Infallibility of Scripture?

[Sophia7]

Paul actually didn't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God at His birth, but was 'declared' to be the Son of God at the Resurrection (Rom.1:4).

Romans 1:4 sounds a lot like Acts 17:31, which uses the same Greek word for "declared" or "appointed" as Romans 1:4 in connection with Jesus' resurrection:

30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."​

The point of both is that the resurrection was proof that Jesus was the Son of God, not that He became the Son of God then.

Paul didn't believe that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) but of 'natural means' just like the rest of us.

Where do you see that?

Paul also said that God gave him a demon (a messenger of Satan) to keep him from boasting. This does not seem at all reasonable because God would NEVER use Satan to keep someone from sinning. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Didn't God use Satan to prove a point in the book of Job?

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.
2 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."
3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause."
4 Satan answered the LORD and said, "Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life.
5 "However, put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse You to Your face."
6 So the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life."
7 Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.
8 And he took a potsherd to scrape himself while he was sitting among the ashes.
9 Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!"
10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.​

Did God cause Job's afflictions, or did He allow Satan to inflict them? Did God cause Paul's affliction, or did He allow Satan to inflict it?

Your "evidence" is only speculation and misinterpretation of verses taken out of context.

 

[VictorC]

Therefore, for me I KNOW the Jesus the disciples saw was the real deal because their testimony matches who Jesus is. And based on significant other evidence the being that Saul saw WAS NOT the Jesus that the eyewitness disciples knew as their Lord and Savior.

Peter equated Paul's epistles with "the rest of the Scriptures" in 2 Peter 3:16, which is an endorsement of Paul's testimony contrary to what you "know". Paul also points out the sovereignty of the Heir and God's adopted children in Galatians 4:1-7 consistent with what Jesus taught Peter in Matthew 17:24-26 - showing that Paul's description of Jesus is consistent with what Jesus taught about Himself. I would like to see what evidence you use to reject Paul's epistles, as this is a position the SDA church does not adhere to.

 

[Soon144k]

Peter equated Paul's epistles with "the rest of the Scriptures" in 2 Peter 3:16, which is an endorsement of Paul's testimony contrary to what you "know". Paul also points out the sovereignty of the Heir and God's adopted children in Galatians 4:1-7 consistent with what Jesus taught Peter in Matthew 17:24-26 - showing that Paul's description of Jesus is consistent with what Jesus taught about Himself. I would like to see what evidence you use to reject Paul's epistles, as this is a position the SDA church does not adhere to.

For me to believe this you will first have to show me the proof as to who actually wrote 2 Peter. The historic evidence is that Peter was already dead by the time 2 Peter was written, so he could not have made the statement you attribute to him.

You very clearly point out that Paul says that we are adopted into the family of God in Galatians, but Jesus even more clearly points out that we must be 'born' into the family (John 3:3-5, Rev. 12:1-5, 17). So which is it? It cannot be both, you must choose one or the other. I choose the words of Jesus Christ.

The ONLY way to KNOW what is truth is to compare what you believe against a rock solid standard. You can choose to believe anything about anyone, as long as you don't make a comparison to that standard. You can believe ANYTHING by faith, even if it is not true. This is exactly what Paul says:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Rom.10:4.

Here Paul says that all you have to do to 'prove' that Jesus ended the Law is believe that he did.

Jesus NEVER said this. In fact, Jesus said this:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matt.5:17-18.

Here is direct contradiction between Paul and Jesus. Why on earth would Jesus change what He said to His disciples by giving something different to Paul? This Jesus would never do, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

So you must choose. For me I choose Jesus Christ and Him alone as my source for truth.

 

[VictorC]

For me to believe this you will first have to show me the proof as to who actually wrote 2 Peter. The historic evidence is that Peter was already dead by the time 2 Peter was written, so he could not have made the statement you attribute to him.

It would seem that you have chosen to discard most of the New Testament epistles, leaving you with little to rely on for anything resembling Christianity. That becomes more evident later in your post.

