Messiah and the Covenant

[Clare73]

This is true ... one who diminishes Torah is a false prophet (Deu 13:1-5), and Messiah did nothing but uphold Torah and expounded its intricate complexities!

Then the apostles Peter, James and John were false prophets, because they believed Paul's revelation was from Jesus Christ.

Any other apostles of Jesus Christ who were false prophets?

 

[ananda]

I would want proof of his message from the apostles of Jesus Christ. Oh, wait, they're gone! Then he has no way to prove his message.

Okay ... so as I understand what you're saying - the new message given by the street preacher must be compared to, and in harmony with, the message which was previously established, correct?

 

[ananda]

Then the apostles Peter, James and John were false prophets, because they believed Paul's revelation was from Jesus Christ ... Any other apostles of Jesus Christ who were false prophets?

Where, in Peter, James, or John's writings, did they write that they accepted Paul's revelation?

 

[Clare73]

Where, in Peter, James, or John's writings, did they write that they accepted Paul's revelation?

Peter groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), which shows Peter's belief that Paul's revelations were from the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

That means "acceptance."

The writer of Acts states that "the apostles (Peter, James, etc.--15:6, 13) and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." (Ac 15:22)

That means "acceptance."

Gal 2:7-9 - James, Peter, and John. . .gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews."

That means "acceptance."

 

[ananda]

Peter groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), which shows Peter's belief that Paul's revelations were from the Son of God, Jesus Christ. That means "acceptance."

The authorship of 2Peter is disputed; the vast majority of scholars today do not believe the Apostle Peter wrote 2Peter. Even if Peter did write 2Peter, he calls Paul's writings to be "graphe" which is literally translated "writings". (The third, and least important, category of Scripture is the "Writings" section - the most important two includes the Torah/Law and the Neviim/Prophets. The Writings are considered edifying, but not necessarily inspired - much like any good sermon today. (Alas, the different levels of authority in Scripture is something not known to most of mainstream Christianity today. Please see my previous post here , if you'd like, for more details on the three divisions of Scripture.)

Next - even if we accept the book of 2Pet, 2Pet 3:16 is misunderstood by many Christians today, as they forget the advice of the very next verse. This verse actually warns against those who misunderstand Paul's writings, as they may be led away by the error of the athesmon/lawless (2Pet 3:17)! The author of 2Pet is warning readers that, if they read Paul, they should not fall in their walk by adopting the erroneous idea that the Torah/Law was done away with (cf Mt 5:17-19)! Also note that 2Pet never called Paul an apostle.

Finally, 2Pe 3:16, even if accepted, constitutes only a single witness. We still require another first-hand witness to confirm this claim.

The writer of Acts states that "the apostles (Peter, James, etc.--15:6, 13) and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." (Ac 15:22) That means "acceptance." Gal 2:7-9 - James, Peter, and John. . .gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." That means "acceptance."

If the street preacher, from my previous example, wrote an epistle today stating that the apostles James, Peter, and John came down from heaven to him and approved of his message, will you accept his epistle as first-hand evidence from the apostles, or would you consider it to be second-hand and hearsay information?

If the street preacher's friend (let's call him Luke) wrote a history book today, stating that Peter and James sent some friends to accompany the street preacher, will you accept this testimony as first-hand witness from Peter and James, or would you also consider it second-hand & hearsay?

Neither the street preacher's epistle nor his friend's history book would fulfill YHWH's requirements which demands first-hand witnesses. Secondly, if the street preacher's epistle claims a message contrary to YHWH's previously established Scripture (the Torah, Prophets, and Writings), then we know for sure that the epistle is NOT from YHWH (Deu 13:1-5, Deu 18:18-22, Isa 8:20).

In the same way, Galatians is the word of Paul of Tarsus only. It is not the first-hand testimony of Peter, James, or John. Acts is the second-hand information gathered together by Luke. It also, is not the first-hand testimony of Peter or James or anyone else.

It doesn't matter if the street preacher is Paul of NY on the streets of New York City today (1,980 years after the resurrection of Messiah), or "Paul of Tarsus" on the streets of Galatia, 10 years after Messiah's resurrection. The standard and rules are still the same.

