Is the Sabbath binding.

[Aussie Pete]

You die to the law of the flesh; when you live in the law of the spirit. The spirit leads you to obedience to YHWH's law. The flesh wars against YHWH's law.

This is Paul's message in a nutshell. Paul taught obedience to the law through the spirit.

You still don't get it. Never mind, perhaps one day.

 

[BobRyan]

I never understood the whole "we must keep the sabbath" argument that some protestant denominations argue about.

As if the Sabbath was stated in scripture to be a Saturday, but's simply rest on the 7th day. Just by our Gregorian calendar the 7th day is calculated to be Sunday.

In in a traditional and theological sense, Jesus rose on a Sunday which is already the start of the "new" therefore we worship on Sunday following this theological belief.

Gregorian Calendar has Saturday as the 7th day of the week just as the Julian calendar did.
The Gregorian Calendar

https://i1.wp.com/oikofuge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1582.jpg?w=431&ssl=1

from: Monday - Wikipedia
"Historically, the Greco-Roman week began with Sunday (dies solis), and Monday (dies lunae) was the second day of the week.. It is still the custom to refer to Monday as feria secunda in the liturgical calendar of the Roman Catholic Church. Quakers also traditionally referred to Monday as "Second Day".[5]"

---- So then where do we find "sunday" as the 7th day of the week (And so "Monday" as the first day of the week)? Certainly not among early Christians, or Jews in Christ's day or anything before that among the Jews.

from: Monday - Wikipedia
"In modern times, it has become more common to consider Monday the first day of the week. The international ISO 8601 standard places Monday as the first day of the week, and this is widely used on calendars in Europe and in international business. Monday is xīngqīyī (星期一) in Chinese, meaning "day one of the week". Modern Western culture usually looks at Monday as the beginning of the workweek."

ISO 8601 first published in 1988. Not in Christ's day.. not ever known to the NT church or writers of scripture.

from: ISO 8601 - Wikipedia
ISO 8601 Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times is an international standard covering the exchange of date- and time-related data. It was issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and was first published in 1988"

I.E. NO rendering of any Bible text makes the weekly Sabbath -- the day of the week we call "Monday".

Ex 16:23 "Tomorrow is the Sabbath"
Ex 20:10 "The seventh day is the Sabbath"
And all historidans today know that the Sabbath kept at the time of Christ in Israel was what we today call "Saturday".

Nobody in scripture was observing ISO 8601 rules for the days of the week.

 

[BobRyan]

Gregorian Calendar

Summary Adoption of the Gregorian calendar - Wikipedia

Catholic states such as France, the Italian principalities, Poland, Spain (along with her European and overseas possessions), Portugal and the Catholic states of the Holy Roman Empire were first to change to the Gregorian calendar. Thursday, 4 October 1582, was followed by Friday, 15 October 1582, with ten days skipped.

Many Protestant countries initially objected to adopting a Catholic innovation; … the Anglican bishops, who argued that the Pope was undoubtedly the fourth great beast of Daniel, led the Queen to let the matter be quietly dropped.[10]

The Lutheran Duchy of Prussia, until 1657 still a fiefdom of Roman Catholic Poland, was the first Protestant nation to adopt the Gregorian calendar 22 August was followed by 2 September 1612.

Denmark, which then included Norway, adopted the solar portion of the Gregorian calendar simultaneously with the Brandenburg-Pomerania and other Protestant estates of the Holy Roman Empire.

Sunday, 18 February 1700, was followed by Monday, 1 March 1700.[12]

provinces of the Dutch Republic adopted the Gregorian calendar on 12 July 1700 (Gelderland), 12 December 1700 (Overijssel and Utrecht), 12 January 1701 (Friesland and Groningen) and 12 May 1701 (Drenthe).[14]

Sweden's transition to the Gregorian calendar was difficult and protracted. …Sweden finally adopted the solar portion of the Gregorian calendar in 1753, when Wednesday, 17 February, was followed by Thursday, 1 March.

Through enactment of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, Great Britain and its colonies (including parts of what is now the United States) …Wednesday, 2 September 1752, was followed by Thursday, 14 September 1752.

The European colonies of the Americas adopted the change when their mother countries did. New France and New Spain had adopted the new calendar in 1582.

The Gregorian calendar was applied in the British colonies in Canada and the future United States east of the Appalachian Mountains in 1752.

In Alaska, the change took place after the United States purchased Alaska from Russia, with Friday, 6 October 1867 being followed by Friday, 18 October


Nothing in all of this – consisted in a change of the weekly cycle.


By contrast - the ISO 8601 has Monday as the first day of the week and first published in 1988.

