How should we read Paul?

[Extraneous]

extraneous,
I have no idea what post you are talking about. I got to this post way after it started. I will be glad to look it up because many WOF believe Jesus taught new covenant teachings as well.
Questions are not a game but it is to see if you understand what Jesus meant by the sermon to the jews only under the Mosaic law according to the KOH and the KOG message and the covenants of Abraham and David. Can you tell if you understand this context which was historical and from the old testament scriptures?
I have heard people say the Sermon on the mount not being able to be obeyed but one has to understand what context they are speaking in. Can you tell me or is just from your understanding of what you think it means from the perception it seems to give. Let me know and in the mean while I will try to find that post so I can be specific of what they said and meant. Jerry Kelso

Never mind.

 

[Righttruth]

Good works are evidence of true faith, but that doesn't answer the question. Does faith save, or is it the good works?

Salvation through both, not alone.

Matthew 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

 

[Righttruth]

Again, Colossians 2:9

Unrelated.

 

[Righttruth]

You have yet to show proof.

Please go through my reply nos. 680, 726 & 741

 

[Righttruth]

Your author says:
the law is not a curse within itself, nor are all that rely on the works of the law under a curse. Rather, those who obey it are under a manifold blessing!

What does it mean to rely on the works of the law?

It is not the author. Author quoting a seminary student seeking truth. Do you think God gave Law to curse? God forbid such a thought. It was blessing for those who obeyed it during the OT period. However, it was not enough subsequently with the advent of the NT

 

[Righttruth]

righttruth,
Paul said the gospel was the death, burial and resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-10: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, HOW THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; AND THAT HE WAS BURIED AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES: AND THAT HE WAS SEEN OF CEPHAS, THEN OF THE TWELVE; AFTER THAT, HE WAS SEEN OF ABOVE FIVE HUNDRED BRETHREN AT ONCE; OF WHOM THE GREATER PART REMAIN UNTO THIS PRESENT, BUT SOME ARE FALLEN ASLEEP. AFTER THAT, HE WAS SEEN OF JAMES; THEN OF ALL THE APOSTLES. AND LAST OF ALL HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO, AS OF ONE BORN OUT OF DUE TIME. FOR I AM THE LEAST OF THE APOSTLES, THAT AM NOT MEET TO BE CALLED AN APOSTLE, BECAUSE I PERSECUTED THE CHURCH OF GOD. BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD I AM WHAT I AM: AND HIS GRACER WHICH WAS BESTOWED UPON ME WAS NOT IN VAIN: BUT I LABOURED MORE ABUNDANTLY THAN THEY ALL: YET NOT I, BUT THE GRACE OF GOD WHICH WAS WITH ME.

Rendering history is not the spiritual thing.

Paul says the same thing that Jesus did about the death, burial and resurrection was the gospel.

This one line is not the three and a half ministry and preaching of Jesus.

Jesus said in Luke 24:44-47: AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, THESE ARE THE WORDS THAT I SPAKE UNTO YOU, WHILE I WAS YET WITH YOU, THAT ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, WHICH WERE WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES, AND IN THE PROPHETS, AND IN THE PSALMS, CONCERNING ME.
THEN OPENED HE THEIR UNDERSTANDING, THAT THEY MIGH UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES, AND SAID UNTO THEM, THUS IT IS IS WRITTEN, AND THUS IT BEHOVED CHRIST TO SUFFER, AND TO RISE FROM THE DEATH THE THIRD DAY: AND TYHAT REPENTANCE AND REMISSION OF SINS SHOULD B E PREACHED IN HIS NAME AMONG ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM.
Paul was talking about the scriptures of Christ death and resurrection just like Jesus.

That is just a part, not the whole. Let us not forget this: Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus warned of false prophets and anti-Christ people doing great things.

The subject of my response were the prophets of the OT and apostles of the NT. You just called them false prophets and antichrists. Can you back up this claim on a Christian site?

 

[jerry kelso]

If i misunderstood your words jerry kelso, you'll need to forgive me. I once had a WOF Charismatic tell me that the sermon on the mount was impossible to obey. He was preaching prosperity doctrine and i quoted Mathew 6:19, which he responded by saying that the sermon on the mount was impossible to obey. He said we are not meant to obey it. He said its only meant to show us our sin. Thats not true though because when the Lord says not to store treasure on earth but in heaven, he actually means it. Seeing you are a Pentecostal, i assumed you were also saying the sermon on the mount is impossible to obey. You could have just let me know that you were quoting another poster when you typed those words. It might have been helpful

extraneous,

1. Post 639 was your post and you said I discarded the Sermon on the Mount and said you assumed all pentecostals believe the sermon on the mount was impossible to obey.
The reason you assumed that is because of a WOF charismatic and their belief on the prosperity doctrine. I said in post 653 that I did not discard the sermon on the mount and that you stereotyped me because obviously you think all pentecostals believe the same thing. Wrong!. Assembly of God is not the same as WOF.

