How should we read Paul?

[Righttruth]

That's wrong. How many Churches teach the Lords prayer? If they dont teach it its because they are not following it.

We frequently recite that in our church.

 

[Righttruth]

Preachers want to store wealth on earth instead of heaven, that's why some of them say that the sermon cant be followed. That scripture agrees with the example of the Church in acts 4 however, and so it is possible to obey the Lords sermon on the mount, Jesus teaches many good things in the sermon on the mount

If you don't believe in the Sermon on the Mount, you are not a believer in the Lord.

 

[Righttruth]

You have no truth in you....

Follow Jesus without obstruction from Paul to know the truth.

 

[Righttruth]

It's called knowing the message in the original language which is Greek.

I will however graciously accept your capitulation on this matter as you agreed to the definition.

Is this another trick you imagine to convince yourself what is not there?

 

[Righttruth]

And on this point, we must remember that St. Paul most certsinly did perform the will of the Father, of the Son, of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul himself warns us of Satanic delusion in Galatians 1:8, which is actuslly the key lynchpin for your doctrine.

Not entirely and limited to his short cuts and troubled by a messenger of Satan

 

[jerry kelso]

I believe in the gifts of the Spirit barring the gift of interpretation which was an invention of crafty Paul to shut the mouths of the people who were mocking the Pentecostal outpouring with gibberish talk. I attend a big non-denominational church, an off shoot of Methodists.



Proof is misbehavior, acrobatics and circus shows, show of animal instincts, speaking gibberish to let off steam once in a week inside a so called church building. Different interpreters give different interpretation for the same gibberish talk and no check for proof.

4. People who have no clue who is speaking, who is being spoken to, gradual revelation and how God dealt with men in different ages with different rules for men to live by and what the specific context says and how it lines up with the overall bible context is a tinkling cymbal who is pretending to have knowledge that they don't have. That is called self merit for knowledge puffs up. This is not true exegesis of scripture. Jerry Kelso[/quote]

Paul wrote as he was growing 1 Corinthians to Corinthians. Not to you or me. Applying that universally now is irrational.

Reply posting again since edit feature was not available [/QUOTE]


righttruth,

1. You say you believe in the gifts of the spirit except interpretation. Speaking in tongues is a gift and so is the interpretation. It was not an invention of Paul's and you have no scriptural proof of it. Paul's context on tongues and interpretation had nothing to do with talking gibberish if you are implying that a message had to be understood in a native language only. There are heavenly languages such as tongues of angels and the spirit speaks in mysteries through us. There is no scripture that says Paul was trying to stop the mouth of the people who were mocking the pentecostal outpouring. He was trying to get them to understand the purpose for tongues as a sign to the unbeliever and that there needed to be an interpretation.

2. An offshoot of the Methodists? So what, many of them are beginning to believe that the bible is not inerrant and I am sure that is what they teach from the perception you cast.

3. You make an accusation that gibberish is given and not check proofed. What scriptural or real hard core evidence can you give to support that? Satan has a counterfeit for most everything God does but that doesn't mean that everything is false, even if you give some examples of personal experience. I have heard real gibberish as you call it that was of God and some that was not. The jewish leaders gave alms which was of God but did it for show and made it a tradition of man because of a motive of pride and hypocrisy. That doesn't mean giving alms as a jew was wrong.

4. Paul said we grow from grace to grace but that wasn't the context of what I said. Gradual revelation was about how the redemptive plan of God unfolded. It was a little at a time till the cross.
It was also in answering to your statement about understanding context and people etc.
This had nothing to do with Paul growing in his personal relationship with God. I was not applying universally about one's personal relationship with God.

5. You are wrong again and all you want to do is talk your opinion and make a few statements of some things you read in the bible. Your understanding is not context and has no exegesis involved with it and it is nothing less than superficial and surface level in nature. I'm sorry, but all you have proved is how little effort you put in studying and comprehending the word. If you do put time into it you are wasting your time because it makes you have tunnel vision. There has been no scriptural substance in what you have said. Now I love you in the Lord but you really should try to quit talking in generalizations and opinions and give not only scripture but contextual meaning.
You can believe whatever you want but it is not fair to God or for us on this board who are trying to properly debate and rebut by scripture and context. Will you at least try to do the right thing or is there some reason you like to spin all the time? All I ask is to be fair in debate and rebuttal and exegesis of the word concerning these matters. Jerry Kelso

 

[redleghunter]

Please do some research on old manuscripts.

Please do show the manuscript evidence supporting your claims.

 

[redleghunter]

1 Corinthians 1
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Paul is throwing the Great Commission to an open field.

You have yet to state how you define the Gospel. I'll wait.

 

[redleghunter]

Excluding all Paul's epistles--appendix part that has led to appendicitis.

Please do list the various texts you find to be inspired and valid for teaching, reproof and correction. You are throwing out Pauline epistles and you also stated some Gnostic texts. Perhaps if you listed the books and works you derive your theology from, these conversations would be more productive.

