Law of Moses". As he is living under the law, he is also subjected to Moses. (John 5:46, Matthew 19:8, Matthew 23:1-2, Mark 7:9-10).

Moses authority has been challenged before by the Jews, who wanted to hear directly from God instead. In the famous story recounted in Numbers 12

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.

3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.

Likewise, almost all of us are Gentiles here. We belong to the Body of Christ, and in this age of grace, Paul is our apostle, his importance is equivalent to Moses, as the lawgiver to the Jews.

Paul's words are the words of the ascended Lord Jesus to his Church now, and we will do well to follow what Paul is saying, as instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:37

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 

[rturner76]

To understand why some of us do so, you must go back to Moses in Exodus.

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, it will help to understand why Moses is the lawgiver, why the entire Law is summed up as the "Law of Moses", even though the Law was given by God.

Even Jesus himself referred to the Law as "The Law of Moses". As he is living under the law, he is also subjected to Moses. (John 5:46, Matthew 19:8, Matthew 23:1-2, Mark 7:9-10).

Moses authority has been challenged before by the Jews, who wanted to hear directly from God instead. In the famous story recounted in Numbers 12

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

2 And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.

3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed.

Likewise, almost all of us are Gentiles here. We belong to the Body of Christ, and in this age of grace, Paul is our apostle, his importance is equivalent to Moses, as the lawgiver to the Jews.

Paul's words are the words of the ascended Lord Jesus to his Church now, and we will do well to follow what Paul is saying, as instructed in 1 Corinthians 14:37

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Are you really saying that the man named "the rock" by Jesus Christ then stated "on this rock I will build my church" has nothing relevant to say? I don't want to accuse you but I want to ask......Are you a Christian or a Paulian? The people who place all of their faith on the writings of Paul miss out on the fullness of God's revelation of the New Testament.


In my personal opinion, this is where many Protestant Churches have gone astray. Paul, while being a great teacher, theologian, and Apostle had many relevant things to say. However, to place one's faith in one man who is not Christ, never met Christ in person and was a killer of many early Roman/Jewish Christians before he was converted seems to be a foolish move. Paul had a relevant and true message but to disregard the messages of those who traveled with Christ, spoke and asked questions of Christ, and were personally chosen by Christ to be his followers, would seem to be idolatry of the Apostle Paul (not accusing you of having that view but there are many "Paulians" who put the messages of Paul before any other).

So at this point, will you please enlighten me as to the reason that Paul is the greatest and most knowledgeable disciple when was never actually a disciple of Christ? Why are his teachings to be put on a pedestal above the men who served slept and ate with Jesus Christ?

EDIT: To comment on Moses, you do know that he is not the only Old Testament prophet right? Just like we don't consider only one Apostle's writing, in the OT , besides Moses we have Jeremiah, Issac, Elijah, Elisha, and many others. There is no Apostle that holds the entirety of God's message just like there is no OT prophet that hold the entirety of God's message to his followers. We are not Paulians or Mosesians but we are Christians.

 

[Oneofhope]

So at this point, will you please enlighten me as to the reason that Paul is the greatest and most knowledgeable disciple when was never actually a disciple of Christ? Why are his teachings to be put on a pedestal above the men who served slept and ate with Jesus Christ?

There are a few good reasons, one being that God chose him to do exactly as he, Paul, had done.

The biggest reason, however, is that he is the one who unpacks the hidden Mysterious Plan of God to help us understand that Story in its fullest sense. At the "heart" of that Plan is Spiritual Circumcision. Without Paul, that hidden Plan would be extremely difficult to figure out.

And it should be no great surprise that Paul is the one to unpack this central doctrine, for he was present for the very first New Testament teaching regarding Spiritual Circumcision. What am I referring to? Acts 7, where Stephen charges the religious leaders of the day with not understanding the circumcision of Abraham, followed by at the end of the chapter, he straight accuses them of being uncircumcised in ears and hearts. At the time, Paul was named Saul, giving his approval to the murder of Stephen who first began clear teaching on Spiritual Circumcision. This, no doubt, left a staggering impact upon young Saul, thus as he continued to grow and mature in Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom, those words of Stephen penetrated Paul's heart and made to clearly understand what Stephen meant as he referenced Spiritual uncircumcision.