You very clearly point out that Paul says that we are adopted into the family of God in Galatians, but Jesus even more clearly points out that we must be 'born' into the family (John 3:3-5, Rev. 12:1-5, 17). So which is it? It cannot be both, you must choose one or the other. I choose the words of Jesus Christ.

John 3 addresses being born again, and doesn't refer to a natural birth, while Revelation 12 addresses the national identity from which the Messiah came: "She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron" (Revelation 12:5). This was Israel, and isn't the birth of anyone entering into the Kingdom of God.

It would appear that you accept John's Gospel, in which 1:12 states "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name". This alludes to the adoption that became available via God's redemption, and is not a natural birth at all. The natural-born don't become something they already are, after all.

You apparently didn't think Matthew's Gospel account worth retaining, as I don't see you trying to reconcile his account with Peter or with Paul.

The ONLY way to KNOW what is truth is to compare what you believe against a rock solid standard. You can choose to believe anything about anyone, as long as you don't make a comparison to that standard. You can believe ANYTHING by faith, even if it is not true. This is exactly what Paul says:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Rom.10:4.

Here Paul says that all you have to do to 'prove' that Jesus ended the Law is believe that he did.

Jesus NEVER said this. In fact, Jesus said this:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matt.5:17-18.

Here is direct contradiction between Paul and Jesus. Why on earth would Jesus change what He said to His disciples by giving something different to Paul? This Jesus would never do, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I wonder if you accept the authenticity of the epistle to the Hebrews, since we don't know who wrote it (Ellen White claimed it was Paul). Jesus accurately described the requisite of compliance of the old covenant, which was still current during the time He spoke as recorded in Matthew 5. Matthew 5:20 builds on that theme of compliance looking to the scribes and Pharisees as the standard of compliance that needed to be exceeded, and there wasn't anyone more compliant with the law than that subset of Jewish society. Righteousness acceptable to God wasn't attained by the law, and that is what Jesus taught, consistent with Paul's statement "by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight" found in Romans 3:20.

You also nullified what Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17-18:

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.​

Jesus stated He was to fulfill the law and the prophets, and He taught the same in Luke 24:44:

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."​

Jesus equated the prophecies concerning Him with the decrees of the law that demanded atonement by blood "for all the people of the assembly" according to Leviticus 16:33, in the only rite that atoned for the entire nation. In order to remain consistent with the manner you placed fulfillment of the law and the prophets after the end of the earth, instead of before it, you necessarily dismiss all prophecy as never to be fulfilled.

You discarded Matthew before, and you don't remain consistent to his account. You're merely picking and choosing what you want from the menu, instead of accepting the entire account provided by the Biblical authors.

What you did was show that you could not distinguish the event that inaugurated the new covenant while calling on an old covenant quote.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

Without these verses, you would have a difficult time locating a concise statement that told you when the new covenant began and when the old covenant mediated under Moses came to a close.

So you must choose. For me I choose Jesus Christ and Him alone as my source for truth.

You not only dismissed the Words of Jesus Christ in your selective rendition of a non-gospel, but failed to acknowledge the impact of His propitiation on the cross of Calvary. The end result is that you believe Jesus testified that you need to remain within Judaism in order to earn your "salvation".

Good luck, Mr Phelps. This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

 

[Soon144k]

It would seem that you have chosen to discard most of the New Testament epistles, leaving you with little to rely on for anything resembling Christianity. That becomes more evident later in your post.

You are 'relying' on heresay evidence that is unsupportable by facts. Did Jesus ever say that we had to check our brains (logic and reason) at the door of faith? An what makes you think that I am a Christian? I am an SDA, and by that definition I am NOT a Christian. Also, I am a Bondservant of Jesus Christ. To be a Christian means that you accept the words of Paul because Paul coined the term 'Christian'.

