Protestant beliefs

Rhamiel said:

Interesting
So Lutheran theology would be significantly younger then Protestantism
Would you say that Lutheranism influenced Arminius or more the other way around?

Click to expand...

Neither. Because the idea that Lutheranism is "closer" to Arminianism isn't true.

-CryptoLutheran

Vicomte13 said:

I agree with everything Paul said. I marvel at how illiterate and stubborn other Christians are at reading things there that he did not say, and clearly did not mean.

Paul is not the problem. Paul according to William is the problem. William speaks nonsense and quotes Paul as justification. And yep, Paul says that, apparently, right there. But then Paul says something else, somewhere else, that reverses the nonsense, and he doesn't tie it together, because Paul himself was written disparate letters to disparate people over time. He himself didn't have a folio of the "Epistles of Paul" to consult himself as we do. He had himself to consult, and himself changed and matured and became wiser over time. His letters span many years, and different circumstances.

Read in light of Jesus, Paul is a wonderful priest. But William (or whomever) reads Paul as though he were the Infallible Protestant Pope, and then what is said to come out of Paul's mouth if frequently offensive and really stupid.

Paul didn't mean that, but try convincing somebody who has built a theology on that?

My view is this: Jesus was God incarnate, and he said plenty. The Father said "Listen to HIM", and He said "Follow me" and "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments?"

Life is short, and there is not enough time to do everything. So my Bible study simply goes straight to Jesus and really focuses on every word HE says. And all of my arguments that quote the Bible cite Jesus.

I'm a lawyer. If I am writing an argument and there are a bunch of cases on a matter, some from the Supreme Court right on point, others from lower courts or state courts that are either on topic or talk about the topic, I'm not going to be quoting all of those cases. I'm going to keep it tight and just quote the Supreme Court. Why? Because the Supreme Court is superior in authority to all of those other courts, and to all other courts. Those other courts may be in different jurisdictions, and their decisions may have been overruled later by the Supreme Court. I keep it to the point and cite the highest binding authority. Everything below that is subsumed.

It's always easy to have a Biblical conversation with me. Quote Jesus or, in the Old Testament, YHWH, and you have authority I respect. Start quoting Paul, or John, or some Psalm, and I'm going to quote Jesus or YHWH in reply, and I'm going to pick at the quotation of the lesser authority.

When somebody asserts that Paul's writings have the same authority as Jesus' own words, I reply: that's idolatry. The Bible is a book, not a God-maker. Paul is not God, he's a sinner, a man, and his words cannot override the words of Jesus. Not ever. Men are not equal to God.

Then people fight with me endlessly, but I've already lost interest in the argument and know that I'm dealing with somebody lost. I also know I can't lead them out of the swamp.

I'll always really debate, with Scripture, those who wish, but the range of Scripture that I will use is the most high Scripture; the words that proceed forth out of the mouth of God. And I won't accept that Scripture not spoken directly by God has the same authority, because it clearly doesn't on its own terms, obviously.

Paul? He's great. Love him.
What people do with Paul? Generate great billowing clouds of error. Jesus was so much clearer, and as God has so much more authority, we should stick to him when we're trying to figure something out that is in contention.

That's my deal with Paul. It's really with my living interlocutor who is misusing Paul, treating Paul as though he were some sort of infallible Pope. Paul himself would be pretty horrified at that. I find it annoying and a discussion ender.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm glad I kept reading this thread though I got behind.

I was going to reply re:confession, because my experiences are rather different. Partly owing to the fact that my SF told me to go frequently, partly maybe that I'm Orthodox, and partly that I'm female. Maybe for other reasons I can't see. But it's not so important and I'm not sure it would benefit anyone.

But I really like what you've said here. I'd be interested too in 1stCentury's question - specific instances? Not for the purposes of denigrating Paul, but as you said, I know he matured. And who you're talking to matters. I see even in my own replies (not that I'm comparing myself to Paul!) ... but the way I address persons can vary depending on what the issue is and where they are. My suggestions to some would be disastrous to others, and I have some concern that I might seem inconsistent except I doubt anyone is paying that close of attention to me, thankfully lol. I just don't want to confuse anyone. I've had several jobs but have been a teacher much of my life, and get put in that position unofficially quite often too, including at Church. So I worry about confusing or misleading people is all.

This isn't actually a contradiction, but I've been treated a certain way in some fellowships because I was going through marital difficulties at one time (I got put aside not for divorcing but just for struggling in trying to fix my marriage!) ... based on Paul. And pretty much made to feel like dirt and struggled a lot since then at some places because I did remarry. I'm very conscious of my weaknesses and sins. Yet Christ met not only a woman caught in adultery, but another who had been married many times and was currently in an illicit relationship, and He did not discard them.

Anyway. Great post. Thanks.

1stcenturylady said:

All Protestants who know church history knows that it was Martin Luther who is the father of Protestantism. Since then, many Protestant denominations have arisen with differing beliefs on grace and sin and salvation. They differ from the most liberal - sin so grace can abound, all the way to sinless perfection.

Here is a letter from Martin Luther on his view. "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger.

Here is the letter in context. What are the views of your denomination, and what denomination is that. Thanks.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard, for you are quite a sinner.

Click to expand...

So basically only the faith can save us.

1stcenturylady said:

I've never seen anything that Paul or any of the apostles wrote that contradicts what Jesus has said, nor each other. Nor Paul contradicting himself. I'd like to examine what you mean if you remember any verses in particular.

Click to expand...

Here is a small example, followed by a large example. I am not going to give chapter and verse, because the chapter and verse markers are not part of the Scripture, and because the things I will cite are familiar enough to anybody who reads the Bible that it is not necessary to do so.

