Moses, Christ, and Paul

HARK! said:

(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of THE LAW to fall.

Click to expand...

Already explained this in post #52 in my last paragraph. Not going to argue with you on it, though. My explanation has already been made. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

HARK! said:

It's a literal translation.

Click to expand...

No offense, but the CLV Bible Translation is used from the corrupted texts that all Modern Translations use.


It also takes from the Codex Alexandrinus, as well.

The King James Bible is taken from the Textus Receptus manuscripts (Which is an entirely different vine, i.e. the good vine).

Lets compare the KJV next to the CLV to see it's problems.

GOD was manifest in the flesh according to the KJV.
The CLV denies this truth within 1 Timothy 3:16.
(Note: See the test we are given in 1 John 4:2-3).


There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is the only place in the Bible that describes the Trinity point blank. This is removed in most Modern Translations (Including the CLV).


Notice that the truth of the Trinity is omitted in the CLV. If I was stranded on an island and did not know about Christ or the Trinity, etc., and all I had was a King James Bible, I would have a better chance at understanding the Trinity if 1 John 5:7 was in my Bible like it should be. But of course, the devil does not like men to know the truth, so he has attacked and watered down God's Word.

Then we can see here that the enemy makes an attempt to remove a key point in spiritual warfare in God's Word.


See, the devil does not want God's people to know that they need to fast and pray in order to cast out a demon from a demon possessed person. But you can stick with your CLV if you like.

Here is a list of verses that are omitted in Modern English Translations:

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

If you want a watered down butter knife to fight, by all means, you are free to use such a weapon. I am sticking with my ole trusty KJV that existed for hundreds of years long before the Modern Translations showed up.

Side Note:

Please keep in mind that I only quote Modern Translations if they happen to line up with what the KJV is saying (so as to help update the 1600's English in certain instances) for clarity.

gospels said:

After gathering my understanding from my other threads, now there’s this new question in my mind. I hope you will help me. Thanks.

If we are referring what God gave to the nation of Israel through Moses as Judaism (I mean following a lifestyle given in the Old Testament, excluding man made traditions and pagan culture).

and what God gave to them through Christ as Messianic Judaism,

then did God again give a different ‘ism’ to the grafted-in branches (spiritual Israel) through Paul? How different is it from what Christ gave?

P.S- I believe that the Judaism that accepts their Messiah is the true Judaism if Israelite's really understood their scriptures correctly. Judaism believes in Messiah, wants Him and waiting for Him. They are just unaware who He is.

Click to expand...

God pass us the message, and we as humans with limited knowledge understand it with different ways. The important ones are that we are sinners, we can't save ourselves (try Love your neighbor as yourself), that God send us a messiah and He saves us.

gospels said:

Right. Thanks for sharing. I edited that in OP. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Is it all of them or are there only some that are lost? Are there some sheep that were never lost and did not need Yahshua to save them?

Click to expand...

The lost sheep of Israel are the original 12 tribes, all of them, as they all need salvation. Then there are the "other sheep" that Jesus Christ of Nazareth recognized as His fold as well, the Gentiles. He came for the Jew first then the Gentile. There is no Jew or Gentile just One Flock, The Body of Christ. Be blessed!
John 10:16
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

gospels said:

After gathering my understanding from my other threads, now there’s this new question in my mind. I hope you will help me. Thanks.

If we are referring what God gave to the nation of Israel through Moses as Judaism (I mean following a lifestyle given in the Old Testament, excluding man made traditions and pagan culture).

and what God gave to them through Christ as Messianic Judaism,

then did God again give a different ‘ism’ to the grafted-in branches (spiritual Israel) through Paul? How different is it from what Christ gave?

P.S- I believe that the Judaism that accepts their Messiah is the true Judaism if Israelite's really understood their scriptures correctly. Judaism believes in Messiah, wants Him and waiting for Him. They are just unaware who He is.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that God enacted two covenants. One with the blood of bulls and goats, the other with the blood of His son Jesus. Both covenants are in force, but it was Paul who came along and promoted the second covenant as being far superior to the first. However, the ultimate argument for the superiority of the second covenant is in the Book of Hebrews which is not signed by Paul, rather I believe all the apostles who crossed over from the first covenant to the second (river crossers, Hebrews) signed off on it.

gospels said:

Let's suppose they had it correct. When would you say Messiah would come? because at some point He should come to be that sacrificial lamb of God for all sins since Adam, because according to the book of Genesis - God said His seed will come.