John 3 addresses being born again, and doesn't refer to a natural birth, while Revelation 12 addresses the national identity from which the Messiah came: "She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron" (Revelation 12:5). This was Israel, and isn't the birth of anyone entering into the Kingdom of God.

The being that was to 'rule all nations with a rod of iron' is NOT Israel. Israel is no longer the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; that title has been left to another 'nation' (Dan.2:44). This verse in Rev.12:5 can only be speaking of Jesus Christ. The Woman of Rev.12:17 is giving birth to the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, the last of 'HER' offspring. It is these people who are the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of time.

It would appear that you accept John's Gospel, in which 1:12 states "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name". This alludes to the adoption that became available via God's redemption, and is not a natural birth at all. The natural-born don't become something they already are, after all.

Again, you must choose whom you will believe; Paul and adoption or Jesus Christ and being 'born again'. Jesus is clear that we must be born of the same Woman as was He if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That re-birth is accomplished by the process of sanctification through the words of Jesus (John 17:17) after which comes the re-birth by the Holy Spirit (the Woman of Rev.12).

You apparently didn't think Matthew's Gospel account worth retaining, as I don't see you trying to reconcile his account with Peter or with Paul.

Just because I didn't mention the gospel of Matthew in my previous post does not mean that I don't trust his version of what Jesus said. Matthew was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus on earth. Paul was NOT an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus on earth, so I will go with Matthew every time.


I wonder if you accept the authenticity of the epistle to the Hebrews, since we don't know who wrote it (Ellen White claimed it was Paul). Jesus accurately described the requisite of compliance of the old covenant, which was still current during the time He spoke as recorded in Matthew 5. Matthew 5:20 builds on that theme of compliance looking to the scribes and Pharisees as the standard of compliance that needed to be exceeded, and there wasn't anyone more compliant with the law than that subset of Jewish society. Righteousness acceptable to God wasn't attained by the law, and that is what Jesus taught, consistent with Paul's statement "by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight" found in Romans 3:20.

We know that Paul did not write Hebrews for this simple reason: in the 13 chapters of Hebrews the High Priest is mentioned 16 times. Paul does not mention the role of the High Priest a single time in all of his epistles. And again, how can a logical person that is not given to flights of fancy be expected to accept the words of a text as truth when they don't know for a fact who it was that wrote that document. We know who wrote Paul's epistles because he signed them; now we can make a judgement as to whether they are valid based on that signature. I am NOT going place my eternal life in the hands of someone the veracity of whom I do not know; such as with the unknown author of Hebrews. Why do this when I have all I need in the words of Jesus?

You also nullified what Jesus stated in Matthew 5:17-18:

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.​

Jesus stated He was to fulfill the law and the prophets, and He taught the same in Luke 24:44:

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."​

Jesus equated the prophecies concerning Him with the decrees of the law that demanded atonement by blood "for all the people of the assembly" according to Leviticus 16:33, in the only rite that atoned for the entire nation. In order to remain consistent with the manner you placed fulfillment of the law and the prophets after the end of the earth, instead of before it, you necessarily dismiss all prophecy as never to be fulfilled.

Say again how I nullified what Jesus said in Matt.5:17-18? Paul did a fine job of that on his own, and needs no help from me-nor will he get it from me. Has sin been eradicated from the world? Has everlasting righteousness been brought in? Have vision and prophecy been sealed up? What about this has been fulfilled? There are MANY prophecies concerning literal Israel that will now never be fulfilled because Israel no longer exists as the Kingdom of Heaven. The end-time prophecies of israel wherein during the reign of the Messiah on earth people would live lives as longs as trees means that they would STILL die. If people lived only 200 years it would be said of them that they died in their youth. This prophecy now will NEVER be fulfilled because when Jesus comes in the clouds of glory He will bring with Him life immortal for those in His Kingdom. Just because a prophecy is given does not automatically mean is will always be fulfilled.

You discarded Matthew before, and you don't remain consistent to his account. You're merely picking and choosing what you want from the menu, instead of accepting the entire account provided by the Biblical authors.