Without the specific teachings of Paul, much of the Bible would remain completely allusive.

 

[Guojing]

Are you really saying that the man named "the rock" by Jesus Christ then stated "on this rock I will build my church" has nothing relevant to say? I don't want to accuse you but I want to ask......Are you a Christian or a Paulian? The people who place all of their faith on the writings of Paul miss out on the fullness of God's revelation of the New Testament.

It will be useful to understand Daniel's prophetic timetable when you want to understand how the sequence of events went down in Jesus first coming to the nation of Israel (Romans 15:8) and what transpired during those 3 years of reaching to Israel (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24), and what went on in Acts.

I take it that you are not aware of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel?

So at this point, will you please enlighten me as to the reason that Paul is the greatest and most knowledgeable disciple when was never actually a disciple of Christ? Why are his teachings to be put on a pedestal above the men who served slept and ate with Jesus Christ?

To understand the reason, you have to understand the state of gentiles after Exodus and why is it that, Paul's revelation of the mystery was so important to us. I will just leave you with Ephesians 2:11-12

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Once you are able to understand this, you will be enlightened to why Paul is so important to all of us gentiles.

EDIT: To comment on Moses, you do know that he is not the only Old Testament prophet right? Just like we don't consider only one Apostle's writing, in the OT , besides Moses we have Jeremiah, Issac, Elijah, Elisha, and many others. There is no Apostle that holds the entirety of God's message just like there is no OT prophet that hold the entirety of God's message to his followers. We are not Paulians or Mosesians but we are Christians.

Of course I know that, but have you ever asked yourself why Jesus in his first coming to Israel, also had to subject himself to Moses? (John 5:45-46, Matthew 19:8, Matthew 23:1-2, Mark 7:9-10).

All those verses I have used above, ever wonder why Jesus being God himself, still have to repeat the name Moses so many times? Why not just say the Law of God, what did God say, God accuses you etc, think about that.

Once you understand that Moses is Israel's spokesman, then it will be easier for you to understand why some Christians regard Paul as the spokesman of the Body of Christ.

 

[rturner76]

There are a few good reasons, one being that God chose him to do exactly as he, Paul, had done.

The biggest reason, however, is that he is the one who unpacks the hidden Mysterious Plan of God to help us understand that Story in its fullest sense. At the "heart" of that Plan is Spiritual Circumcision. Without Paul, that hidden Plan would be extremely difficult to figure out.

And it should be no great surprise that Paul is the one to unpack this central doctrine, for he was present for the very first New Testament teaching regarding Spiritual Circumcision. What am I referring to? Acts 7, where Stephen charges the religious leaders of the day with not understanding the circumcision of Abraham, followed by at the end of the chapter, he straight accuses them of being uncircumcised in ears and hearts. At the time, Paul was named Saul, giving his approval to the murder of Stephen who first began clear teaching on Spiritual Circumcision. This, no doubt, left a staggering impact upon young Saul, thus as he continued to grow and mature in Understanding, Knowledge, and Wisdom, those words of Stephen penetrated Paul's heart and made to clearly understand what Stephen meant as he referenced Spiritual uncircumcision.

Without the specific teachings of Paul, much of the Bible would remain completely allusive.

While I appreciate your point of view, I still have a hard time believing that one Apostles writings are more important than the others. Especially considering that the other Apostles sat at the feet of Jesus Christ himself and learned the fullness of truth through Him.

While I respect and appreciate the writings of St Paul, his writings were more philosophy and theology than direct instruction from Jesus Christ. That is not to say that Paul's writings are not just as relevant, but I can't see why his writings are more important than "the rock" of the church St Peter. We have his spiritual instructions however in a practical sense, though divinely inspired, he has gleaned on his own understanding and not that of Jesus Christ in the flesh. That doesn't diminish his message but I can't see how his message is more important than the actual disciples of Christ.