 

[ananda]

As for questioning Paul's authority, as I pointed to in the other thread, since Messiah warned His chosen, that even they could be deceived by false prophets speaking in His name

We do well to heed Messiah's Word ...

And Yehoshua answering said to them, `Take heed that no one may lead you astray, for many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Messiah, and they shall lead many astray ... Mt 24:4,5

It is interesting, at least to me, that the phrase above, "I am the Messiah" is "Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός" in the Greek. εἰμι (eimi) is usually translated "am" in most translations; however, εἰμι can also mean "stand for" or "represent". Therefore, the verse can be legitimately translated:

"many shall come in my name, saying, I represent the Messiah, and they shall lead many astray ..."

 

[Clare73]

The authorship of 2Peter is disputed; the vast majority of scholars today do not believe the Apostle Peter wrote 2Peter. Even if Peter did write 2Peter, he calls Paul's writings to be "graphe" which is literally translated "writings". (The third, and least important, category of Scripture is the "Writings" section - the most important two includes the Torah/Law and the Neviim/Prophets. The Writings are considered edifying, but not necessarily inspired - much like any good sermon today. (Alas, the different levels of authority in Scripture is something not known to most of mainstream Christianity today. Please see my previous post here , if you'd like, for more details on the three divisions of Scripture.)

Lastly - even if we accept the book of 2Pet, 2Pet 3:16 is misunderstood by many Christians today, as they forget the advice of the very next verse. This verse actually warns against those who misunderstand Paul's writings, as they may be led away by the error of the athesmon/lawless (2Pet 3:17)! The author of 2Pet is warning readers that, if they read Paul, they should not fall in their walk by adopting the erroneous idea that the Torah/Law was done away with (cf Mt 5:17-19)! Also note that 2Pet never called Paul an apostle.

If the street preacher, from my previous example, wrote an epistle today stating that the apostles James, Peter, and John came down from heaven to him and approved of his message, will you accept his epistle as first-hand evidence from the apostles, or would you consider it to be second-hand and hearsay information?

If the street preacher's friend (let's call him Luke) wrote a history book today, stating that Peter and James sent some friends to accompany the street preacher, will you accept this testimony as first-hand witness from Peter and James, or would you also consider it second-hand & hearsay?

Neither the street preacher's epistle nor his friend's history book would fulfill YHWH's requirements which demands first-hand witnesses. Secondly, if the street preacher's epistle claims a message contrary to YHWH's previously established Scripture (the Torah, Prophets, and Writings), then we know for sure that the epistle is NOT from YHWH (Deu 13:1-5, Deu 18:18-22, Isa 8:20).

In the same way, Galatians is the word of Paul of Tarsus only. It is not the first-hand testimony of Peter, James, or John. Acts is the second-hand information gathered together by Luke. It also, is not the first-hand testimony of Peter or James or anyone else.

It doesn't matter if the street preacher is Paul of NY on the streets of New York City today (1,980 years after the resurrection of Messiah), or "Paul of Tarsus" on the streets of Galatia, 10 years after Messiah's resurrection. The standard and rules are still the same.

I choose to believe the NT Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears powerful witness within my heart that it is true.

Kind regards,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

posting error

 

[Clare73]

duplicate post

 

[tzadik]

I choose to believe the NT Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears powerful witness within my heart that it is true.

Kind regards,
Clare

Do you believe, like Paul did, and the rest of 'The Way' that the "NT Word", or any other writings, MUST agree with the Law and the Prophets? [Acts 24:14]

 

[ananda]

I choose to believe the NT Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears powerful witness within my heart that it is true.

What if I say the Spirit bears witness within my heart that some things may be chaff instead of wheat? Surely you must agree that there should be objective rules for sorting this out. Thank you for your response!

 

[Clare73]

The authorship of 2Peter is disputed; the vast majority of scholars today do not believe the Apostle Peter wrote 2Peter. Even if Peter did write 2Peter, he calls Paul's writings to be "graphe" which is literally translated "writings". (The third, and least important, category of Scripture is the "Writings" section - the most important two includes the Torah/Law and the Neviim/Prophets. The Writings are considered edifying, but not necessarily inspired - much like any good sermon today. (Alas, the different levels of authority in Scripture is something not known to most of mainstream Christianity today. Please see my previous post here , if you'd like, for more details on the three divisions of Scripture.)