Again, why should I accept the words of people that disagree with Jesus Christ just because some other human being who I don't know chose to put them in the bible?

What you did was show that you could not distinguish the event that inaugurated the new covenant while calling on an old covenant quote.

Hebrews 9
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

Without these verses, you would have a difficult time locating a concise statement that told you when the new covenant began and when the old covenant mediated under Moses came to a close.

There IS NO difference between the 'old' Covenant and 'new' Covenant, accept where it is located. Old is on stone, New is in the mind and heart and innermost parts. The 10 Commandments are and always will be the Covenant of the Kingdom of Heaven (Deut.4:13).

You not only dismissed the Words of Jesus Christ in your selective rendition of a non-gospel, but failed to acknowledge the impact of His propitiation on the cross of Calvary. The end result is that you believe Jesus testified that you need to remain within Judaism in order to earn your "salvation".

You talk about the 'cross' as if it is something magical in and of itself. Where did Jesus EVER speak of His blood being the propitiation for our sin? You find this ONLY in the writings of Paul. Jesus WAS NOT a Jew; His Father and Mother are GOD, His DNA was NOT of earthly origin. You believe that salvation comes through grace by faith, I do not. You cannot show me ONE sentence that Jesus spoke as recorded by His eyewitness disciples that says this. We are saved not by grace through faith but by 'every word that comes from the mouth of God'. The blood of Jesus paid our penalty for disobedience to His Law, it did not overcome that disobedience for us-we have to do that on our own. When you go to the cross of Jesus today what do you find there? Nothing-He is Risen.


The one who conquers (overcomes sin), I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. Rev.3:21.

Good luck, Mr Phelps. This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

I don't need luck, I have the words of Jesus Christ. What do you have?

 

[VictorC]

I don't need luck, I have the words of Jesus Christ. What do you have?

You wrote quote a bit inside my post, where a lot of effort would be necessary to extract your comments and reply to them. In those comments I saw what appeared a claim to "go with Matthew every time".

I pointed out that you dismissed Matthew's account of the sermon on the mount and what Jesus taught Peter, which was the opening point I made to you. You didn't accept Matthew's account, and more than one of us has noted that your opinion is formed on only speculation and misinterpretation of verses taken out of context. You also have an unusual interpretation of Revelation 12 that doesn't match what John wrote at all, and you dismissed what John wrote in the beginning of his Gospel account.

 

[Soon144k]

You wrote quote a bit inside my post, where a lot of effort would be necessary to extract your comments and reply to them. In those comments I saw what appeared a claim to "go with Matthew every time".

I pointed out that you dismissed Matthew's account of the sermon on the mount and what Jesus taught Peter, which was the opening point I made to you. You didn't accept Matthew's account, and more than one of us has noted that your opinion is formed on only speculation and misinterpretation of verses taken out of context. You also have an unusual interpretation of Revelation 12 that doesn't match what John wrote at all, and you dismissed what John wrote in the beginning of his Gospel account.

Of course I accept what Jesus said in Matt.5:17-18, I dismissed nothing except the interpretation that this does not mean EXACTLY what Jesus said. He DID NOT come to abrogate the Covenant in any way. But when I say that you return with "I take these verses out of context". Please inform me of the context. Your context is Paul, my context is Jesus Christ. This being the case then every time I quote Jesus and that quote disagrees with Paul then what I quote will always be out of context to you. There is nothing I can do about that.

I replied in like manner as did you, ie, line by line, because you said i somehow misinterpreted Matthew's account of the Sermon on the mount and what Jesus said to Peter. We seem to be speaking a cross purposes here. Please tell me again what issues you want me to specifically address and I will do so.

 

[VictorC]

Of course I accept what Jesus said in Matt.5:17-18.