Example 1: To one of the churches - doesn't really matter which one - Paul said that long hair on a man is a disgrace. I have read a pamphlet and argued twice with different Christians that this means that the long hairstyle on men that goes in and out of style (Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, for example, all had shoulder length hair that was tied back in a pony tail as was the fashion in 1770. They would have been called "Hippies" in 1970 because of their long hair) is contrary to God. Conservative men frequently do not like the long hairstyle on men. The military, since World War I, has enforced a very short hairstyle, and for three or more generations American men have gone through the military and had the short hairstyle imposed on them as "proper grooming". So, there is a strong cultural bias among conservative American men in favor of short hair. Because "William" doesn't like long hair on men, and he's Christian, he picks up Paul and reads 'long hair on men is a disgrace', and, wham, just like that, "God said, in His inerrant Holy Bible, that long hair on men is a disgrace. God has spoken, and that settles it!"

Such utter nonsense. Yes, PAUL did write that, in one letter, to one church, for whatever reason he wrote it. Maybe there was a problem in that Church. Maybe Paul disliked long hair on men and wrote from his personal preference. Whatever the case, Paul's opinion there is not law, it is not God speaking, and it is absurd for anybody to read the Bible that way or to grant Paul the power, through an offhand line of his in one letter, to set grooming standards for Christian men until the end of time.

We know Paul cannot do that for several reasons. Biblically speaking, YHWH, speaking formal law to the Hebrews FORBADE them from taking a razor to the sides of their hair. They HAD to wear their hair long. Additionally, when God sent a sign through the Prophet Samson, he did so, again, by forbidding Samson to cut his hair. His long hair was a sign of the power of God. When God made Adam - humans in general - he did not make us with iron implements required to cut hair. We are made in God's image, and without the tools to cut it, human hair will naturally grow to its full length in 6 years. In the seventh year, at some point, each individual strand of hair dies and falls out or breaks off. New hair is growing all the time. So, hair length stabilizes at seven years of growth. it does not continue to grow to the floor, etc. This is the way that God MADE US TO BE, in his image, and he FORBADE the Jews from cutting the sides of their hair with a razor, so the notion that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair is directly contrary both to the way God made us in his image, and to actual direct LAW that he gave to the Hebrews. I rather tire of the way that Christians jump around, arguing that we're "not under the law" when they don't care for the law, but then suddenly we're back under the law for the parts we like.
And finally, the clincher: the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth. It has the miraculous image of him in death on it, just prior to his resurrection. The image is a miracle because it cannot be man-made: man cannot make such an image NOW, let alone 2000 years ago. JESUS HAS LONG, SHOULDER LENGTH HAIR. HE followed the Torah, without sin or flaw, and HE had the long hair that one would expect anybody following the Mosaic law of God would have.

So, if Paul is read the way William, the 20th century conservative American jerk who doesn't like long hair and wants to proclaim his own preference is a divine law reads him, Jesus Christ was a disgrace, because he had long hair, and the prophet Samson was a disgrace because of his long hair, and YHWH was disgraceful for having given a law that imposed long hair on men. There is one example of a line of Paul being used to establish new "divine law" that is nothing of the kind. William has abused Paul, self-righteously. It annoys me.

The second example of an abuse of Paul really makes me furious, because it guts both the Law of YHWH AND pages and pages of what Jesus said. It's the classic case of using the Bible as a "God maker" and elevating Paul about God and God's Son, in order to satisfy the political passions (and private greed) of some 21st century conservative American "Christian". Paul did indeed write "He who will not work, shall not eat." That one line of Paul has been advanced against me five different times, by five different "Christians" or groups of "Christians", each claiming that this text proves that modern social welfare is evil, because it is not "voluntary", and because it goes to people who "will not work", and "the BIBLE says 'He who will not work shall not eat.'"

No. PAUL said, in a certain specific context, that those who would not work at helping bring food to the agape meals and serving it, should not be permitted to eat those meals. But YHWH said, as part of the Law, all of the following things:
(1) All must pay a 10% tithe for the support of the poor and the Levites. (The Levites fed themselves with some of it, and were to use the rest to support the poor.) This was a MANDATORY ENFORCED TAX, specifically for poverty relief, imposed by God. It was not voluntary, at all, and it was not limited to "the working poor".
(2) A rich Hebrew, if asked for a loan by a poor Hebrew, must extend the loan. Think about that. It meant that the rich could not accumulate wealth, because anybody who asked, had to be lent to. It meant that the rich had an incentive to lend out ALL of their excess wealth quickly, keeping all of that money in circulation, so they could at least control to whom they lent. If they didn't proactively go loan to the poor, the poor would come to them, and they were REQUIRED BY GOD to lend to the poor if they had it.
(3) God prohibited the rich from charging any interest to the poor on these loans they had to give.
(4) There was no means testing. In the 7th year, any amounts that the poor could not repay had to be forgiven and written off. It could never be collected and there was no recourse after that.
(5) God forbade debtors prison for Israelites, and they could not be enslaved. All that the rich could do to somebody who could not pay him was put him under indenture, up until the Seventh, Sabbatical year (which might not actually be seven years away). And if he did so, the rich man had to provide food, shelter and clothing for the man and his family. And while the rich man could count the work towards the debt, he also had to pay the indentured servant at the end and could not send him away without pay EVEN IF THE DEBT WAS STILL unpaid.
That's the Law, and Jesus said that it could never be changed by a letter.
Now let's look at what Jesus said and did. He healed the sick, fed and provided for the poor, and did not engage in means testing. Ever. He never sent anyone away, worthy or unworthy. Additionally, in the Lord's prayer, he upheld the forgiveness of debts for Christians, extending the Torah. He said "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" - he made the direct parallel between the forgiveness of sin and the forgiveness of money debt. He did so even more explicitly in his parable of the unforgiving servant. For what was the debt that the unforgiving servant was forgiven? A massive money debt. And what did that servant then NOT forgive another miserable wretch? A small money debt. So the servant's Lord hauled him back, unforgave him, and threw him into prison to be tortured "until the last penny is paid". Jesus promised that God would do that to each of us also if we do not forgive.

John the Baptist told people that if they had two cloaks, to give one to somebody who had none, and if they had food, to give to those who did not have enough.

The message from OT to New is relentless and consistent, and the only voluntarism there is to it is: Do it or be damned.