Lastly - even if we accept the book of 2Pet, 2Pet 3:16 is misunderstood by many Christians today, as they forget the advice of the very next verse. This verse actually warns against those who misunderstand Paul's writings, as they may be led away by the error of the athesmon/lawless (2Pet 3:17)! The author of 2Pet is warning readers that, if they read Paul, they should not fall in their walk by adopting the erroneous idea that the Torah/Law was done away with (cf Mt 5:17-19)! Also note that 2Pet never called Paul an apostle.

If the street preacher, from my previous example, wrote an epistle today stating that the apostles James, Peter, and John came down from heaven to him and approved of his message, will you accept his epistle as first-hand evidence from the apostles, or would you consider it to be second-hand and hearsay information?

If the apostles come down from heaven and tell me the street preacher's message is true, I will accept it.

If the street preacher's friend (let's call him Luke) wrote a history book today, stating that Peter and James sent some friends to accompany the street preacher, will you accept this testimony as first-hand witness from Peter and James, or would you also consider it second-hand & hearsay?

And if the street preacher's friend is also a friend of Jesus, do I also not accept what the street preacher's friend says about Jesus? How far do we extend this friendship thing?

Neither the street preacher's epistle nor his friend's history book would fulfill YHWH's requirements

So whose requirements are we talking about, mine or God's?
You've changed horses in the middle of the stream.

which demands first-hand witnesses. Secondly, if the street preacher's epistle claims a message contrary to YHWH's previously established Scripture (the Torah, Prophets, and Writings), then we know for sure that the epistle is NOT from YHWH (Deu 13:1-5, Deu 18:18-22, Isa 8:20).

In the same way, Galatians is the word of Paul of Tarsus only. It is not the first-hand testimony of Peter, James, or John. Acts is the second-hand information gathered together by Luke. It also, is not the first-hand testimony of Peter or James or anyone else.

In the same way, Galatians is the word of Paul only, whom Peter, James and John believed he received from the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if the street preacher is Paul of NY on the streets of New York City today (1,980 years after the resurrection of Messiah), or "Paul of Tarsus" on the streets of Galatia, 10 years after Messiah's resurrection. The standard and rules are still the same.

Which standards are you talking about--proof based on the evidence of the apostles of Jesus Christ, or proof based on your understanding?

 

[Clare73]

Do you believe, like Paul did, and the rest of 'The Way' that the "NT Word", or any other writings, MUST agree with the Law and the Prophets? [Acts 24:14]

Well surely if Paul believed the NT Word of God MUST agree with the Law and the Prophets, I can trust that Paul's NT Word of God does, INDEED, agree with the Scriptures.

"The Law and the Prophets" was common nomenclature for all the Scriptures, as was just "the Law."
Paul was talking about all the Scriptures.

 

[Clare73]

What if I say the Spirit bears witness within my heart that some things may be chaff instead of wheat? Surely you must agree that there should be objective rules for sorting this out. Thank you for your response!

Then I say you best believe it.

We all get to choose, and we all get to bear the consequences of our choices.

I'm happy with that.

 

[ananda]

If the apostles come down from heaven and tell me the street preacher's message is true, I will accept it. And if the street preacher's friend is also a friend of Jesus, do I also not accept what the street preacher's friend says about Jesus?

How would you know for sure that the 'apostles' that came down from heaven was really from YHWH and Yehoshua, or if they were demonic counterfeits?

In the same way, Galatians is the word of Paul only, whom Peter, James and John believed he received from the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

You have not established that Peter, James, and John believed that Paul received his epistles from Messiah.

 

[visionary]

One thing is true.. as Yeshua pointed out... those that teach and believe the doing away of the law.. are considered least in the kingdom of heaven.. He should know.. He is the judge... now if it is true that Paul believed and preached the doing away with the law of God.. then God will consider Paul least among the people of God.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Clare73]

How would you know for sure that the 'apostles' that came down from heaven was really from YHWH and Yehoshua, or if they were demonic counterfeits?

I wouldn't, that's why I wouldn't be able today to verify the preacher's message like the apostles verified Paul's message.
That's why I wouldn't believe the preacher's message as I believe Paul's message.