A point I had raised to your attention is that you rejected what Jesus stated. Jesus stated that He was going to fulfill the law, and confirmed His statement in Luke 24:44. According to you, there was to be no fulfillment of the law or prophecy, and the death of the Testator accomplished nothing at all.

 

[Soon144k]

A point I had raised to your attention is that you rejected what Jesus stated. Jesus stated that He was going to fulfill the law, and confirmed His statement in Luke 24:44. According to you, there was to be no fulfillment of the law or prophecy, and the death of the Testator accomplished nothing at all.

I have never rejected what Jesus said in the accounts of the eyewitness disciples. Luke was NOT an eyewitness. It is here that we think differently, which is the cause for confusion. Correct me if I am wrong but your understanding is that Jesus came to fulfill all of the prophecies concerning Israel, and this is what He was speaking of in Matt.5:17-18.

My understanding is that when God removed Israel as the Kingdom of Heaven (at the end of the 490 years in 33 CE) that any end time prophecies that were not fulfilled for Israel would NEVER be fulfilled, because the time for their fulfillment was over.

For His part Jesus did fulfill His part of the prophecies for the Kingdom of Heaven, whoever and whenever that is. Yet fulfilling a prophecy does not negate that which is fulfilled. The Law was NOT done away with because Jesus fulfilled the Law (circular reasoning). The Covenant was not put away, and it is still the identifier of the Kingdom of Heaven (ref. Rev.12:17).

I never said that the death of Jesus Christ did nothing, as you suggest. I did state (had you read the post) that what Jesus did accomplish is something different than you believe He did. Jesus death on the cross did not save us 'from' our sins, meaning 'IN' our sins. The death of Jesus paid our penalty of death for our disobedience to the very thing you believe was done away with, that is, the Covenant.

You believe that in fulfilling the Law Jesus de-established the Covenant. If this was true then there would have been no reason for Jesus to die. Jesus fulfilled the Law by His actions in life, not His action in death. When Jesus said "It is finished", He was not yet dead. The "IT" that He finished was His testifying to the truth NOT His death for our sins (John 18:37). His death did not make us righteous, but provided a way for us to become righteous through the process of sanctification.

The bottom line in this is that I do not believe the words of Paul in describing how salvation works (by grace through faith), you do. You do not believe the words of Jesus as to how salvation works (sanctification), I do.

More later.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

My understanding is that when God removed Israel as the Kingdom of Heaven (at the end of the 490 years in 33 CE) that any end time prophecies that were not fulfilled for Israel would NEVER be fulfilled, because the time for their fulfillment was over.

Is Israel God's remnant? What does Romans 11 say?

Is there still value for those who are circumcised? What does Romans 3 say?

Do you believe that some entity has replaced Israel? If so, who? And why?

The Law was NOT done away with because Jesus fulfilled the Law (circular reasoning).

Then what happened to animal sacrifices and the Passover?

You believe that in fulfilling the Law Jesus de-established the Covenant.

There is a new covenant. Is there not? What does 2 Corinthians 3 say about that new covenant?

His death did not make us righteous, but provided a way for us to become righteous through the process of sanctification.

Have we been declared righteous, or have we only been given the opportunity to make ourselves righteous?

You do not believe the words of Jesus as to how salvation works (sanctification), I do.

You seem to assume this about Victor. Why not ask him if it's actually true?

BFA

 

[VictorC]

I have never rejected what Jesus said in the accounts of the eyewitness disciples. Luke was NOT an eyewitness. It is here that we think differently, which is the cause for confusion. Correct me if I am wrong but your understanding is that Jesus came to fulfill all of the prophecies concerning Israel, and this is what He was speaking of in Matt.5:17-18.

My understanding is that when God removed Israel as the Kingdom of Heaven (at the end of the 490 years in 33 CE) that any end time prophecies that were not fulfilled for Israel would NEVER be fulfilled, because the time for their fulfillment was over.