But then some William or Edgar out there will pick up Paul, point to "He who will not work shall not eat", and extrapolate from that to mean that social welfare is evil and unbiblical, contrary to the will of God. Whole pages of words spoken by YHWH and Jesus are simply disregarded in favor of one sentence of Paul. This is not legitimate. The justification? "All Scripture is God-breathed", another line of Paul, which is used by "Christians" to take the lines of Paul they like and nullify anything else in the Bible. It's idolatrous.

Those are but two examples. A third would be Paul's admonition against women teaching.

In all cases my problem is not with Paul. It's with "Christians" who take Paul as God, indeed as the ULTIMATE God, who use Paul to wipe out Jesus own words.

There. Those are three concrete examples, two of them fleshed out, in which what Paul says is read to contradict what God said. In all three cases, it is Paul's apparent opinion that needs to be disregarded, not Jesus'.

This is how Paul is misused and abused, but also how some of the things he says really do conflict with what Jesus said. I say that in such circumstances, you always go with Jesus, obviously.

Vicomte13 said:

Here is a small example, followed by a large example. I am not going to give chapter and verse, because the chapter and verse markers are not part of the Scripture, and because the things I will cite are familiar enough to anybody who reads the Bible that it is not necessary to do so.

Example 1: To one of the churches - doesn't really matter which one - Paul said that long hair on a man is a disgrace. I have read a pamphlet and argued twice with different Christians that this means that the long hairstyle on men that goes in and out of style (Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, for example, all had shoulder length hair that was tied back in a pony tail as was the fashion in 1770. They would have been called "Hippies" in 1970 because of their long hair). Conservative men frequently do not like the long hairstyle on men. The military, since World War I, has enforced a very short hairstyle, and for three or more generations American men have gone through the military and had the short hairstyle imposed on them as "proper grooming". So, there is a strong cultural bias among conservative American men in favor of short hair. Because "William" doesn't like long hair on men, and he's Christian, he picks up Paul and reads 'long hair on men is a disgrace', and, wham, just like that, "God said, in His inerrant Holy Bible, that long hair on men is a disgrace. God has spoken, and that settles it!"

Such utter nonsense. Yes, PAUL did write that, in one letter, to one church, for whatever reason he wrote it. Maybe there was a problem in that Church. Maybe Paul disliked long hair on men and wrote from his personal preference. Whatever the case, Paul's opinion there is not law, it is not God speaking, and it is absurd for anybody to read the Bible that way or to grant Paul the power, through an offhand line of his in one letter, to set grooming standards for Christian men until the end of time.

We know Paul cannot do that for several reasons. Biblically speaking, YHWH, speaking formal law to the Hebrews FORBADE them from taking a razor to the sides of their hair. They HAD to wear their hair long. Additionally, when God sent a sign through the Prophet Samson, he did so, again, by forbidding Samson to cut his hair. His long hair was a sign of the power of God. When God made Adam - humans in general - he did not make us with iron implements required to cut hair. We are made in God's image, and without the tools to cut it, human hair will naturally grow to its full length in 6 years. In the seventh year, at some point, each individual strand of hair dies and falls out or breaks off. New hair is growing all the time. So, hair length stabilizes at seven years of growth. it does not continue to grow to the floor, etc. This is the way that God MADE US TO BE, in his image, and he FORBADE the Jews from cutting the sides of their hair with a razor, so the notion that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair is directly contrary both to the way God made us in his image, and to actual direct LAW that he gave to the Hebrews. I rather tire of the way that Christians jump around, arguing that we're "not under the law" when they don't care for the law, but then suddenly we're back under the law for the parts we like.
And finally, the clincher: the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth. It has the miraculous image of him in death on it, just prior to his resurrection. The image is a miracle because it cannot be man-made: man cannot make such an image NOW, let alone 2000 years ago. JESUS HAS LONG, SHOULDER LENGTH HAIR. HE followed the Torah, without sin or flaw, and HE had the long hair that one would expect anybody following the Mosaic law of God would have.

So, if Paul is read the way William, the 20th century conservative American jerk who doesn't like long hair and wants to proclaim his own preference is a divine law reads him, Jesus Christ was a disgrace, because he had long hair, and the prophet Samson was a disgrace because of his long hair, and YHWH was disgraceful for having given a law that imposed long hair on men. There is one example of a line of Paul being used to establish new "divine law" that is nothing of the kind. William has abused Paul, self-righteously. It annoys me.

The second example of an abuse of Paul really makes me furious, because it guts both the Law of YHWH AND pages and pages of what Jesus said. It's the classic case of using the Bible as a "God maker" and elevating Paul about God and God's Son, in order to satisfy the political passions (and private greed) of some 21st century conservative American "Christian". Paul did indeed write "He who will not work, shall not eat." That one line of Paul has been advanced against me five different times, by five different "Christians" or groups of "Christians", each claiming that this text proves that modern social welfare is evil, because it is not "voluntary", and because it goes to people who "will not work", and "the BIBLE says 'He who will not work shall not eat.'"

