Questions for Paul.

[KelsayDL]

Hello friends.

I'm posting this, not to bash Paul, but to try and get an understanding of where Paul was coming from.

I've read Mark Nanos and his book concerning Paul and the Galatians, and frankly, I just didn't buy it. His work on Romans was far superior IMO.

I have several teachings from Paul that I need insight from that cause me some distress (I'll only pose one at a time). And being as I can't ask Paul face to face, I turn to you all!

Circumcision-

Paul says (on more than one occasion)

1Co 7:19 -
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

(Isn't circumcision a commandment of God?, Or did the early church make the distincions between the ten, and the rest the way we see done throughout the church body today?)

But God says;

Eze 44:9 -
Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Now, taken in context this verse goes with everything starting @ chapter 40 to this point, and beyond.

Isn't this the temple that will exist in the messianic kingdom? (and if thats the case, it opens the door to a multitude of different questions I need help with).

So if circumcision doesn't matter, then why the fuss about the uncircumcised in Gods sanctuary?

 

[KelsayDL]

ttt!

Come on, no help here?

 

[Eben Abram]

Shalom Alecheim

Paul was a Jew. He knew and understood the "beattitudes" messiah spoke because that is the foundation of what in Judaism is called the kavanaugh------attitude of the heart.

In Judaism today, and in the Prophets, and by messiahs own words, no matter what action you take, if your attitude is wrong, it profits you nothing.

So your question
1Co 7:19 -
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

(Isn't circumcision a commandment of God?, Or did the early church make the distincions between the ten, and the rest the way we see done throughout the church body today?)

But God says;

Eze 44:9 -
Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Paul is referencing Messiah. The commandments of G-d is this, that you should know the one he has sent and This is my commandment that you love one another.

Messiah established the WAY to keep all commandments of Mosaic Law, Melchi-zedec Law, the Law of G-d and the Law in heaven.

Love.

Sorry it is not harder than that, but if you want to know the Truth.

613 Mitzvot can be kept easier, than ONE statement from Y'shua.

That is why Keeping law after the fact of salvation is not legalism, it is lifestyle choice.

Only if a person try to make another person keep the Law is it legalism. Lets say it this way, homosexuality may become legal, but I won't be indulging, so am I a legalist?

No. It's all in the heart my friend and in your relationship to G-d.

If you know Messiah, He will lead, He will talk, and HE will hold you in his hands as He takes care of you day to day. Theology is the head, but Messiah is in the heart, only your choices can make it confusing.

Eben Abram

 

[Achichem]

I am not a messianic Jew, but close, vey close

So let me try and say what I have taken in on this subject;

Circumcision is like baptism, it is a physical act to represent something that happens out side the physical, it represents many things, such as the cutting away the useless( the flesh) to live a in faith, grace and spirit.

See if one takes this out of context he would think do not circumcise your child or such because it would be in vain, but this is not the case at all, Paul is telling us, that it is the act outside the physical that matters, so do not judge those who are not circumcised but still in the spirit, thus he used those words, because we read that the audience of this letter was judging between the physically circumcised and the uncircumcised, that is not done in love and thus is against agaist G-ds law, but now its agaist the highest of all the laws.

So you still should be circumcised(because it is a law of God) but do not take that law and go agaist a higher law by believing that because you are physically circumcised that you are somehow more just or more righteous then someone who is un-circumcised.

This is the same thing as some non-law abiding denominations take baptism, they believe that no one can be justified without a physical water baptism, but this is wrong for the same way we know the spirit came to the uncircumcised we know the spirit came to the un baptized.

I hope that helps,
God bless,
DaTsar

 

[lared]

Kelsay,​

After Jehovah showed his acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian congregation, and since many from the nations were responding to the preaching of the good news, a decision had to be made by the governing body at Jerusalem on the question, Is it necessary for Gentile Christians to get circumcised in the flesh? The conclusion of the matter: The "necessary things" for Gentiles and Jews alike did not include circumcision.—Ac 15:6-29.​

Paul circumcised Timothy shortly after the decree was issued, not as a matter of faith, but to avoid prejudicing Jews to whom they were going to preach. (Ac 16:1-3; 1Co 9:20) The apostle dealt with the subject in several letters. (Ro 2:25-29; Ga 2:11-14; 5:2-6; 6:12-15; Col 2:11; 3:11) "We are those with the real circumcision [of the heart], who are rendering sacred service by God’s spirit," Paul wrote Gentile Christians at Philippi. (Php 3:3) And to those in Corinth he wrote: "Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God’s commandments does."—1Co 7:19.

Hope this helps.

 

[KelsayDL]

613 Mitzvot can be kept easier, than ONE statement from Y'shua.

I agree 100% with this statement.

Thank you Eben and DaTsar for your comments. I have pretty much believed that way my entire 'christian' life.

But I don't see how that view reconciles what Paul said. That it (circumcision) is nothing.

I realize concerning salvation it is nothing, but how do we reconcile it to the very clear words of God? He clearly states circumcision of the heart and flesh are required to enter his holy sanctuary. Perhaps I need insight on this particular holy sanctuary. From a casual reading, I am understanding it to be the last and final temple, the one in the messianic kingdom, or perhaps heaven its self.