For His part Jesus did fulfill His part of the prophecies for the Kingdom of Heaven, whoever and whenever that is. Yet fulfilling a prophecy does not negate that which is fulfilled. The Law was NOT done away with because Jesus fulfilled the Law (circular reasoning). The Covenant was not put away, and it is still the identifier of the Kingdom of Heaven (ref. Rev.12:17).

I never said that the death of Jesus Christ did nothing, as you suggest. I did state (had you read the post) that what Jesus did accomplish is something different than you believe He did. Jesus death on the cross did not save us 'from' our sins, meaning 'IN' our sins. The death of Jesus paid our penalty of death for our disobedience to the very thing you believe was done away with, that is, the Covenant.

You believe that in fulfilling the Law Jesus de-established the Covenant. If this was true then there would have been no reason for Jesus to die. Jesus fulfilled the Law by His actions in life, not His action in death. When Jesus said "It is finished", He was not yet dead. The "IT" that He finished was His testifying to the truth NOT His death for our sins (John 18:37). His death did not make us righteous, but provided a way for us to become righteous through the process of sanctification.

The bottom line in this is that I do not believe the words of Paul in describing how salvation works (by grace through faith), you do. You do not believe the words of Jesus as to how salvation works (sanctification), I do.

More later.

The entrance of eschatological obfuscation still does not explain why you actually rejected what Jesus stated in the presence of Matthew. Dismissing Luke's account is similar to how you dismissed Paul's epistles, and then dismissed the epistle to the Hebrews which indicates to me that your rendition of the Gospel is wholly divorced from the accounts that described it, which mostly address the time after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you don't accept the Bible as the authority that even your own claim to Adventism adheres to, isn't this simply a matter of you inventing whatever pleases your imagination? It follows naturally that someone -anyone, actually- reliant on a codified record that was inspired by Jesus Christ is going to be in disagreement with you. Your belief system is whatever you want it to be, and it is not an objective faith in the tangible that is open for discussion using an agreed Standard of Scripture.

 

[Soon144k]

The entrance of eschatological obfuscation still does not explain why you actually rejected what Jesus stated in the presence of Matthew. Dismissing Luke's account is similar to how you dismissed Paul's epistles, and then dismissed the epistle to the Hebrews which indicates to me that your rendition of the Gospel is wholly divorced from the accounts that described it, which mostly address the time after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you don't accept the Bible as the authority that even your own claim to Adventism adheres to, isn't this simply a matter of you inventing whatever pleases your imagination? It follows naturally that someone -anyone, actually- reliant on a codified record that was inspired by Jesus Christ is going to be in disagreement with you. Your belief system is whatever you want it to be, and it is not an objective faith in the tangible that is open for discussion using an agreed Standard of Scripture.

I still don't get where you think I have rejected what Jesus said in Matthew. Either I am not explaining myself clearly (a possibility) or you are not actually reading what I am writing (also a possibility). I base my theology on the exact same Scripture as Jesus Christ, that is, the Old Testament. I also accept the testimony of the eyewitness disciples the gospels of whom we have in the New Testament; Matthew, Peter (gospel of Mark) and especially John. So in actual fact the basis for my understanding is much more stringent than is yours; you will accept the word of anyone that is a writer in the New Testament as if they are the very words of God even though you have no proof that they actually wrote what you think they wrote, or that they have not shown any kind or corroborated proof that they are who they say they are, as in the case of Saul. You don't need proof of their legitimacy because you believe they are of God 'by faith'. I don't. I need proof before I will place my eternal life in the hands of anyone other than Jesus Christ.

I don't know why this bothers you so much, as I am not asking you to believe the way I believe at all. We are having a dialogue on a subject of mutual interest, and I take one position and you take another. Why is it that I must agree with you on an Agreed upon Standard of Scripture when you will not agree to have an agreed upon Standard that are the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone?