ISO 8601 was not known in Christ's day.. nor ever known by any OT or NT writers of scripturer.


from: ISO 8601 - Wikipedia

ISO 8601 Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times is an international standard covering the exchange of date- and time-related data. It was issued by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and was first published in 1988"

I.E. NO rendering of any Bible text makes the weekly Sabbath -- the day of the week we call "Monday".

Ex 16 "Tomorrow is the Sabbath"
Ex 20:10 "The seventh day is the Sabbath"

And all historians today know that the Sabbath kept at the time of Christ in Israel was what we today call "Saturday".

from: Monday - Wikipedia
"In modern times, it has become more common to consider Monday the first day of the week. The international ISO 8601 standard places Monday as the first day of the week, and this is widely used on calendars in Europe and in international business. Monday is xīngqīyī (星期一) in Chinese, meaning "day one of the week". Modern Western culture usually looks at Monday as the beginning of the workweek."

Nobody in scripture was observing ISO 8601 rules for the days of the week.

 

[HARK!]

You still don't get it. Never mind, perhaps one day.

(CLV) Ro 8:2
for the spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus frees you from the law of sin and death

 

[BobRyan]

If observing Sunday as the sabbath is a salvation issue, then heaven is a very lonely place.

"Few" and "Many" described by Christ in Matt 7 and all of his audience in Matthew 7 - knew about the Ten Commandments and that the Sabbath Commandment is one of them.

So also does the "Baptist Confession of Faith" admit it.
So also does the "Westminster Confession of Faith" admit it.
So also does the Catholic Catechism admit it.
So also did D.L.Moody and C.H.Spurgeon admit to it.
Pretty much all of Christendom at one time or another.

So what is your point?

 

[BobRyan]

The Law was not abolished. .

True.

"What matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"Do we then abolish the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31

Jer 31:31-33 NEW COVENANT "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind"

"it is not the hearers of the LAW that are JUST before God but the DOERS of the LAW will be justified" Rom 2:13

1 Cor 6 -- "Do not be deceived"
7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[sparow]

Tell me one person that Jesus did not die for. He called Judas "Friend" even as Judas was betraying Him. If the writer of the letter to the Hebrews wanted it kept secret, he would have kept it secret. You have no business telling anyone what portions of the Bible they can quote or not quote.

The only name I know is Gog, the leader of them of the second resurrection, and Gog may also be Satan.
The un-named number the sands of the sea. I do not know if salvation is offered to all or not there may be exceptions; but I do those who do not receive salvation number the sands of the sea.

Revelation 20:8-9 (NKJV)
8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.
9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
Revelation 20:14-15 (NKJV)
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

I do not know Judas's fate. Why did the remaining apostles choose a replacement for Judas; if Judas is saved then he is certainly demoted. The scriptures say Judas repented, but had he committed the unforgivable sin.

Whether the writer or addressee of Hebrews wanted it secret or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether Hebrews is used as an authority or whether that, part of a debate, is used as a book written by another evangelist.

MORE ABOUT WHO ARE THE SAVED.

It is reported that an Irishman and an American once disputed as to which is correct: Six and seven is eleven or six and seven are eleven. The Irishman was sure that six and seven are eleven; the American was sure six and seven is eleven. They appealed to a German, who told them: Six an seven bees dirteen. Now the dispute about the exact way of salvation, with the involved question therein, Once in Grace always in Grace, is precisely of the same sort as that dispute about is and are. Against the Romish assertions that six and seven now is eleven and now are eleven. But the Reformers have erred, and Protestantdom has been for centuries erring after them as to the copula, Instead of answering six and seven are thirteen, they put in their bees before the true number, with much confusion to the faith.

IVAN PANIN 1937

 

[Aussie Pete]

The only name I know is Gog, the leader of them of the second resurrection, and Gog may also be Satan.
The un-named number the sands of the sea. I do not know if salvation is offered to all or not there may be exceptions; but I do those who do not receive salvation number the sands of the sea.

Revelation 20:8-9 (NKJV)
8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.
9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
Revelation 20:14-15 (NKJV)
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

I do not know Judas's fate. Why did the remaining apostles choose a replacement for Judas; if Judas is saved then he is certainly demoted. The scriptures say Judas repented, but had he committed the unforgivable sin.

Whether the writer or addressee of Hebrews wanted it secret or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether Hebrews is used as an authority or whether that, part of a debate, is used as a book written by another evangelist.

MORE ABOUT WHO ARE THE SAVED.