 

[redleghunter]

Is this another trick you imagine to convince yourself what is not there?

By that answer I will have to conclude you can read and write Hebrew and Koine Greek. Then please exegete the word used for apostle in the NT. I'll wait.

 

[jerry kelso]

Perfect knowledge is not possible for anybody now. You are contradicting what Paul admitted:
1 Corinthians 13
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;



That is how Paul degraded the old covenant with his rhetoric. Can you dishonor your parents and kill another person claiming freedom through the new covenant? The spirit of the Law demands not even bad thinking about those sinful deeds.



Do you know the responsibilities and limitations of believers in Christ?



No, they were Jews before, but transformed to disciples by answering the call of Jesus.



Yes, differences are there. But doesn't mean the OT was rubbish or bad; it was only incomplete. Do you think God gave bad things to start with?



Jesus words can never understood through Paul.

righttruth,

1. 1 Corinthians 13 has nothing to do with Paul knowing all the 613 laws of Judaism or the KOH and the KOG message through the covenants of Abraham and David.

2. Paul didn't degrade the old covenant. In 2 Corinthians 3 he talks about the glory of the law. The new covenant has more glory because it is the full revelation of the redemptive plan through Christ Jesus who is the endless life that can help one perform the commandment. The law could only say thou shalt not because it had no power to help one perform the commandment or help save a person from their sins. You are a law keeper of the highest and yet you can't keep it. The new covenant is a higher standard but it doesn't pivot off of self effort. We perform the commandment now because of who we are and not by what we do. We do because of what Christ did at the cross and resurrection.

3. To trust and obey and be who we are in Christ being led by the spirit and allowing God to work in us so we can have the power to put legs to faith and carry out the command. This is our responsibility. To know him and the power of his resurrection and study to show ourselves approved of God et. One can work up to a code of ethical and moral laws and never be saved. One can be saved and struggle with performing the commandments because of the law of Moses mentality of the weakness of the commandment. If one is subdued under the law this causes them to rebel. If it who we are in Christ we will automatically gravitate to doing the commandment.

4. Limitations of a believer happen when we are not walking in faith. The standard of grace is higher than that of the law and God will chasten us but we are not cursed as under the law of Moses had.

5. Peter said, the flesh has ceased from sin so we wouldn't fulfill the lusts of the flesh. John said that those who are born of God doth not commit sin for his seed remaineth in them. Paul said to abstain from the very appearance of evil. So there is no division in what Jesus said and Paul said concerning the standards of not sinning.

6. They were disciples in Christ earthly ministry and still ignorant even after the resurrection. Peter didn't have a clue in Matthew 16:22-23 and even later he denied Christ 3 times as his disciple. They were all transformed after the resurrection when he espoused to them what the law and Moses said about him and why etc. Luke 24:44-47. They were more transformed at the Day of Pentecost of which Jesus told them to tarry in Jerusalem until they be endued with power of the Holy Ghost to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth.

7. You think that I think the ot was rubberish because I believe it was abolished. If you do you are dead wrong and have no clue what the word of God says.

8. Romans 7 talks about the law of Moses being Holy and Good.
9. Romans 2 and 9-11 talks about the jews position of the covenants and how God has not forgotten them.

10. The law of Moses was the best God gave to them. Abraham and the patriarchs didn't have the full revelation of redemption either but this doesn't mean God disses the lesser revelation of another age.

11. The law keepers in the early church such as the jewish leaders were mad because the 12 apostles were preaching the resurrection and they wanted the law to be preached and legalistically performed.

12. The law of Moses was wrapped up in types and shadows and that is why the new covenant is better for the reality died on a cross to set us free from mere rules and regulations that was a yoke of bondage as Peter called it.

13. If you are going to be a law keeper you have to live the whole law of Moses which is keeping the 613 laws and 1000 and more statutes and commandments to the hilt otherwise if you mess up in one you've messed up in all and you will suffer specific judgements.

14. Jesus said the blood was the new testament and Paul agrees that we can only be saved by the blood.

15. The best thing you can do is label at least 10 reasons of what you think Paul got carried away on of Jesus teaching and then I will tell you why Paul said them and what he meant. Then maybe we make some progress. Go! Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Building castles in the air ably propped by Paul's speculations!

righttruth,

Full of opinions and no facts. To understand the sermon on the mount has to do with understanding the old testament and the context of the KOH and the KOG according to the covenants of Abraham and David to the nation of Israel specifically and only and not Paul's speculations.
You make up accusations you can't substantiate, give no scriptural basis for much of anything or at least to proper context. You have no valid reason to post. Your whole perception is a tinkling cymbal of wrong knowledge trying to sound right. Be fair and honest for a change. Jerry kelso

 

[redleghunter]

It was not his 'own' power. God worked miracles through the 12 and Paul. The miracles confirm the message is true.

Wicked generation seeks signs and wonders. Satan can do greater works. Only those who do the will of the Father will be saved.