2. The reason the WOF said that was because of the context of being under the Mosaic law. You are most likely looking at it in the context of morals or new covenant teachings.

3. First of all the WOF is right if he was talking about Jesus preaching the Mosaic law which gave knowledge of sin. Romans 19-23 bears out stopping each mouth of those under the law of Moses and how they were guilty of God and how they could not be justified by the deeds or works of the law, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. He also talks about the righteousness of God without the Mosaic law is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

4. Jesus was talking to Israel who was backslidden under the old covenant. This is why Jesus said, Repent, for the KOH is at hand. The KOH and the KOH reign was conditioned by obedience to David in 1 Chronicles 28:5-7. Verse 3 God told David would not build his house because he was a man of war but it would be in his name. Their gifts and callings are without repentance Romans 11:29.
Israel was to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. The church is likewise but in this context the salt was no good if it lost its savor it was no good but to be trodden down under the foot of men. This could not being speaking to the church of the body of Christ because Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church. Israel was trodden down under the foot of men from 70 A.D. to 1948 and even today are still backslidden as a physical nation. The church is a microorganism and not a physical nation with one geographical location.

5. The KOH reign is about the Davidic covenant which was to be fulfilled in Jesus day but was rejected because of Israel's disobedience. Isaiah 9:6-7 Matthew 23:37-39. The Abrahamic covenant was about the land in Genesis 12-15 and this is why Jesus said in Matthew 5:5; Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. This was about the land and the kingdom both because Israel will be the head of the nations in their earthly calling.

6. The Sermon on the Mount starts with Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted. Mourn means to repent. Israel was under the Mosaic law which had a specific blessing and cursing system of which the church is not under. They had to mourn or repent, they were to be poor in spirit which meant to recognize they had nothing to bring to Christ, they were to be void of all themselves and recognize Christ as their ultimate source for everything. They were to be meek and hunger and thirst after righteousness, for pride comes before a fall and they were to seek the KOG in its spiritual aspect first and everything would be added unto them. The law said if you keep all the commandments which were 613 and more statutes and commandments in order to never be sick etc. They were to be merciful to obtain mercy otherwise they would be in sin for not performing the commandment. They were to be pure in heart and they were to be the peacemakers. They were not peacemakers for they had at least 28 insurrections against the Roman government and they hated them and wanted a conqueror but no repentance. All these things had to be performed by Israel so they could gain entrance into the Kingdom and be able to fulfill their covenants.

7. Christians are to be who we are in Christ and his finished work and we are not to be backslidden in the new covenant. We are also are not under a specific blessing and cursing system to achieve righteousness to God. This mentality of the law is because people are performance based whether well meaning or not and this is why much of the church lives in defeat.

8. The law of Moses is very close in relation to the new covenant because of morals but at opposite end of the polars when it comes to the overall ethic and rule of living. Under Moses law adultery was wrong but the law couldn't help the law keeper to perform the commandment. The law could not help save. The perfect example of the law mentality being destructive and making a believer live in sin for the law of Moses was holy and good but the law of sin and death took advantage of Moses law and made the law keeper live to the frailty of man which was falling into sin.

9. The law of sin and death was done away by the law of the Spirit Romans 8:2 which is under the new covenant. This is why we need to understand the new covenant versus the old covenant and its weakness and why God had to replace the old covenant. Hebrews 8:6-7.

10. New covenant believers are in a spiritual war and we can be caught off guard and because we are to grow from grace to grace we can still glean morally and for spiritual edification in our everyday lives. Who would say not to be pure in heart or be a peacemakers etc. We are talking about the historical context and the mosaic law and Israel's covenants etc. vs. moral context according to the new covenant.
If one bypasses the historical context under a different age with different rules etc you run the risk of not really understanding the full effect of the glory of the old and yet how much more glorious of the new. Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians 3:1-16.
It can be a difference in personal relationship of doing instead of what he did and being who you are in Christ and his finished work. Hebrews 6:1 talks about leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ which was the Mosaic law and go onto perfection which was the new covenant and maturity.

6. Laying up treasures in heaven was important in every age and the sermon doesn't do away with that important fact, nor does it destroy the validity of the historical context of which actually happened.

7. Moral law was in every age but merely being moral doesn't save one for the blood is what saves. At the same time God is the Moral Governor of the Universe and has Moral law of which Moral freewill agents have to abide by. One has to get the contexts right and understand their truth in proper perspective before you can really understand what it means to us who are after the cross. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

Rendering history is not the spiritual thing.