Focusing on "faith only" diminishes the message of obedience which most of Christ's disciples wrote about. At the end of the day, I have a hard time understanding how a man who never spoke to Christ and killed many Christians has a better understanding of the gospel than the men that were taught by Jesus Christ in person.

 

[rturner76]

I take it that you are not aware of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel?

I am not, please enlighten me.

Once you are able to understand this, you will be enlightened to why Paul is so important to all of us gentiles.

I would never deny that Paul was the Apostle most important to the Gentiles. That was the basis of his ministry. Having said that, he was never taught by that living Christ so I don't understand how he would have the fullness of truth when Christ's disciples don't The original Christians were also Jew so it would make sense that many of them followed the law of Moses. Paul in a way shortcutted that and decided that Jewdism has no bearing on Christianity. His is a fast food gospel that was appealing to the masses because he declare that all one needs to do is proclaim faith. The actual disciples believed one must also live that faith.

Of course I know that, but have you ever asked yourself why Jesus in his first coming to Israel, also had to subject himself to Moses?

I would assume it's because he was born and raised a Jew subject to Torah. As a preteen he did teach in the temple correct? That should indicate why he believed in the law of Moses.

All those verses I have used above, ever wonder why Jesus being God himself, still have to repeat the name Moses so many times? Why not just say the Law of God, what did God say, God accuses you etc, think about that.

I would assume it's because Moses was the original leader of the Israelites and received a revelation directly from God the Father. That may have something to do with the reason he consulted with Moses on the night before his passion (among others so their is not exactly irrelevant).

Once you understand that Moses is Israel's spokesman, then it will be easier for you to understand why some Christians regard Paul as the spokesman of the Body of Christ.

I do intellectually understand that that is the case. Because of Paul's message and the Apostleship of the Gentile churches, Christianity was spread to the whole world instead of being a Jewish sect. At the same time, St Peter being the first Bishop of Rome had an immense impact on the acceptance of Christianity by the Gentiles, The difference is St Peter taught that you must actually obey God and not just believe in him. Then it turned out that the Church which St Peter founded in Rome became the most accepted religion in the known world. Why discount what he accomplished and said when Christ changed Simon's name to Peter which men's "Rock" then in the same statement said "and on the rock I will build my church?" Paul has his place in philosophy and theology but he is surely not the end-all be-all of the Church in my opinion. "Faith Alone" is an easier path but obediace along with faith was the actual message of Christ himself and his disciples.

 

[Strong in Him]

I didn't say that Jesus missed anything. I was trying to convey what you very clearly and insightfully explained later in your response. That the letters were meant to clarify and "unpack" the gospels (a great word to use by the way).

I know; sorry.
I understand now. Thanks.

From my understanding, cousins were often described as brothers in those days.

Possibly.
Though I'm sure that I looked this up in my interlinear Greek NT/dictionary once - and that there was a separate word for "cousin".

Correct but it was meant to clarify and magnify the message that Jesus Christ brought to the world.

Not all of it - it barely mentions Jesus and does not speak of the cross, resurrection or Holy Spirit.

Agreed and very well stated.

Thank you.

And that is why I think many people have magnified Paul's writings over all others.

Could be.
I must admit I haven't come across that. I've seen the opposite view on these forums - only from a minority, obviously.

Some I would even say were more "Pauleans" than Christians. He was an Apostle and there were other Apostles. I don't know why people place Paul and his writings somehow above the other Apostles (not accusing you of doing that). I take Paul's message, compare, contrast, and "unpack" his and other's writings. I think that early reformers focused so much on Paul's letters that they lost sight of the other messages contained within the New Testament.

Could be.
I think the whole of the NT is important and we shouldn't place some writings above others.

 

[Oneofhope]

While I appreciate your point of view, I still have a hard time believing that one Apostles writings are more important than the others. Especially considering that the other Apostles sat at the feet of Jesus Christ himself and learned the fullness of truth through Him.