It is reported that an Irishman and an American once disputed as to which is correct: Six and seven is eleven or six and seven are eleven. The Irishman was sure that six and seven are eleven; the American was sure six and seven is eleven. They appealed to a German, who told them: Six an seven bees dirteen. Now the dispute about the exact way of salvation, with the involved question therein, Once in Grace always in Grace, is precisely of the same sort as that dispute about is and are. Against the Romish assertions that six and seven now is eleven and now are eleven. But the Reformers have erred, and Protestantdom has been for centuries erring after them as to the copula, Instead of answering six and seven are thirteen, they put in their bees before the true number, with much confusion to the faith.

IVAN PANIN 1937

It was a bit hard for Judas to be an apostle. He was dead. I don't get the point about Hebrews or your maths lesson.

 

[BobRyan]

Gee, you are the only one who knows what the Law is about. "But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." I looked it up in the Greek. Everyone means everyone.

Indeed.

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2:2 NIV

The problem many Christians have - is they reject God's teaching on Atonement and so don't understand the full scope and process God defines in the Bible on that topic.

in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" God points out that the work of Christ as the "sin offering" the "Atoning Sacrifice" is needed for the Bible definition of Atonement to be met. And it ALSO points out that the work of Christ as High Priest in heaven that comes AFTER the Atoning Sacrifice according to Lev 16 - is also needed for that full scope of atonement to be met.

"THE MAIN POINT is this - we have a High Priest in heaven seated at the right hand of the father" Heb 8:1-6 where we see his work in the heavenly sanctuary FOR US - is ALSO needed for the full Bible scope of "atonement" to be complete.

Thus the "atoning sacrifice" is for the "Whole world" but the "Atonement" process will only be fully applicable to those who respond to Christ's work identified in Heb 4 and 9 "for us" in the heavenly sanctuary - our High Priest.

You really do not understand the Law at all, but you are excused, because all are deceived. It is true all have sinned but Jesus has not substituted His Blood for all, only those who have repented and continue to repent and have purposely entered into the covenant, and retrospectively He was the Lamb from the foundation. There is more to the crucifixion than the shedding of blood,

It is true that we must respond to Christ who is now working in heaven for us as our High Priest. Respond with repentance etc. Only then is the full Bible context for atonement applicable.

However it is still absolutely true as 1 John 2:2 states that the blood sacrifice - the atoning sacrifice was in fact for "the whole world" it was "for every man".

there was also the price of redemption paid to Satan,

Satan is not getting paid anything. Rather Satan has his own debt of suffering to pay for his own sin. God is not paying Satan on the cross or at any other time other than "the wages of sin--- Satan dies for Satan's sins"

 

[Aussie Pete]

"Few" and "Many" described by Christ in Matt 7 and all of his audience in Matthew 7 - knew about the Ten Commandments and that the Sabbath Commandment is one of them.

So also does the "Baptist Confession of Faith" admit it.
So also does the "Westminster Confession of Faith" admit it.
So also does the Catholic Catechism admit it.
So also did D.L.Moody and C.H.Spurgeon admit to it.
Pretty much all of Christendom at one time or another.

So what is your point?

Romans 14:1-6
"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.a 2For one person has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord;b he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

I believe that man needs a weekly day of rest. The sabbath was made for man, not vice versa. Which day is irrelevant and it does not have to be the same day that people go to church. Our fellowship follows the pattern in Acts where we meet every day.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 14:1-6
"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.a 2For one person has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

the 7th day Sabbath - the Bible Sabbath is not found at all in Rom 14.

"one man regards one day above another while another man regards every day" speaking of the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23.

At the same time - Gal 4 condemns observance of even one pagan holy day.
Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

God said "The seventh day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH) " Ex 20:10 -- and man often responds with something like "nahhh I don't think that the day actually matters at all".

Well each person needs to choose which way to go on that one for themselves.

I choose the Word of God.

 

[Aussie Pete]

the 7th day Sabbath - the Bible Sabbath is not found at all in Rom 14.

"one man regards one day above another while another man regards every day" speaking of the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23.

At the same time - Gal 4 condemns observance of even one pagan holy day.
Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

God said "The seventh day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH) " Ex 20:10 -- and man often responds with something like "nahhh I don't think that the day actually matters at all".

Well each person needs to choose which way to go on that one for themselves.

I choose the Word of God.

Ok, so you demand that Christians be circumcised as required under the law? And those who violate the Sabbath law be stoned to death? Adulterers? Why did Jesus let the woman go? He was violating God's commandments. Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. It was he who should have been stoned, not Stephen. Paul was stoned but for the gospel, not for breaking God's law. If you are advocating strict observance of the Law, then you can't pick and choose the boundaries. If you are not, then you can't pick and choose what to keep and what is negotiable.