This one line is not the three and a half ministry and preaching of Jesus.



That is just a part, not the whole. Let us not forget this: Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you

righttruth,
Understanding the historical and dispensational aspect is a must to understand the whole context. If you just try and understand just the spiritual aspect you might go awry depending on what your own understanding is and run the risk of missing the point in the context. Even you said you believe in understanding context and what people are talking about and talking to you.

Jesus prophesied his death, burial and resurrection when he said; Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days not to mention this was in reference to a question the scribes and pharisees asked who were always trying to trick him.
The line about openly showing his reason for the death and resurrection being the gospel was after Israel's rejection but Paul agreed with this. Jesus teachings of the Mosaic law in his earthly ministry was not the gospel. The gospel was the death, burial and resurrection. You say that Paul's letters was not scriptural and that is not true. Yes, did he give credit to the old covenant as his basis? What he says about the church and his ministry to the gentiles was accepted by God and the apostles.
You have not even given a specific scripture to prove your point. If you are going to make an accusation you have to back it up with scripture so let me know specifically where you think Paul was in disagreement with Jesus and I will tell you why or why not?

Matthew 28:20 is to observe all that he commanded them in proper perspective. otherwise it is just your perspective. Jerry Kelso

 

[nomadictheist]

Salvation through both, not alone.

Matthew 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Salvation by faith alone, which produces good works.

The thief who was justly condemned to die for living a life of sin was hanging on the cross next to Jesus, believed in the last hours of his life, and now is in paradise.

David, the Psalmist who spoke many words against the wicked, committed, among other violations of the law, adultery, deceit, and murder, all in one affair.

But again, read the words of Jesus:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:16-17)

And again,

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one..."

Jesus doesn't say that good works are necessary for salvation. In fact, He constantly tells His audience that no amount of good works is enough to get you to heaven.

Good works are evidence of faith, and come from Christ, not from us. Without Jesus we can do nothing.

 

[nomadictheist]

It is not the author. Author quoting a seminary student seeking truth. Do you think God gave Law to curse? God forbid such a thought. It was blessing for those who obeyed it during the OT period. However, it was not enough subsequently with the advent of the NT

It's in the law, if only you took the time to read it.

"Cursed be everyone who does not affirm all these things by doing them."

So this means that anyone who is guilty of breaking any part of the law of Moses is cursed.

And you didn't answer my question. What does it mean to rely on the law?

 

[redleghunter]

Unrelated.

Only if one denies the Deity of the Son of God and Son of man Jesus Christ.

 

[Foghorn]

Please go through my reply nos. 680, 726 & 741

Ok, I will look at these.

 

[Extraneous]

extraneous,

1. Post 639 was your post and you said I discarded the Sermon on the Mount and said you assumed all pentecostals believe the sermon on the mount was impossible to obey.
The reason you assumed that is because of a WOF charismatic and their belief on the prosperity doctrine. I said in post 653 that I did not discard the sermon on the mount and that you stereotyped me because obviously you think all pentecostals believe the same thing. Wrong!. Assembly of God is not the same as WOF.

2. The reason the WOF said that was because of the context of being under the Mosaic law. You are most likely looking at it in the context of morals or new covenant teachings.

3. First of all the WOF is right if he was talking about Jesus preaching the Mosaic law which gave knowledge of sin. Romans 19-23 bears out stopping each mouth of those under the law of Moses and how they were guilty of God and how they could not be justified by the deeds or works of the law, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. He also talks about the righteousness of God without the Mosaic law is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

4. Jesus was talking to Israel who was backslidden under the old covenant. This is why Jesus said, Repent, for the KOH is at hand. The KOH and the KOH reign was conditioned by obedience to David in 1 Chronicles 28:5-7. Verse 3 God told David would not build his house because he was a man of war but it would be in his name. Their gifts and callings are without repentance Romans 11:29.
Israel was to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. The church is likewise but in this context the salt was no good if it lost its savor it was no good but to be trodden down under the foot of men. This could not being speaking to the church of the body of Christ because Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church. Israel was trodden down under the foot of men from 70 A.D. to 1948 and even today are still backslidden as a physical nation. The church is a microorganism and not a physical nation with one geographical location.

5. The KOH reign is about the Davidic covenant which was to be fulfilled in Jesus day but was rejected because of Israel's disobedience. Isaiah 9:6-7 Matthew 23:37-39. The Abrahamic covenant was about the land in Genesis 12-15 and this is why Jesus said in Matthew 5:5; Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. This was about the land and the kingdom both because Israel will be the head of the nations in their earthly calling.