No. PAUL said, in a certain specific context, that those who would not work at helping bring food to the agape meals and serving it, should not be permitted to eat those meals. But YHWH said, as part of the Law, all of the following things:
(1) All must pay a 10% tithe for the support of the poor and the Levites. (The Levites fed themselves with some of it, and were to use the rest to support the poor.) This was a MANDATORY ENFORCED TAX, specifically for poverty relief, imposed by God. It was not voluntary, at all, and it was not limited to "the working poor".
(2) A rich Hebrew, if asked for a loan by a poor Hebrew, must extend the loan. Think about that. It meant that the rich could not accumulate wealth, because anybody who asked, had to be lent to. It meant that the rich had an incentive to lend out ALL of their excess wealth quickly, keeping all of that money in circulation, so they could at least control to whom they lent. If they didn't proactively go loan to the poor, the poor would come to them, and they were REQUIRED BY GOD to lend to the poor if they had it.
(3) God prohibited the rich from charging any interest to the poor on these loans they had to give.
(4) There was no means testing. In the 7th year, any amounts that the poor could not repay had to be forgiven and written off. It could never be collected and there was no recourse after that.
(5) God forbade debtors prison for Israelites, and they could not be enslaved. All that the rich could do to somebody who could not pay him was put him under indenture, up until the Seventh, Sabbatical year (which might not actually be seven years away). And if he did so, the rich man had to provide food, shelter and clothing for the man and his family. And while the rich man could count the work towards the debt, he also had to pay the indentured servant at the end and could not send him away without pay EVEN IF THE DEBT WAS STILL unpaid.
That's the Law, and Jesus said that it could never be changed by a letter.
Now let's look at what Jesus said and did. He healed the sick, fed and provided for the poor, and did not engage in means testing. Ever. He never sent anyone away, worthy or unworthy. Additionally, in the Lord's prayer, he upheld the forgiveness of debts for Christians, extending the Torah. He said "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" - he made the direct parallel between the forgiveness of sin and the forgiveness of money debt. He did so even more explicitly in his parable of the unforgiving servant. For what was the debt that the unforgiving servant was forgiven? A massive money debt. And what did that servant then NOT forgive another miserable wretch? A small money debt. So the servant's Lord hauled him back, unforgave him, and threw him into prison to be tortured "until the last penny is paid". Jesus promised that God would do that to each of us also if we do not forgive.

John the Baptist told people that if they had two cloaks, to give one to somebody who had none, and if they had food, to give to those who did not have enough.

The message from OT to New is relentless and consistent, and the only voluntarism there is to it is: Do it or be damned.

But then some William or Edgar out there will pick up Paul, point to "He who will not work shall not eat", and extrapolate from that to mean that social welfare is evil and unbiblical, contrary to the will of God. Whole pages of words spoken by YHWH and Jesus are simply disregarded in favor of one sentence of Paul. This is not legitimate. The justification? "All Scripture is God-breathed", another line of Paul, which is used by "Christians" to take the lines of Paul they like and nullify anything else in the Bible. It's idolatrous.

Those are but two examples. A third would be Paul's admonition against women teaching.

In all cases my problem is not with Paul. It's with "Christians" who take Paul as God, indeed as the ULTIMATE God, who use Paul to wipe out Jesus own words.

There. Those are three concrete examples, two of them fleshed out, in which what Paul says is read to contradict what God said. In all three cases, it is Paul's apparent opinion that needs to be disregarded, not Jesus'.

This is how Paul is misused and abused, but also how some of the things he says really do conflict with what Jesus said. I say that in such circumstances, you always go with Jesus, obviously.

Click to expand...

You need to include scriptural references for each of the situations so we can all lookup and read the verses.

Each of these accusations against Paul must have verses in the Bible where the references to Paul’s words came from.

ToBeLoved said:

You need to include scriptural references for each of the situations so we can all lookup and read the verses.

Each of these accusations against Paul must have verses in the Bible where the references to Paul’s words came from.

Click to expand...

No, I don't. You all claim that the Bible is the highest authority. I don't believe that and don't make the claim. Because the Bible is of the highest authority to you, when I speak of Paul condemning long hair on men as disgraceful, that should ring a bell with you, and you should recognize that and know right where it is.

Likewise, where Paul says "He who will not work shall not eat." This is not an obscure reference. Or Paul's opinions on women preaching and teaching.

These are known things. You can find them easily with a Google search. I don't believe that the Bible should be used as a lawbook, with all of the point citing back and forth, and I'm simply not going to do that. That's your way of reading the Bible, not mine.

My references to what Paul said are good enough to get the point across. You've heard these passages before. You're experts on the Bible, so I'd expect that with a quick flick of the wrist you could open right up to it.

Vicomte13 said:

Here is a small example, followed by a large example. I am not going to give chapter and verse, because the chapter and verse markers are not part of the Scripture, and because the things I will cite are familiar enough to anybody who reads the Bible that it is not necessary to do so.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you, this is a standard liberal analysis. It doesn't appear from other threads that you accept the conclusions that this kind of argument would support on a number of questions. Paul is typically cited on a number of gender and sexual issues, since Jesus is largely silent on them.

Vicomte13 said:

Here is a small example, followed by a large example. I am not going to give chapter and verse, because the chapter and verse markers are not part of the Scripture, and because the things I will cite are familiar enough to anybody who reads the Bible that it is not necessary to do so.

Example 1: To one of the churches - doesn't really matter which one - Paul said that long hair on a man is a disgrace. I have read a pamphlet and argued twice with different Christians that this means that the long hairstyle on men that goes in and out of style (Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, for example, all had shoulder length hair that was tied back in a pony tail as was the fashion in 1770. They would have been called "Hippies" in 1970 because of their long hair). Conservative men frequently do not like the long hairstyle on men. The military, since World War I, has enforced a very short hairstyle, and for three or more generations American men have gone through the military and had the short hairstyle imposed on them as "proper grooming". So, there is a strong cultural bias among conservative American men in favor of short hair. Because "William" doesn't like long hair on men, and he's Christian, he picks up Paul and reads 'long hair on men is a disgrace', and, wham, just like that, "God said, in His inerrant Holy Bible, that long hair on men is a disgrace. God has spoken, and that settles it!"

Such utter nonsense. Yes, PAUL did write that, in one letter, to one church, for whatever reason he wrote it. Maybe there was a problem in that Church. Maybe Paul disliked long hair on men and wrote from his personal preference. Whatever the case, Paul's opinion there is not law, it is not God speaking, and it is absurd for anybody to read the Bible that way or to grant Paul the power, through an offhand line of his in one letter, to set grooming standards for Christian men until the end of time.