 

[sparow]

It was a bit hard for Judas to be an apostle. He was dead. I don't get the point about Hebrews or your maths lesson.

The point that I was attempting to make is the apostles seemed think there should be twelve, and as we learn later the twelve apostles representing the 12 tribes of Israel, along with Christ as the corner stone, form the foundation of the new Jerusalem. As twelve began to die they were not replaced, only Judas. It is interesting that Luke was gentile; and following Christ's genealogy, not only does He have the blood of all the twelve tribes, including levite, but he also has gentile blood.

The problem with Hebrews is you and others use it to justify non-compliance with Law. If it wasn't for Hebrews and Paul's private epistles (one side of a conversation) you and your teachers would not question the Law; Sunday and the Papacy's abrogating the Law would still be an issue; but because this was without Biblical authority, and the Popes agree, the issue is do we bow the knee to the Popes or to God.

I know little about Panin's form of Pentecostalism; but I expect he was not a Papist. But he appeared have one foot in the enemy camp, being a personal friend of Geoge Nobel and sought a Nobel Prise for his life's work. That introduction to chapter 14 was multilayered, A part from the humour, I noticed three lessons; the arithmetic lesson for eight year old s, an English lesson for 20 year old's; a theology lesson for Protestants. The English lesson addressed the confusion the church and the reason for it. The Theology lesson is a broadside at Protestantdom for being influenced by Luther. Luther was a good Catholic, objecting only the corruption if the Priests not objecting to Catholic doctrine. There is very little difference between Lutheran doctrine and Papal doctrine; while they would deny the Pope they like most Protestants still bow the knee to the Popes authority regarding Sunday and the abrogation of the Law.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 14:1-6
"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.a 2For one person has faith to eat all things, while another, who is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

the 7th day Sabbath - the Bible Sabbath is not found at all in Rom 14.

"one man regards one day above another while another man regards every day" speaking of the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23.

At the same time - Gal 4 condemns observance of even one pagan holy day.
Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

God said "The seventh day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH) " Ex 20:10 -- and man often responds with something like "nahhh I don't think that the day actually matters at all".

Well each person needs to choose which way to go on that one for themselves.

I choose the Word of God.

Ok, so you demand that Christians be circumcised as required under the law?

No Law OT or NT demands that gentiles be circumcised. I thought we all knew that.

And those who violate the Sabbath law be stoned to death? Adulterers?

Under the OT theocracy people were stoned for Sabbath breaking, taking God's name in vain, adultery.

Outside of a theocracy that is not the rule - but "civil penalties" are not the way we tell if taking God's name in vain is really a sin or not

I thought we all knew that.

Why did Jesus let the woman go? He was violating God's commandments.

That was not Jesus' way of saying "adultery is no longer sin" before the cross. I thought we all knew that.

Under Roman occupation Israel was not under a theocracy and could not adopt civil laws that only apply in a theocracy. But that did not mean that taking God's name in vain and adulter "were no longer sin".

No Bible text says that the limits of civil laws and penalties are what determines if breaking one of God' commandments is a sin or not.

For example in the OT - coveting was still a sin even though no civil penalty was applied for coveting.

Are you being serious here?

 

[sparow]

Indeed.

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" 1 John 2:2 NIV

The problem many Christians have - is they reject God's teaching on Atonement and so don't understand the full scope and process God defines in the Bible on that topic.

in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" God points out that the work of Christ as the "sin offering" the "Atoning Sacrifice" is needed for the Bible definition of Atonement to be met. And it ALSO points out that the work of Christ as High Priest in heaven that comes AFTER the Atoning Sacrifice according to Lev 16 - is also needed for that full scope of atonement to be met.

"THE MAIN POINT is this - we have a High Priest in heaven seated at the right hand of the father" Heb 8:1-6 where we see his work in the heavenly sanctuary FOR US - is ALSO needed for the full Bible scope of "atonement" to be complete.

Thus the "atoning sacrifice" is for the "Whole world" but the "Atonement" process will only be fully applicable to those who respond to Christ's work identified in Heb 4 and 9 "for us" in the heavenly sanctuary - our High Priest.



It is true that we must respond to Christ who is now working in heaven for us as our High Priest. Respond with repentance etc. Only then is the full Bible context for atonement applicable.

However it is still absolutely true as 1 John 2:2 states that the blood sacrifice - the atoning sacrifice was in fact for "the whole world" it was "for every man".