Are you implying the 12 and Paul performed the works of Satan? I would be very careful.

By their fruits we know them. Satan presence and influence are expected everywhere. He was there even in God's garden of Eden. Wheat and tare grow together. We need the help of the Holy Spirit to distinguish between the two.

Peter was rebutted and given the title of Satan for proposing what an intimate and well wisher does to his teacher.

All I can conclude from the above exchange is that the apostles performed some miracles that were from God and some that were not from Satan. The Pharisees made this claim against Jesus Christ.

You do realize throughout the OT and NT the Power of God always accompanied the Word spoken.

 

[Righttruth]

And on this point, we must remember that St. Paul most certsinly did perform the will of the Father, of the Son, of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul himself warns us of Satanic delusion in Galatians 1:8, which is actuslly the key lynchpin for your doctrine.

No, many diversions from the teaching of Jesus can be observed by those who give utmost importance to Jesus and His words

 

[Extraneous]

If you don't believe in the Sermon on the Mount, you are not a believer in the Lord.

I believe the sermon in the mount.

 

[Righttruth]

The Orthodox Church sings the Beatitudes at every divine liturgy.

It must be a divine feeling to hear the beatitudes when beautifully sung.

We are all hypocrites. The only man unblemished with hypocrisy is our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Fully agree. But for many nominal Christians, it is an unpalatable fact.

With good reason; these are the oldest books in the New Testament and a vital part of the Gospel message.

I disagree. Paul was growing. His earlier letter of 1 Corinthians sent to notorious Corinth church was an effort to find a solution on his own wisdom. Paul was there for about one and a half years. How come such basic flaws were observed after he left, like, improper observance of communal meal and communion, immorality, speaking gibberish, etc.?

The Eastern Orthodox Church reads the entire New Testament with the exception of Revelations, in church, each year.

Why not the book of Revelation by John? Even though it is highly symbolic, it contains very profound truths.

The Anglicans who use the older editions of the Book of Common Prayer (1662, 1928 American, 1962 Canadian), vs. the dreadful Novus Ordo influenced 1979 BCP, or Common Worship in the UK, read the entire New Testament twice in church in the course of a year. The Copts also read the entire NT, including revelations, every year. Without abbreviations, omissions, or eisegetical cherry picking.

Mere reading will not help unless people put the words of Jesus to practice.

I agree. It is for this reason that we must acceot the teachings of all of the Apostles of our Lord, including St. Paul, whose ministry was critical in spreading the Gospel to the gentiles.

St. Paul definitely influenced the Gentile world but with compromises compared to the preaching essence of Jesus which he was not aware of.

 

[Righttruth]

Love i the greatest command, and it fulfills the law. Its not so easy to understand though, it requires following and meditating on the Lords commands, and growing through the spirit. Paul has helped me understand love because he taught me the value of suffering. It teaches us empathy for one thing. I am not all knowledgeable or mature, but i can see how love is the greatest. The cross is about Gods love, and Christ wants us to follow his example of love.

As I have indicated earlier, we have agape, carnal and friendly love. Agape love is exclusive for God. The second is love of neighbors. The third is carnal with married couple. Mixing up is misleading.

 

[Extraneous]

righttruth,

Full of opinions and no facts. To understand the sermon on the mount has to do with understanding the old testament and the context of the KOH and the KOG according to the covenants of Abraham and David to the nation of Israel specifically and only and not Paul's speculations.
You make up accusations you can't substantiate, give no scriptural basis for much of anything or at least to proper context. You have no valid reason to post. Your whole perception is a tinkling cymbal of wrong knowledge trying to sound right. Be fair and honest for a change. Jerry kelso

You cant substantiate things you say either. You have discarded the sermon on the mount making its command void. You probably do the same thing with Pauls commands. All Pentecostals see is prosperity teaching i assume. The commands are useless to them, but they invent prosperity doctrine instead, by misapplying scripture. I cant show partiality in judgment here, if i disagree with Righttruth, i must also disagree with you when you're wrong.

 

[Righttruth]

All i know is that i don't follow miracles. I follow the word. Paul teaches that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. Christ, when talking to Thomas (who doubted), said that those who have not seen but still believe are blessed, and to me that agrees with what paul teaches as well, when he says that faith comes by hearing. Christ is always saying. "he who has ears let him hear".

This is my point too. We need to read and hear what the Holy Spirit says, not simply reading with preconceived notions.

 

[Extraneous]

righttruth,

Full of opinions and no facts. To understand the sermon on the mount has to do with understanding the old testament and the context of the KOH and the KOG according to the covenants of Abraham and David to the nation of Israel specifically and only and not Paul's speculations.
You make up accusations you can't substantiate, give no scriptural basis for much of anything or at least to proper context. You have no valid reason to post. Your whole perception is a tinkling cymbal of wrong knowledge trying to sound right. Be fair and honest for a change. Jerry kelso

Its more han that, its the Lords spiritual leading of his sheep.