We know Paul cannot do that for several reasons. Biblically speaking, YHWH, speaking formal law to the Hebrews FORBADE them from taking a razor to the sides of their hair. They HAD to wear their hair long. Additionally, when God sent a sign through the Prophet Samson, he did so, again, by forbidding Samson to cut his hair. His long hair was a sign of the power of God. When God made Adam - humans in general - he did not make us with iron implements required to cut hair. We are made in God's image, and without the tools to cut it, human hair will naturally grow to its full length in 6 years. In the seventh year, at some point, each individual strand of hair dies and falls out or breaks off. New hair is growing all the time. So, hair length stabilizes at seven years of growth. it does not continue to grow to the floor, etc. This is the way that God MADE US TO BE, in his image, and he FORBADE the Jews from cutting the sides of their hair with a razor, so the notion that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair is directly contrary both to the way God made us in his image, and to actual direct LAW that he gave to the Hebrews. I rather tire of the way that Christians jump around, arguing that we're "not under the law" when they don't care for the law, but then suddenly we're back under the law for the parts we like.
And finally, the clincher: the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth. It has the miraculous image of him in death on it, just prior to his resurrection. The image is a miracle because it cannot be man-made: man cannot make such an image NOW, let alone 2000 years ago. JESUS HAS LONG, SHOULDER LENGTH HAIR. HE followed the Torah, without sin or flaw, and HE had the long hair that one would expect anybody following the Mosaic law of God would have.

So, if Paul is read the way William, the 20th century conservative American jerk who doesn't like long hair and wants to proclaim his own preference is a divine law reads him, Jesus Christ was a disgrace, because he had long hair, and the prophet Samson was a disgrace because of his long hair, and YHWH was disgraceful for having given a law that imposed long hair on men. There is one example of a line of Paul being used to establish new "divine law" that is nothing of the kind. William has abused Paul, self-righteously. It annoys me.

The second example of an abuse of Paul really makes me furious, because it guts both the Law of YHWH AND pages and pages of what Jesus said. It's the classic case of using the Bible as a "God maker" and elevating Paul about God and God's Son, in order to satisfy the political passions (and private greed) of some 21st century conservative American "Christian". Paul did indeed write "He who will not work, shall not eat." That one line of Paul has been advanced against me five different times, by five different "Christians" or groups of "Christians", each claiming that this text proves that modern social welfare is evil, because it is not "voluntary", and because it goes to people who "will not work", and "the BIBLE says 'He who will not work shall not eat.'"

No. PAUL said, in a certain specific context, that those who would not work at helping bring food to the agape meals and serving it, should not be permitted to eat those meals. But YHWH said, as part of the Law, all of the following things:
(1) All must pay a 10% tithe for the support of the poor and the Levites. (The Levites fed themselves with some of it, and were to use the rest to support the poor.) This was a MANDATORY ENFORCED TAX, specifically for poverty relief, imposed by God. It was not voluntary, at all, and it was not limited to "the working poor".
(2) A rich Hebrew, if asked for a loan by a poor Hebrew, must extend the loan. Think about that. It meant that the rich could not accumulate wealth, because anybody who asked, had to be lent to. It meant that the rich had an incentive to lend out ALL of their excess wealth quickly, keeping all of that money in circulation, so they could at least control to whom they lent. If they didn't proactively go loan to the poor, the poor would come to them, and they were REQUIRED BY GOD to lend to the poor if they had it.
(3) God prohibited the rich from charging any interest to the poor on these loans they had to give.
(4) There was no means testing. In the 7th year, any amounts that the poor could not repay had to be forgiven and written off. It could never be collected and there was no recourse after that.
(5) God forbade debtors prison for Israelites, and they could not be enslaved. All that the rich could do to somebody who could not pay him was put him under indenture, up until the Seventh, Sabbatical year (which might not actually be seven years away). And if he did so, the rich man had to provide food, shelter and clothing for the man and his family. And while the rich man could count the work towards the debt, he also had to pay the indentured servant at the end and could not send him away without pay EVEN IF THE DEBT WAS STILL unpaid.
That's the Law, and Jesus said that it could never be changed by a letter.
Now let's look at what Jesus said and did. He healed the sick, fed and provided for the poor, and did not engage in means testing. Ever. He never sent anyone away, worthy or unworthy. Additionally, in the Lord's prayer, he upheld the forgiveness of debts for Christians, extending the Torah. He said "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" - he made the direct parallel between the forgiveness of sin and the forgiveness of money debt. He did so even more explicitly in his parable of the unforgiving servant. For what was the debt that the unforgiving servant was forgiven? A massive money debt. And what did that servant then NOT forgive another miserable wretch? A small money debt. So the servant's Lord hauled him back, unforgave him, and threw him into prison to be tortured "until the last penny is paid". Jesus promised that God would do that to each of us also if we do not forgive.

John the Baptist told people that if they had two cloaks, to give one to somebody who had none, and if they had food, to give to those who did not have enough.

The message from OT to New is relentless and consistent, and the only voluntarism there is to it is: Do it or be damned.

But then some William or Edgar out there will pick up Paul, point to "He who will not work shall not eat", and extrapolate from that to mean that social welfare is evil and unbiblical, contrary to the will of God. Whole pages of words spoken by YHWH and Jesus are simply disregarded in favor of one sentence of Paul. This is not legitimate. The justification? "All Scripture is God-breathed", another line of Paul, which is used by "Christians" to take the lines of Paul they like and nullify anything else in the Bible. It's idolatrous.

Those are but two examples. A third would be Paul's admonition against women teaching.

In all cases my problem is not with Paul. It's with "Christians" who take Paul as God, indeed as the ULTIMATE God, who use Paul to wipe out Jesus own words.

There. Those are three concrete examples, two of them fleshed out, in which what Paul says is read to contradict what God said. In all three cases, it is Paul's apparent opinion that needs to be disregarded, not Jesus'.

This is how Paul is misused and abused, but also how some of the things he says really do conflict with what Jesus said. I say that in such circumstances, you always go with Jesus, obviously.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant until Jesus death. When Jesus said it is finished, died and rose again.

So of course Jesus followed the Law.

But that is Old Covenant after the resurrection a New Covenant not the Law was put into place.

Paul explains the New Covenant to the people.

1stcenturylady said:

I went to Jack Hayford's church for years when I lived in California. I miss it terribly.