 

[VictorC]

I still don't get where you think I have rejected what Jesus said in Matthew. Either I am not explaining myself clearly (a possibility) or you are not actually reading what I am writing (also a possibility). I base my theology on the exact same Scripture as Jesus Christ, that is, the Old Testament. I also accept the testimony of the eyewitness disciples the gospels of whom we have in the New Testament; Matthew, Peter (gospel of Mark) and especially John. So in actual fact the basis for my understanding is much more stringent than is yours; you will accept the word of anyone that is a writer in the New Testament as if they are the very words of God even though you have no proof that they actually wrote what you think they wrote, or that they have not shown any kind or corroborated proof that they are who they say they are, as in the case of Saul. You don't need proof of their legitimacy because you believe they are of God 'by faith'. I don't. I need proof before I will place my eternal life in the hands of anyone other than Jesus Christ.

By your own admission, the theology you adhere to is consistent with the old covenant, of which Jesus testified He was to fulfill according to Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44. You also dismissed Matthew's record of Jesus teaching Peter that "the sons are free" in Matthew 17:26, and the King's children enjoy the same sovereignty to the law the King created. John testified of those accepting the Messiah's redemption that "He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). Some of these have been shown to you without eliciting a comment, and I pointed out that Paul describes the same change of legal disposition redemption renders in Galatians 4:1-7. Paul is consistent with Jesus, and Peter's endorsement of Paul is consistent with Matthew and John's record.

The prophets saw the end of the old covenant you suggest you're still bound to. Jeremiah 31:31-34 calls for a new covenant to replace the old covenant that was violated by the recipients, and Hebrews 8 capitalizes on Jeremiah's prophecy to conclude "In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Isaiah 28:18 foresees "Your covenant with death will be annulled", a future event, and Hebrews 7:18-19 describes the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Authors inspired by the Holy Ghost saw the end of the old covenant, including the covenant from Mount Sinai that denied the recipients any promise of eternal life, and alienated the Gentiles from the promise to Abraham during the entire tenure of the old covenant. To hold onto something Scripture describes as obsolete and taken away (Hebrews 10:9) is a devotion to Judaism - and Jesus described attainment of eternal life by that means impossible in Matthew 5:20, and affirmed the same in Matthew 19:16-26.

I don't know why this bothers you so much, as I am not asking you to believe the way I believe at all. We are having a dialogue on a subject of mutual interest, and I take one position and you take another. Why is it that I must agree with you on an Agreed upon Standard of Scripture when you will not agree to have an agreed upon Standard that are the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone?

Three of us (four?) have heard your claim that Paul contradicted Jesus, and requested evidence of this. In your responses, you showed only adherence to statements made during the tenure of the old covenant and compliant with it. You have chosen to discard much of the new testament writings, specifically anything that contradicts the old covenant. You didn't even accept what Jesus stated as his intent to finish the dictates of the old covenant from sources that you suggested acceptance of. As I mentioned before, when you have chosen to disregard the Standard that describes the basic tenet of Christianity's narrative of redemption, it leaves the stage wide open to fabricate anything you want to replace it. This practice hasn't met with anyone's acceptance here, and it is reasonable to expect this to be your experience elsewhere; all of us note that your practice of discarding inspired texts from the canon of Scripture that Adventism accepts as authoritative is inconsistent with the moniker next to your name identifying you as SDA.

Sophia7's observation was really the most accurate conclusion made, and I agree with it: Your "evidence" is only speculation and misinterpretation of verses taken out of context. You haven't found any instance of Paul contradicting Jesus in the tenure of the new covenant.

 

[Sophia7]

For me to believe this you will first have to show me the proof as to who actually wrote 2 Peter. The historic evidence is that Peter was already dead by the time 2 Peter was written, so he could not have made the statement you attribute to him.

Do you reject the book of Acts as Scripture, too?

 

[Laodicean]

Fair question. Please prove to me that the 'Jesus' that Saul met on the road to Damascus was the real Jesus. Who saw this 'Jesus', and who heard him?

I'll prove to you that the Jesus that Saul met on the road to Damascus was real as soon as you prove to me that the Jesus the disciples wrote about was real.