While I respect and appreciate the writings of St Paul, his writings were more philosophy and theology than direct instruction from Jesus Christ. That is not to say that Paul's writings are not just as relevant, but I can't see why his writings are more important than "the rock" of the church St Peter. We have his spiritual instructions however in a practical sense, though divinely inspired, he has gleaned on his own understanding and not that of Jesus Christ in the flesh. That doesn't diminish his message but I can't see how his message is more important than the actual disciples of Christ.

Focusing on "faith only" diminishes the message of obedience which most of Christ's disciples wrote about. At the end of the day, I have a hard time understanding how a man who never spoke to Christ and killed many Christians has a better understanding of the gospel than the men that were taught by Jesus Christ in person.

Thanks for your kind reply.

I'm not sure what you mean that he didn't receive direct teaching from the Lord.

Galatians 1:12 NLT - "I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ."
1 Thessalonians 4:15 NLT - "We tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the Lord returns will not meet him ahead of those who have died."

I have never thought of Paul as better than any of the other Apostles. I consider him to have lived a more consistent life, but not necessarily better. Whoever thinks that way doesn't understand how the Body of Christ works. Each member of the body has its own Purpose. Some people have money to give. Some are great at speaking. Some are made for service to the body. Some offer their cleaning services. Some sing and others play instruments. Some study eschatology. Some study this and some that.

What Paul teaches is a part of the Body of Scripture. It is one incredible Story knit together by one God. Sure, humans seemed to have penned it, but it is a remarkable, unbelievable Story. I highly recommend that people learn the entire Bible in a timeline, chronological order. It will change your perspective on the Bible.

The whole "faith only" discussion is silly. We need to learn our complete Bible in a timeline, chronological order so that when we [do] speak on such topics, we can speak with authority on them. But if we don't know our entire Bibles, maybe we should think about staying silent for a while longer.

 

[Guojing]

I am not, please enlighten me.

A lot of these "tough" instructions of Jesus in the 4 Gospels, including selling all your possessions, the ones about plucking out your eyes and cutting off limbs, will make more sense if you are aware that Jesus coming to Israel was not a surprise to any Jew who understands Daniel's prophetic timetable.

That is why Mary was not shocked when Gabriel told her she will give birth to the Messiah. Jews who study the OT know that the time is imminent for the birth of the Son of God.

If you were a Jew living in the time of Jesus's first coming, you will know these 2 things

1. For Israel to enter the kingdom of God, under the gospel of the kingdom, faith in Jesus + obeying the Law are required.
2. Daniel's 70th week will begin soon for Israel, since the Messiah will be "cut off" in week 69th.

Daniel's prophetic timetable, that the Messiah was cut off/crucified at the end of week 69th, that means Israel has an upcoming 7 years of Tribulation (the 70th week) that can take place anytime starting from Acts 1

When Jesus made Peter the rock, it was the rock of this particular Jewish assembly, the greek word they used for church means called out assembly.

So early Acts, Peter was very prominent as the head of the church, but as Israel continue to reject Christ, and ended up stoning Stephen, Israel started to diminish (Romans 11:11), and Peter's status diminished accordingly.

If you read Acts

1. Peter was shining in Acts 1-6.
2. Stephen was killed and Peter started to diminish in status.
3. In Acts 15, James, who was not even one of the 12, came literally out of nowhere to become in charge of the Jerusalem church and made the final decision at the council instead of Peter.
4. Peter became afraid of the "men from James" after Acts 15 (Galatians 2:12)
5. Peter was not mentioned by name again after Acts 15. When Paul returned to Jerusalem in Acts 21, it was only "James and the elders".

 

[Guojing]

I would assume it's because Moses was the original leader of the Israelites and received a revelation directly from God the Father. That may have something to do with the reason he consulted with Moses on the night before his passion (among others so their is not exactly irrelevant).

Let's just say that, hypothetically, if Jesus had to make another coming back to Earth to fulfill some promises God had made to the Body of Christ, as he did for Israel (Romans 15:8), he would have answered our various questions and discussions with,

1. What did Paul instruct you?
2. Paul allowed you do to this because...

You understand this point?