Click to expand...

So was he a good preacher?

1stcenturylady said:

The best, and very transparent.

Click to expand...

It's really good when sound preaching heard in the past can be recalled for it's sound exposition and encouraging doctrine.

Vicomte13 said:

No, I don't. You all claim that the Bible is the highest authority. I don't believe that and don't make the claim. Because the Bible is of the highest authority to you, when I speak of Paul condemning long hair on men as disgraceful, that should ring a bell with you, and you should recognize that and know right where it is.

Likewise, where Paul says "He who will not work shall not eat." This is not an obscure reference. Or Paul's opinions on women preaching and teaching.

These are known things. You can find them easily with a Google search. I don't believe that the Bible should be used as a lawbook, with all of the point citing back and forth, and I'm simply not going to do that. That's your way of reading the Bible, not mine.

My references to what Paul said are good enough to get the point across. You've heard these passages before. You're experts on the Bible, so I'd expect that with a quick flick of the wrist you could open right up to it.

Click to expand...

Well I would gladly look them up if I had my computer available. But I only have my phone.

Maybe someone else could post the scripture. Hopefully.

ToBeLoved said:

The New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant until Jesus death. When Jesus said it is finished, died and rose again.

So of course Jesus followed the Law.

But that is Old Covenant after the resurrection a New Covenant not the Law was put into place.

Paul explains the New Covenant to the people.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant never replaced the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant remained, and remains, until the end of the world, according to Jesus.

So the Old Covenant is still fully in force. It only ever applied to Hebrews in Israel, in linear descendence from those at Sinai (and those who later converted). The only promise it gives to those Hebrews is a secure farm in Israel. It's still fully in force and can never be changed. It can't be followed either, because God removed the priesthood from the world and gave no way to make new priests. So, the Old Covenant is in force, but nobody can follow it - not because it's hard, but because a necessary element for obedience: the priesthood in the bloodline of Aaron, was wiped out by the Romans.

The Old Covenant applies only to Hebrews. It says so right on its face, and it says you can't add to it. Jesus repeats that nothing can be added. Jews cannot, for example, add a way to make a new priesthood. The Northern Kingdom of old, the Kingdom of Israel, did just exactly that - made their own priesthood and their own altars after they broke away from Judah. And God destroyed them for it.

The key point is that the Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant, the Old Covenant is still in full force today, and the Gentiles are still not under it. There is nothing in the Old Covenant that is Law for me and you. And nothing ever was. Jesus did not free us from the Old Covenant. He freed Jews who followed him. He did not free Gentiles.

For us, the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant at Jesus' death. There was no Old Covenant for anybody but Hebrews.

For us, the New Covenant sits on top of the last covenant God made with the world, which was the covenant he made with Noah and the world after the Flood: that there would never again come a world-ending flood.

From that time until Jesus, there was no covenant for anybody other than Abraham and his descendants, Hagar and hers, and Isaac and Jacob and his. And then with the Hebrews at Sinai. Perhaps you are descended from Hebrews or Ishmaelites or Abraham. I'm not.

The ONLY covenants that ever bound me and my ancestors are the covenant with Noah, which is very old and which is still in effect, and the New Covenant with Jesus. Those other covenants: Abraham's, Hagar's and Moses's, are contracts with other people, not me. Jesus didn't free me from any of that Law, because I was never under it in the first place.

My ancestors could eat bacon, legally, from the time that God gave the animals to Noah to eat until today. There was never a moment where the Laws of Israel ever applied to me. The Old Covenant Law, with its demand to abstain from pork, never applied to my people. Jesus didn't "free" me from it. I was never under it in the first place, not ever, not before Jesus, not after. The Old Covenant wasn't with me.

Likewise, the Sabbath. I was never under the Sabbath Law, and I'm not now. The Sabbath was not MOVED by Jesus. The Sabbath was for the Hebrews. It was given at Sinai. It didn't apply to anybody but Hebrews. It was not and is not a law. It is one of the Ten Commandments, but the Ten Commandments do not apply to me, and never did.

Some of those commandments (such as the law against murder) apply because God gave them to the world through Noah after the Flood.

Others, such as the prohibition on statues, never applied to anybody but the Hebrews. Jesus never mentioned it, and "Do not make statues" was not part of the New Covenant.

The Jewish law, the Old Testament, is history and good for instruction and analogy, but if you're not Jewish, it was never law for you, and Jesus never freed you from it. Jesus' New Covenant adds onto the Covenant with Noah and makes the Law of God that you and I are under. The Old Covenant never applied before Jesus, and doesn't apply after Jesus either.

We were not released from the ritual law by Jesus. No ritual law existed. We were not released from the Sabbath, or had the Sabbath day changed by Jesus. No Sabbath existed for us. We were not released from the prohibition of making statues and likenesses by Jesus - "graven images" - no rule against making statues and images ever existed for us.

We were never called to worship in the name of YHWH. We were called to worship the Father in the name of Jesus.

We were not freed from uncleanness during the female period. We were never ritually unclean in the first place, because we were never given any ritual at all. The Old Covenant is a different religion, for a different people. Nothing in it is, or ever was, law for us. It was a contract between God and other people.

The New Covenant is the only covenant that matters. The covenant Noah - that God won't drown the world again - is not predicated on any behavior or belief on our part. It simply is, so we don't need to worry about it. The New Covenant - which is our only covenant - requires action on our part.

ToBeLoved said:

Well I would gladly look them up if I had my computer available. But I only have my phone.

Maybe someone else could post the scripture. Hopefully.

Click to expand...

You'll have Scripture soon enough. Then you'll be able to look.

hedrick said:

While I agree with you, this is a standard liberal analysis. It doesn't appear from other threads that you accept the conclusions that this kind of argument would support on a number of questions. Paul is typically cited on a number of gender and sexual issues, since Jesus is largely silent on them.

Click to expand...

It is not a "standard liberal analysis". It is my analysis, based on the words in the text: what Jesus said and didn't say. Who Jesus was versus who Paul was.