Satan is not getting paid anything. Rather Satan has his own debt of suffering to pay for his own sin. God is not paying Satan on the cross or at any other time other than "the wages of sin--- Satan dies for Satan's sins"

I am staying away from the atonement thing men have made it too complicated. John's epistle , is to those who know what he talking about, refreshing their memory and encouraging them not fall away into sin; this argument he makes is in the context of not only all of scripture, but also in the context of their smaller amount of knowledge; so therefore instead of reciting the whole scripture John truncates his argument, assuming he will be understood.

I expect I am misunderstanding you, but what you seem to be saying, with regard to 1John2:2, because of Christ's sacrifice, all are saved, sin is appeased not conquered, God gets drunk on the last day and joins in with the revellers.

My ideas about redemption come from Kenneth Cox.

 

[sparow]

Ok, so you demand that Christians be circumcised as required under the law? And those who violate the Sabbath law be stoned to death? Adulterers? Why did Jesus let the woman go? He was violating God's commandments. Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. It was he who should have been stoned, not Stephen. Paul was stoned but for the gospel, not for breaking God's law. If you are advocating strict observance of the Law, then you can't pick and choose the boundaries. If you are not, then you can't pick and choose what to keep and what is negotiable.

<<Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. >> Does this mean that Paul has more authority than the Father or the Son; Paul the prophet who testifies of Himself, whom neither of the two witnesses have testified of. Because I am cynical I suggest the Jews had not heard of that English word "Gospel" and instead accused Paul of treason and blaspheme;

Here I have to be careful considering the mindset of whom I am talking; we of the kingdom are under God's law but we are also under Rome unless there is a conflict then we go with God. When the Jews stoned Paul, they had no authority to do so, not from God and not from Rome. But we learn from the Mafia by shooting their own they can make them appear innocent.

 

[Aussie Pete]

<<Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. >> Does this mean that Paul has more authority than the Father or the Son; Paul the prophet who testifies of Himself, whom neither of the two witnesses have testified of. Because I am cynical I suggest the Jews had not heard of that English word "Gospel" and instead accused Paul of treason and blaspheme;

Here I have to be careful considering the mindset of whom I am talking; we of the kingdom are under God's law but we are also under Rome unless there is a conflict then we go with God. When the Jews stoned Paul, they had no authority to do so, not from God and not from Rome. But we learn from the Mafia by shooting their own they can make them appear innocent.

Are you saying that Paul had no Apostolic authority, did not receive revelation from God and that his words are not inspired? You won't get a whole lot of agreement on that. "Gospel" just means good news. It's derived from two old English words. No one knew what the word meant in Paul's time.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying that Paul had no Apostolic authority, did not receive revelation from God and that his words are not inspired? You won't get a whole lot of agreement on that. "Gospel" just means good news. It's derived from two old English words. No one knew what the word meant in Paul's time.

Paul said "the Gospel was preached to us just as it was to them also" Heb 4:1 -- are you saying Paul did not know what the Gospel is?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Paul said "the Gospel was preached to us just as it was to them also" Heb 4:1 -- are you saying Paul did not know what the Gospel is?

Paul did not write Hebrews. I was responding to your post which implied that Paul had no authority. presumably that's not what you meant. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

[sparow]

Are you saying that Paul had no Apostolic authority, did not receive revelation from God and that his words are not inspired? You won't get a whole lot of agreement on that. "Gospel" just means good news. It's derived from two old English words. No one knew what the word meant in Paul's time.

I would not arbitrarily and universally judge Paul, certainly not, on behalf of, or as far as yourself and other people are concerned. Because you were using Paul to make your point I was pointing out that Paul has no traction with me, and the point isn't made.

Whether Paul had a revelation from God or not I wouldn't know; neither would I be required to know, or be required to believe it; unless God told me. If God told me, and I told you, you would be a fool to believe it, as you would be fool to not believe it; you should test what is said if you consider it important. If you found what I said to be true, that would necessarily prove God told me; you would only know God told me if God told you. What God told me was not to do with Paul the person but to not read the Epistles of Paul. I had previously just read Revelation, the four Gospels and acts, Romans and a quarter of 1Corinthians, and went on to read Revelation 5 times, the Gospels 4 times and the non-Pauline epistles once.

Later I wondered what was wrong with Paul; and to come up with matters that people like yourself would not dispute, is hard, although there is much circumstantial evidence. For myself I have reasoned this way; if I needed Paul's epistles for my salvation that would diminish Christ and constitute blasphemy.

Jesus told the apostles that he would not do anything unless He told them first; that road to Damascus event was (if it happened) was of earth quake magnitude yet when Paul showed up he was a surprise to the apostles.

My faith does not depend on others agreeing with me.