I think God would still send Messiah at His appointed time to fulfill the scriptures irrespective of whether people had their religion right or wrong, corrupted or uncorrupted, all sinned and needed salvation. So i think God sending His Son at that time is more about Him rather than people having it right/wrong.

Click to expand...

What about the Epistle to the Hebrews? it shows a vast difference between the two systems of doctrine.

gospels said:

I've found the answer to my OP.

It is NOT Moses, Christ, and Paul.

It is The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Yes, each and all of them gave us greater revelation as needed for the times, slowly but surely, but also uniformly.

Click to expand...

Well, certainly God has not changed. I think most Christians here on CF agree that the Trinity is eternal and existed in both the Old and New Testaments. Most Christians also understand that before the Incarnation (the birth of Jesus), that the Old Testament saint was unaware of Jesus as their Messiah, and they were probably not all aware of the concept of the Trinity, either. But yet, this does not change the nature of who God is.

Moses, and Paul were merely just vessels (temples) by which God could live in and for them to be mouthpieces for what God wanted to say. Christ is the second person of the Trinity or the Godhead (i.e. the Son of God, or the Word of God in John 1). The eternal Word (the Son) was manifested in the flesh. Most here agree with the Incarnation. So believing the Trinity, and the Incarnation should not be new doctrines for Christians.

Jesus is GOD (the Word - John 1:1). Jesus spoke and did everything by the commandment of God the Father. So Jesus was not acting on His own authority alone, but by the authority of the Father. Everything He said, and did was by what the Father told Him to do and say.

Here are your original questions:


By these questions asked, I understood them as asking what kind of teachings or doctrines were different between Moses, Christ, and Paul, and I did not take your questions as indicative of WHO was being worshiped that was different between the time of Moses, Christ, and Paul (Note: See your highlighted words in red).

If I am to answer your question as originally stated, I would say that the teachings did differ between Moses, Christ (before the cross), and Paul. So I will attempt to explain the differences between the teachings of Moses, the teachings of Christ (before the cross), and the teachings of Paul (after the cross).

The teachings given to Moses by GOD compared to the teachings of Jesus Christ:

Moses received the two stone tablets of the 10 commandments directly from God, and he received revelation to write the "Torah" (i.e. The five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) from God (Note: The whole of the Old Testament writings is called the "Tanakh."). These commands and writings given to Moses by God were for the nation of Israel and not to Gentile nations. Israel was supposed to be a light unto the nations, and they were supposed to convert them to worshiping and following God (according to the Torah). This was different than the way Jesus received His commandments. According to Scripture: We do not see any mention that Jesus received any stone tablets, and neither did Jesus write down any Scripture himself like Moses did.
The Law of Moses teaches a lot of ceremonial laws and judicial laws that do not clearly apply under the teachings of Jesus Christ (even before the cross). Even some Moral Laws have been changed, as well.

#1. Law of Moses:

#2. Law of Moses:

#3. Law of Moses:

#3. Law of Moses:

Clearly things are different between what the Law of Moses taught, and what Jesus taught. This means that Jesus Christ (The Word who is God) received a commandment to speak by God the Father in what to say; Therefore, it was God the Father who was making the actual changes to God's laws while the Old Covenant was officially in effect still. For we know that Christ's sacrifice officially began the New Testament. For Jesus said to his disciples before He was sacrificed, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20). The temple veil (which was used for the laws of the priesthood and the sacrifices had also ended); For it is written: "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;" (Matthew 27:51).

Paul's teachings given by God vs. the Law of Moses:

While Moses received stone tablets on mount Sinai, the revelation of God's words to Paul were given to him in a slightly different way. Paul did not receive stone tablets, but he did write Scripture (inspired by the Spirit) like Moses did. But are there differences between the teachings of Moses, and Paul? Yes. Here they are:

#1. The Law of Moses:

#2. The Law of Moses:

#3. The Law of Moses:

So it appears things have changed.

This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12).

This is why Paul said if you seek to be justified by the Law, you have fallen from grace. But this does not mean Paul was against any form of God's laws in general.