It is private interpretation of Scripture. Peter said that this was not to be done. But Peter isn't God either. Jesus said "Go search the Scriptures" - so I do, and I apply my reason to what I read. What you read is my reasoning, from what Jesus said.

If liberal theologians have come to the same conclusions, they must be reading the texts the same way that I do, and placing the authority properly.

Obviously I do not agree with liberal theologians on matters of abortion, because God very clearly revealed that life begins at conception, so abortion is murder, pure and simple.

I oppose the death penalty for a technical reason. People who kill people are to be executed - that is God's standard - but God also had a PROCEDURAL standard, safeguards to ensure the innocent were not executed. Our legal procedures fall far, far short of the divine standard, and we do execute the innocent, so I oppose the death penalty as we practice it.

Homosexual activity is clearly immoral according to God. So is heterosexual activity out of wedlock. So is masturbation to lustful thoughts about women. That is not a license to oppress the sexual immoral: God's law is so expansive that virtually everybody over the age of 12 is sexually immoral to some degree. It is not right to REVEL in sexual immorality, or the CELEBRATE it. But given that we will be measured by the measure by which we measured, it is well for people to not go on hypocritical jihad against it either. Live and let live, forgive and move on - that is what we're left with. Nobody seems inclined to do those things, so around and around we go.

War is systematized mass murder. People who launch offensive wars - from presidents and political leaders through generals down to soldiers who pull the triggers - are all murderers. They kill people who are innocent of murder, and they do so without any sort of trial. It is true that men cannot conduct government and law enforcement as we do were God's law against killing respected. That's our problem. Our societies have decided that the powerful can kill with sanction. God never authorized that, and people will have a lot to answer for.

Those analyses above are straightforward, and straight from what Jesus and his Father SAID. They cut all over the political spectrum, and do not sit comfortably with church or political traditions that have given more authority to men than God did.

All of it is "private interpretation" - of what God said. If I considered the words of other men, such as Peter, to be laws of God, then I would have to dismiss my own conclusions as illegitimate, because they are private interpretations. But Peter is not God, and his opinion - that "scripture is not of private interpretation" is just that, his opinion. I disagree. Jesus told ME "Go search the Scriptures", I have, and what I have found is the words "that proceeded forth out of the mouth of God". Those words are the basis of my analyses. Peter and Paul are not God. Their opinions are interesting, but they do not, and cannot, not ever, override what the Father, what Jesus, what the angels, and what YHWH said.
All of the analysis I do reposes on something that El, El Elyon, Elohiym, YHWH, an angel of God or Jesus said. THAT is the authority on which I base everything I argue. I do not accept that the Bible transforms every man who wrote in it to the same authority as God, and I note that God is always very clear in the Bible when he is speaking.

By reading what Jesus said, and considering what the Father said, and YHWH in the Old Testament, you can always predict with certitude what I am going to say on any topic.

1stcenturylady said:

All Protestants who know church history knows that it was Martin Luther who is the father of Protestantism. Since then, many Protestant denominations have arisen with differing beliefs on grace and sin and salvation. They differ from the most liberal - sin so grace can abound, all the way to sinless perfection.

Here is a letter from Martin Luther on his view. "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger.

Here is the letter in context. What are the views of your denomination, and what denomination is that. Thanks.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard, for you are quite a sinner.

Click to expand...

"This is a true and trustworthy saying, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." - 1 Timothy 1:15

Jesus said that it is the sick who need a physician. So often we have imagined that the Gospel is merely the entrance way to the hospital, but it's not, the Gospel is the very medicine that we need as sinners. Just because we have acknowledge Christ as our Savior doesn't mean that suddenly our dung doesn't stink--we reek, we are an odorous collection of wretches and to deny it is to deny the Gospel which is for sinners. We are sinners. We are bold, brazen, reckless sinners.

So why do we deny it? Why do we pretend otherwise? Why do we spend our time trying to pretend like we've reached perfection when we are so abysmally far from it? We aren't obedient servants, we violate the Law of God on a daily, hourly basis--through our words, our behavior, our thoughts, and even our feelings. Christ has told us that to even hate our brother is to be a murderer, to even lust after someone else that isn't our spouse is adultery, and to call another raka is to damn ourselves to hellfire. St. John says that if we say we love God but hate our fellow we are liars and the truth is not in us; and St. James says that with the tongue we bless God our Father and at the same time curse our fellow man created in the Divine image and that the one who fails on even the smallest point of the Law has violated the whole of God's holy and righteous commandments.

We come to church, why? To feel good about ourselves? To receive a lesson on how to be a more moral person? All religions teach their followers to try and be better versions of themselves so that hardly makes Christianity unique or makes coming to church relevant. Who are we when we come together? A pretty and pious congregation of immaculate persons? Hardly, we are a mob of beggar-wretches--we come and we gather because we need the Word of God, because we need the Gospel preached to us, we need Jesus Christ to save us and hold us which He has promised to do through His Word and Sacraments.

Don't come before God thinking you are somehow worthy of His presence. Don't come before God thinking you have earned the right to be there. Don't come before God imagining yourself something other than what you are: a sinner. And come before God a sinner, confess your sins--boldly--and He will hear them and you can be confident in the Gospel promise given to you on account of what Christ has done for you that you belong to God because you are Christ's. Whatever is Christ's is God's, and whatever is God's is yours in Christ. God is yours, and you are God's, because of Jesus. And that is why you praise Him and give Him alone all glory and thanksgiving and worship.

"Let your sins be strong, but your faith in Christ even stronger." Luther says. Not to give excuse to sin, or to justify our sinfulness; but to remind Philip to be a preacher of the Gospel, and that the Gospel is only relevant to sinners, because "where sin abounds grace abounds all the more" as St. Paul has said; not as excuse to sin, but to proclaim the riches of God's mercy over and against all our sin and crimes against God which are myriad. Do we think so little of the life which Christ gave, so little of the blood He shed, that He cannot save us from even the most wretched of our offenses? He can, and He does, and He will. And you can be confident of it, because of the promise which is yours in Christ, in the Gospel. "All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27), "May I never boat in anything save for in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14), "For God demonstrates His love for us in that while we were yet still sinners Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8).