6. The Sermon on the Mount starts with Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted. Mourn means to repent. Israel was under the Mosaic law which had a specific blessing and cursing system of which the church is not under. They had to mourn or repent, they were to be poor in spirit which meant to recognize they had nothing to bring to Christ, they were to be void of all themselves and recognize Christ as their ultimate source for everything. They were to be meek and hunger and thirst after righteousness, for pride comes before a fall and they were to seek the KOG in its spiritual aspect first and everything would be added unto them. The law said if you keep all the commandments which were 613 and more statutes and commandments in order to never be sick etc. They were to be merciful to obtain mercy otherwise they would be in sin for not performing the commandment. They were to be pure in heart and they were to be the peacemakers. They were not peacemakers for they had at least 28 insurrections against the Roman government and they hated them and wanted a conqueror but no repentance. All these things had to be performed by Israel so they could gain entrance into the Kingdom and be able to fulfill their covenants.

7. Christians are to be who we are in Christ and his finished work and we are not to be backslidden in the new covenant. We are also are not under a specific blessing and cursing system to achieve righteousness to God. This mentality of the law is because people are performance based whether well meaning or not and this is why much of the church lives in defeat.

8. The law of Moses is very close in relation to the new covenant because of morals but at opposite end of the polars when it comes to the overall ethic and rule of living. Under Moses law adultery was wrong but the law couldn't help the law keeper to perform the commandment. The law could not help save. The perfect example of the law mentality being destructive and making a believer live in sin for the law of Moses was holy and good but the law of sin and death took advantage of Moses law and made the law keeper live to the frailty of man which was falling into sin.

9. The law of sin and death was done away by the law of the Spirit Romans 8:2 which is under the new covenant. This is why we need to understand the new covenant versus the old covenant and its weakness and why God had to replace the old covenant. Hebrews 8:6-7.

10. New covenant believers are in a spiritual war and we can be caught off guard and because we are to grow from grace to grace we can still glean morally and for spiritual edification in our everyday lives. Who would say not to be pure in heart or be a peacemakers etc. We are talking about the historical context and the mosaic law and Israel's covenants etc. vs. moral context according to the new covenant.
If one bypasses the historical context under a different age with different rules etc you run the risk of not really understanding the full effect of the glory of the old and yet how much more glorious of the new. Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians 3:1-16.
It can be a difference in personal relationship of doing instead of what he did and being who you are in Christ and his finished work. Hebrews 6:1 talks about leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ which was the Mosaic law and go onto perfection which was the new covenant and maturity.

6. Laying up treasures in heaven was important in every age and the sermon doesn't do away with that important fact, nor does it destroy the validity of the historical context of which actually happened.

7. Moral law was in every age but merely being moral doesn't save one for the blood is what saves. At the same time God is the Moral Governor of the Universe and has Moral law of which Moral freewill agents have to abide by. One has to get the contexts right and understand their truth in proper perspective before you can really understand what it means to us who are after the cross. Jerry Kelso

I dont agree with WOF, never mind.

 

[Extraneous]

I should add, if you are NOT WOF, then nevermind

 

[ScottA]

The word in Hebrew is interesting that is translated as 'confuse' or 'confound'. But it doesn't mean to confuse as we understand that English meaning. It was to make it so they couldn't communicate with each other, but that didn't mean they couldn't communicate with God.

Our God is not one who would confuse us, but he stopped mankind from grouping together against him which oddly today that has been all but reversed by mankind in today's technology.

I don't mean that God is somehow devious with our understanding or playing tricks, messing with us. On the contrary, whether it is blindness or confusion, God has definitely acted to limit us...but "for our good."

 

[Lulav]

I don't mean that God is somehow devious with our understanding or playing tricks, messing with us. On the contrary, whether it is blindness or confusion, God has definitely acted to limit us...but "for our good."

I'd have to argue that point as it seems that 'we' were 'protected for our own good' and should have stuck to partaking only from the tree of life, but instead the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was chosen and then we were exposed to both sides that existed.

I'm not sure of your understanding here. According to how the words are translated, confusion and blindness are two different things;but both seem to be reserved for those who are not Gods people. OTOH, there is that passage that says :And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.:

But that again looks to me like it's speaking about Unbelievers.

What do you think God has limited us from knowing?

 

[Foghorn]

Please read my reply no. 680 to begin with.

I'm asking you, not the author of a book. If he would like to join this forum, perhaps I would ask him.

So, why not bring forth some scriptures and prove your belief?

 

[Foghorn]

Please read my replies nos. 726

Again, why not bring some scripture, perhaps one verse at a time to prove your belief?

I challenge you to.

If you cannot, just admit it.

I don't want to read someones book, I want to discuss this with you.

 

[Foghorn]

You are taking the word of a man who does not embrace Christianity and still considers himself Hindu.

He knows nothing about Paul other then what his book says. I hope he will bring some scripture and we can look at it, however, I don't think he will. Really, he can't.