Paul said that what he has written should be regarded as the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Paul said that if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus and the doctrine according to godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing (See: 1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Paul was a mouthpiece for our Lord Jesus Christ, and clearly Paul taught differently than the Law of Moses.

Paul said, for me to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17).


Side Note:

What about the differences in teachings between Jesus (before the cross) and Paul's teachings?

I will attempt to explain these differences in my next post.

HARK! said:

Nonsense not according to scholars of Textual Criticism. I stopped reading beyond this faulty premise.

Textual criticism
John Mill (1645–1707) collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707) he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia, but in the index he enumerated 30,000 textual variants.[11]

Shortly after Mill published his edition, Daniel Whitby (1638–1725) attacked his work by asserting that the text of the New Testament had never been corrupted and thus equated autographs with the Textus Receptus. He considered the 30,000 variants in Mill's edition a danger to Holy Scripture and called for defending the Textus Receptus against these variants.[12]

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752) edited in 1725 Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci Rectè Cautèque Adornandiand 1734 Novum Testamentum Graecum. Bengel divided manuscripts into families and subfamilies and favoured the principle of lectio difficilior potior ("the more difficult reading is the stronger").

Johann Jakob Wettstein's apparatus was fuller than that of any previous editor. He introduced the practice of indicating the ancient manuscripts by capital Roman letters and the later manuscripts by Arabic numerals. He published in Basel Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci (1731).

J. J. Griesbach (1745–1812) combined the principles of Bengel and Wettstein. He enlarged the Apparatus by considering more citations from the Fathers, and various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian. Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a Byzantine Recension.[13] Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811) was a Griesbach opponent.

Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) was the first who broke with the Textus Receptus. His object was to restore the text to the form in which it had been read in the Ancient Church in about AD 380. He used the oldest known Greek and Latin manuscripts.

Constantin von Tischendorf's Editio Octava Critica Maior was based on Codex Sinaiticus.

Westcott and Hort published The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881 in which they rejected what they considered to be the dated and inadequate Textus Receptus. Their text is based mainly on Codex Vaticanus in the Gospels.[14]

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia



I thought that you said that you didn't want to debate me. I respected your wishes. You can't play hit and run.

Don't tell me that because your Bible is chocked full of fabrications and omissions; that it's better than mine.

Click to expand...

I was referring to refusing to debate how you believe we are under the Law of Moses or in how we must keep the Saturday Sabbath. I responded on another matter, which is the topic of: "Modern Translations vs. the KJV" because most do not truly understand the topic all too well (and the spiritual implications behind such a discussion or debate). Granted, I knew you were going to reply back yet again without starting another thread (Which is what I would have done if I was in your shoes and I wanted to further discuss the issue in depth). But I am not going to derail "Gospels'' thread. If you want to debate the KJV vs. the CLV, by all means, start another thread on that topic. Granted, I believe my case has already been made and no more defense is actually needed. What you said was just a copy and paste effort without any real thought to what I said. Anyways, what I said so far should be obvious for those who have ears to hear. But maybe you can get another KJV person on the forums to discuss the issue with you (if you start another thread on this topic).

gospels said:

Thank you.

Click to expand...

You are most welcome. I have one more post for you that will hopefully help show you the differences between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul (Which I believe are not major differences - primarily speaking).

Bible Highlighter said:

See, the devil does not want God's people to know that they need to fast and pray in order to cast out a demon from a demon possessed person. But you can stick with your CLV if you like.

Click to expand...

This was before Pentecost.

What Satan doesn't want believers to know is that in Him we have all power and authority to deal with whatever spiritual manifestations present themselves because of what He has already done in Jesus. The only condition is not prayer and fasting, but being in His obedience carrying out an appointed work.

I have been led to do this more than once.

@gospels

Are there any differences between the teachings of Jesus (before the cross), and the teachings of Paul?

Well, the only major difference between them is:


The New Covenant officially began with Christ's death.
So when reading about Christ's earthly ministry (in the 4 gospels): You will discover that Jesus sometimes supported the Old Law (because it was technically a time of the Old Covenant), but the Law of Moses was not something that He strongly emphasized over His New Covenant teachings (Although Jesus kept the Law of Moses).