You trust in Christ, good, now trust in Him. Never stop trusting Him. Never cease to hope in Him. Never turn your eyes away from the only One who keeps you and holds you, He who is Author and Finisher of your faith. Your anchor. Your life boat. Your rock. Your refuge. Your solace. Your every good thing.

Jesus Christ saves you, glory be to God.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree with you but I just have to say the folks at my church are a pretty nice bunch of beggars and wretches to hang out with, that's why I hang out with them, and if they stink, they remember to use deodorant (figuratively speaking). If they were positively nasty wretches and beggars I don't think I could stand hanging out with them and I doubt I would be a Christian. In my case Lutherans have been a life-raft on my way out the door to being one of those religious "nones", having been burned by too many other church experiences.

While we, deep down, have our dark hidden secrets of shame and depravity, we are still hopefully doing good in the world and helping our neighbor. Sometimes in the name of preaching the Gospel clearly, we Lutherans can come across as obtuse to other Christians. Yes, we are different in our ethics, but we are not into having orgies on the altar in the name of sinning boldly, just because we don't have a heavy-handed attitude towards sinners.

Vicomte13 said:

The New Covenant never replaced the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant remained, and remains, until the end of the world, according to Jesus.

So the Old Covenant is still fully in force. It only ever applied to Hebrews in Israel, in linear descendence from those at Sinai (and those who later converted). The only promise it gives to those Hebrews is a secure farm in Israel. It's still fully in force and can never be changed. It can't be followed either, because God removed the priesthood from the world and gave no way to make new priests. So, the Old Covenant is in force, but nobody can follow it - not because it's hard, but because a necessary element for obedience: the priesthood in the bloodline of Aaron, was wiped out by the Romans.

The Old Covenant applies only to Hebrews. It says so right on its face, and it says you can't add to it. Jesus repeats that nothing can be added. Jews cannot, for example, add a way to make a new priesthood. The Northern Kingdom of old, the Kingdom of Israel, did just exactly that - made their own priesthood and their own altars after they broke away from Judah. And God destroyed them for it.

The key point is that the Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant, the Old Covenant is still in full force today, and the Gentiles are still not under it. There is nothing in the Old Covenant that is Law for me and you. And nothing ever was. Jesus did not free us from the Old Covenant. He freed Jews who followed him. He did not free Gentiles.

For us, the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant at Jesus' death. There was no Old Covenant for anybody but Hebrews.

For us, the New Covenant sits on top of the last covenant God made with the world, which was the covenant he made with Noah and the world after the Flood: that there would never again come a world-ending flood.

From that time until Jesus, there was no covenant for anybody other than Abraham and his descendants, Hagar and hers, and Isaac and Jacob and his. And then with the Hebrews at Sinai. Perhaps you are descended from Hebrews or Ishmaelites or Abraham. I'm not.

The ONLY covenants that ever bound me and my ancestors are the covenant with Noah, which is very old and which is still in effect, and the New Covenant with Jesus. Those other covenants: Abraham's, Hagar's and Moses's, are contracts with other people, not me. Jesus didn't free me from any of that Law, because I was never under it in the first place.

My ancestors could eat bacon, legally, from the time that God gave the animals to Noah to eat until today. There was never a moment where the Laws of Israel ever applied to me. The Old Covenant Law, with its demand to abstain from pork, never applied to my people. Jesus didn't "free" me from it. I was never under it in the first place, not ever, not before Jesus, not after. The Old Covenant wasn't with me.

Likewise, the Sabbath. I was never under the Sabbath Law, and I'm not now. The Sabbath was not MOVED by Jesus. The Sabbath was for the Hebrews. It was given at Sinai. It didn't apply to anybody but Hebrews. It was not and is not a law. It is one of the Ten Commandments, but the Ten Commandments do not apply to me, and never did.

Some of those commandments (such as the law against murder) apply because God gave them to the world through Noah after the Flood.

Others, such as the prohibition on statues, never applied to anybody but the Hebrews. Jesus never mentioned it, and "Do not make statues" was not part of the New Covenant.

The Jewish law, the Old Testament, is history and good for instruction and analogy, but if you're not Jewish, it was never law for you, and Jesus never freed you from it. Jesus' New Covenant adds onto the Covenant with Noah and makes the Law of God that you and I are under. The Old Covenant never applied before Jesus, and doesn't apply after Jesus either.

We were not released from the ritual law by Jesus. No ritual law existed. We were not released from the Sabbath, or had the Sabbath day changed by Jesus. No Sabbath existed for us. We were not released from the prohibition of making statues and likenesses by Jesus - "graven images" - no rule against making statues and images ever existed for us.

We were never called to worship in the name of YHWH. We were called to worship the Father in the name of Jesus.

We were not freed from uncleanness during the female period. We were never ritually unclean in the first place, because we were never given any ritual at all. The Old Covenant is a different religion, for a different people. Nothing in it is, or ever was, law for us. It was a contract between God and other people.

The New Covenant is the only covenant that matters. The covenant Noah - that God won't drown the world again - is not predicated on any behavior or belief on our part. It simply is, so we don't need to worry about it. The New Covenant - which is our only covenant - requires action on our part.

Click to expand...

I agree with Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant only Hebrews, but I think it is Jeremiah 31 that tells us the Old Covenant will become obsolete and pass away.

ToBeLoved said:

I agree with Gentiles were never under the Old Covenant only Hebrews, but I think it is Jeremiah 31 that tells us the Old Covenant will become obsolete and pass away.

Click to expand...

Yes. But it's worth pointing out that in Jer 31 the new covenant is still with Israel. So it would be misleading to say that the old covenant passed away and there was a new one that included Gentiles. Paul deals with question of the inclusion of Gentiles. His approach is that we were grafted into Israel, not that the covenant with Israel was past.