And on what basis do you put your faith in what the disciples testified about, and not in what the apostle Paul testified? Based on volume? On the fact that the disciples wrote more words about their encounter than Paul did?

All of the 12 disciples saw and heard the real Jesus because He was physically there with them. NO ONE saw the 'Jesus' that accosted Paul on the road to Damascus, and ONLY Saul heard him. This being blinded Saul, so Saul did not see him. None of Saul's companions saw this being, and they only heard noise not words; this according to Saul's own testimony. We have only Saul's word as to who this being was, and Saul believed this being only because the being identified himself as 'Jesus'. You know as well as I do that Satan is the great deceiver, and can and does use the name 'Jesus' where ever and when ever he needs to in order to convince sincere believers that what they are seeing is real, when it is not.

You would need to prove that what the disciples said they saw and heard was real and not a product of someone's imagination....since you are demanding proof. Proof for Paul should also require proof for the disciples. Is volume of words regarding an encounter with Jesus the proof, for you?

If you were to present this case in court today no jury would convict on the basis of this evidence.

I suppose so. And neither would a jury convict on the basis of the evidence of the disciples. Is "convict" the term you want to use here, anyway?

Therefore, for me I KNOW the Jesus the disciples saw was the real deal because their testimony matches who Jesus is. And based on significant other evidence the being that Saul saw WAS NOT the Jesus that the eyewitness disciples knew as their Lord and Savior.

How do you KNOW that the Jesus the disciples saw was the real deal? Through faith? I mean, how did you know who Jesus is before the testimony of the disciples came into being? I mean, you are using the very words of the disciples about Jesus to determine who Jesus is, so your knowledge of who Jesus is comes from them, not from your preconceived knowledge of who Jesus is.

I think your basis for discarding Paul is a shaky, if nonexistent one. Is it possible that you just don't like what Paul has to say? That is not a good enough reason to reject him.

 

[Soon144k]

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. [wash my mouth] (26) But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 14:25-26.

Jesus told His disciples that THEY would remember everything that He said to them, through the power of the Holy Spirit. He did not say this about anyone else.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” [wash my mouth]John 8:31-32.

We become free when the words of Jesus abide in us. This is conditional, and will happen when the abiding happens.

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. John 17:17.

We become sanctified when the words of God become a living part of us, and not until then. If we still sin then this has not happened.

You believe that you are already sanctified NOT by the words of Jesus but by His sacrifice on the cross. This is not what Jesus said, it is what Paul said-and that is a lie.
We do not come to the light so that we eventually DO the truth. It is the other way around.

But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.” John 3:21.

Most of what we have been taught about salvation according to Paul is not true. Go to the words of the Son of God to find the truth.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. John 17:17.
We become sanctified when the words of God become a living part of us, and not until then. If we still sin then this has not happened.

If we claim that we do not sin, then there is no truth in us.

You believe that you are already sanctified NOT by the words of Jesus but by His sacrifice on the cross. This is not what Jesus said, it is what Paul said-and that is a lie.

So Paul was a liar?

BFA

 

[Kira Light]

If we claim that we do not sin, then there is no truth in us.



So Paul was a liar?

BFA

Paul was deceived by Satan. The message of salvation by faith is satanic and only law keepers will be saved.

 

[Cribstyl]

Paul was deceived by Satan. The message of salvation by faith is satanic and only law keepers will be saved.

I did'nt get that text message

 

[VictorC]

You believe that you are already sanctified NOT by the words of Jesus but by His sacrifice on the cross. This is not what Jesus said, it is what Paul said-and that is a lie.
We do not come to the light so that we eventually DO the truth. It is the other way around.

But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.” John 3:21.

Most of what we have been taught about salvation according to Paul is not true. Go to the words of the Son of God to find the truth.

The Son of God spoke to Paul, Paul was taught the truth by God, and there are now six of us who are not moved by your dismissal of most of the New Testament Scriptures.