Technically, Jesus was under the Melchizedek priesthood order, but Jesus kept the Aaronic priesthood to fulfill the Law of Moses upon the cross, and end the Old Covenant (with His death). But when Jesus had risen, He started a new priesthood order that was to be under the order of Melchizedek and not by the Aaronic priesthood order. Jesus would be our heavenly high priest now instead of us having to go to the Levite priests and offer animal sacrifices to them (According to the Law of Moses) (For even the priesthood has changed; See: Hebrews 7:12).

While under the Old Covenant (before the cross), Jesus was in support of the Old Covenant laws. For Jesus told a man:

"...if you bring your gift [i.e. animal sacrifice] to the altar, and you remember that your brother has something against you; Leave your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matthew 5:23-24)
(Important Note: Words in brackets above in blue lettering is my commentary to the text).

But we know that Matthew says that the temple veil was torn from top to bottom when Christ died upon the cross, and Hebrews 9 says, "For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Hebrews 9:17).

So believers after the cross, did not have to keep animal sacrifices anymore.

For even Paul said Christ is now our Passover Lamb.
"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Yes, it is true; Paul appeared to be in support of animal sacrifice after the cross. But I believe Paul was being pressured by the other Jewish apostles (to help show the other Messianic Jewish believers that he was not against all of the Law), and he made a mistake in going back to the Old Law in Acts of the Apostles 21 by entering the OT Purification rite; But God stopped Paul with going through with the ending of the purification rite when the Lord prevented Paul in participating in the offering of the animal sacrifices.

Remember, the book of Acts was a record of what the apostles did, and the record in Acts did not mean that they were not capable of making mistakes. Even Peter made a mistake in regards to the New Covenant way, and Paul rebuked him for it (See: Galatians 2:11-21).


Another apparent difference between Paul and Jesus is the gospel:
(Important Note: I am not saying they taught a different gospel):

Now, there is no actual direct or clear definition of the gospel given plainly to us that is attached with the word "gospel" before the cross (or within the 4 gospels). Yet, after the cross, Paul clearly clarifies the details of the gospel as:


The 12 disciples were not aware of this version of the gospel when they preached the gospel during Christ's earthly ministry. Does this mean that the disciples preached an entirely different gospel? Well, not exactly. I believe the disciples preached the good news of Jesus in that He was the Messiah or the Savior. I believe the phrase: "Kingdom of God" sometimes referred to Jesus. For Jesus is at the heart of the gospel that Paul preaches in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. But Paul's gospel fleshes out the details of salvation in Christ to include the redemptive work of Christ with His death, burial, and resurrection. Salvation is ultimately in Jesus Christ. Even Paul said to the jailer that all he had to do was believe in Jesus to be saved.

In any event, while there may have been some subtle differences between what Jesus and Paul taught, they were technically teaching the same thing generally speaking when it came to teaching the New Covenant (or the New Testament way). Yes, Jesus had to accommodate those who were under the Old Covenant while the OT was still in effect before the cross, but Jesus was primarily teaching New Covenant, and not Old Covenant in the gospels. Yes, the "Moral Law" (i.e. Any law that tells you to do good instinctively, like: Do not steal, do not lust, do not hate, do not covet, etc. - See: Romans 2:14) has been carried over from the Old Law on into the New Testament way, but the Moral Law began after the fall of Adam and Eve and thus, it existed even before the Law of Moses.

I hope this helps clarify things;
And may God bless you greatly.

Sincerely,

~ J.

Carl Emerson said:

This was before Pentecost.

What Satan doesn't want believers to know is that in Him we have all power and authority to deal with whatever spiritual manifestations present themselves because of what He has already done in Jesus. The only condition is not prayer and fasting, but being in His obedience carrying out an appointed work.

I have been led to do this more than once.

Click to expand...

Men today have all kinds of spiritual experiences; That does not mean they are correct in what they are doing.

I believe faith is not based on experience, but faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Show me in the Bible where prayer and fasting has ended to cast out devils out of a person.

Bible Highlighter said:

Moses, and Paul were merely just vessels (temples) by which God could live in and for them to be mouthpieces for what God wanted to say.

Click to expand...

Just to say that the 'indwelling presence' was given after the resurrection with the New Covenant as was promised and prophesied. Moses experienced Holy Spirit coming on him but was not permanently indwelled like New Covenant believers...