You have not established that Peter, James, and John believed that Paul received his epistles from Messiah.

1) You have not established that they do not.

2) The NT, which states that Peter, James and John accepted Paul's message, has had the field for 2,000 years.
It's your job to take the field by establishing they did not accept it.

3) It's not my job to establish what the NT states. It's my job to believe it.

 

[ananda]

One thing is true.. as Yeshua pointed out... those that teach and believe the doing away of the law.. are considered least in the kingdom of heaven.. He should know.. He is the judge... now if it is true that Paul believed and preached the doing away with the law of God.. then God will consider Paul least among the people of God.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I believe the YLT provided a clearer translation of this passage: Messiah states that those who attempt to overthrow Torah and the Commandments are called the least and smallest, by those in the kingdom of heaven.

(Note that the verse is not saying that these antinomian "least/smallest ones" are "least/smallest in the kingdom of heaven" but that they are called "least/smallest" by those "in the kingdom"! The connecting verse (20) implies that these "least/smallest ones," those teaching anti-Torah, may not enter into the kingdom of heaven!)

`Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.`Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least [ἐλάχιστος /smallest] he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.`For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens. Mt 5:17-20 YLT.

 

[ananda]

Originally Posted by netzarim

How would you know for sure that the 'apostles' that came down from heaven was really from YHWH and Yehoshua, or if they were demonic counterfeits?
​

I wouldn't, that's why I wouldn't be able today to verify the preacher's message like the apostles verified Paul's message.
That's why I wouldn't believe the preacher's message as I believe Paul's message.

I would be able to, with the guidelines given in Scripture. Any legitimate words given by YHWH are authenticated when they are proven to agree with the Torah and the Prophets. Any words which contradict Torah and the Prophets are not from YHWH.

You have not established that Peter, James, and John believed that Paul received his epistles from Messiah.

1) You have not established that they do not.

I believe I did. In addition to agreement with Torah and the Prophets, Scripture clearly demands two or three first-hand witnesses to establish anything. There are none for Paul.

2) The NT, which states that Peter, James and John accepted Paul's message, has had the field for 2,000 years. It's your job to take the field by establishing they did not accept it.

Paul's epistles were not considered Scripture by the vast majority of the body of believers in the period immediately after the death of the (legitimate) apostles (100-early 300's A.D.). Marcionism appeared during this period; this movement elevated Paul's doctrines of faith-alone, predestination, etc. and was roundly condemned as heresy. Elements of Marcionism was revived in the 16th century with the Reformation; to this day, the Pauline message has trumped Messiah's Message.

3) It's not my job to establish what the NT states. It's my job to believe it.

Which NT?

 

[Clare73]

I would be able to, with the guidelines given in Scripture. Any legitimate words given by YHWH are authenticated when they are proven to agree with the Torah and the Prophets. Any words which contradict Torah and the Prophets are not from YHWH.

All words of Jesus, the apostles (Ro 1:1; Co 1:1; Gal 1:1, etc.) and the entire canonized NT are likewise Scripture.
Peter groups the writings of Paul with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16).
The believer's job is not to set them one against the other, but to reconcile them one to the other.

I believe I did. In addition to agreement with Torah and the Prophets, Scripture clearly demands two or three first-hand witnesses to establish anything. There are none for Paul.

Except for the NT record of Luke, the apostles and the elders of the church in Jerusalem. . .

So how many witnesses were there for Jesus, the prophet who was to come?

The issue is simple.
The NT cannot be proven either true or untrue.
It is a matter of belief/unbelief.
I believe the canonized NT, you don't.

Paul's epistles were not considered Scripture by the vast majority of the body of believers in the period immediately after the death of the (legitimate) apostles (100-early 300's A.D.). Marcionism appeared during this period; this movement elevated Paul's doctrines of faith-alone, predestination, etc. and was roundly condemned as heresy. Elements of Marcionism was revived in the 16th century with the Reformation; to this day, the Pauline message has trumped Messiah's Message.

Because no one in 100-300 AD knew Jesus personally, nor was taught by Jesus for over three years, nor was the spokesman for the apostles of Jesus, Peter's belief trumps the late comers for me (2Pe 3:16).

Your view is as Marcion's and your "vast majority of believers"--heretical.

Which NT?

The one I believe.