Regardless, it would appear to me from it, that circumcision of the flesh has some value before God, but only IF one is circumcised in the heart as well. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Anyways, as I said at the start of the thread, I have several questions I need answers to from a messianics point of view. I will admit I am struggling with Pauls teachings greatly. That is why I am searching for answers concerning his teachings.

So, ready for round two?

Paul says;

Ro 7:10 -
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Yet God says;

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: 20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Life and death. If Paul found the commandment ordained for life to be unto death, then one must believe he wasn't walking uprightly before the Lord. At least in light of this passage.

And he wasn't, his heart was far from God. He was a Pharisee and quite zealous to carry out the rulings and judgements of the religous council, even though they transgressed the laws of God by making their doctrines supercede the Lords. They were in error, and Yeshua pointed that out on more than one occassion. Not because they lived by the laws of God, but because of their hypocrisy and cold hearts.

Mt 23:23 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Todays 'church' rallies to the cry of Paul that the law is the path to death. But is that what Paul was saying?

Was God being crafty, trying to trick the people when he said his ways are life?

That is what one must believe if he takes Pauls comments at face value, is it not?

 

[Eben Abram]

Shalom Kelsay

What if you weren't looking for how the contradict but compliment each other?

In other words to get us both on the same page so we can Discuss Paul at length which it appears is your desire, lets see if we can examine a few Issues.

Ro 7:10 -
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

In stead of me answering your question, I want you to observe for yourself your way of looking at Scripture.

Notice One line; And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death

and one line:See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;


Don't they sound odd out of context?

I know this is going to discourage alittle but it shouldn't, Do you realize the Entire Book of Hebrews Paul wrote to make ONE point of logic......., it is typical to ancient theology whether of Jewish or Early Christian.

We are the ones for "snap" answers without really laying a strong foundation, solid arguement, Absolute proofs and ultimately a conclusion

So you see Kelsay, what if Quoted See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

I could argue a "same" contradiction, except I understand in the context what is being brought forth.

With Paul it is better said:
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Now this I can discuss.

Could you see context and ask the question you thought of? Lets try..

Eben

 

[KelsayDL]

What if you weren't looking for how the contradict but compliment each other?

This is what I have done for the past 20yrs. Only recently have I begun to question his teachings.

Could you see context and ask the question you thought of? Lets try..

Concerning Paul, no, not really, not in this text, hence the question. I believe his teachings are just as Peter said, hard to understand. So, don't hold that against me to much.

Lets see, in 18 verses he seems calls the law good, then says it's way are unto death.

So no.

What is Paul saying here concerning the law?

I know what a great deal of people say he is saying. That the law is the way to death. I'm currently involved in just such a discussion.

Let me ask you Eben, if verse 10 was used to show that Paul had done away with the law, how would you respond?

Why did Yeshua need someone to come after him and clarify his teachings? Because apparently the apostles didn't get it. It being that the law is good and just and holy, yet the ways to death...

Is Paul saying that the People should not follow the ways of God given through Moses, or is he not? Plain and simple question.

 

[Achichem]

Hello Kelsay,
Ok to address this one point.

I define faith as loving the Lord your God with all your Heart and with all your Soul.

Romans 7:1-2,NKJV:

Or do you not know, brethren, that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.

He is talking about, how the law (dead) was all we had to use to receive the word of God before Christ Jesus.

Romans 7:3-4,NKJV:
So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

Truly, we should not be married to the written word (dead) but the living word (Christ), for one brings salvation and the other does not. For before Christ the law we were married to, but surly no eternal life came of it, for life can only beget life.

Not to say eternal life was not given By God to those who kept his word.

Romans 7:5-6,NKJV:
For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Since the law has no life in it and love is life, so the law has not love in it. Truly it is not the law, which trapped us to death, but it was through the law that sin (flesh) made us look for ways to break the law, not by word, but by lack of love.

For since the law shows us no love, how could we practice the love that was behind the written word and gave us life, faith.

Another way to look at it is:

Did any find God through the law? No! Someone had to find God and then the word (law/dead), For no love was in the law, yet one needed love to follow the law or they would be guided in the law by flesh, not love. And he who is guided in flesh has no faith.

Now Paul attempts to set a boundary on this idea so people will not take it as the written law has no use to a man with faith.

Romans 7:7,NKJV:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

He states three things here:
1. Law is not the trap
2. Law is the opposite of sin
3. Law shows us what is sin

Romans 7:8-9,NKJV:
But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

Paul is illustrating the problem with the law. For you see there is a missing step, which he is purposely leaving out.

You see this is what many Israelites did with the law, for it lacks a necessary step.

For as I said before, one cannot find love in the law because love is living and the law is dead. That is why no one can find God by the law alone! For you need to be guided by love (faith) in order to follow the laws. So you first need to find God and then the law.

That is why all who where before y’shua followed the law and yet were justified in faith for they had first found faith and then the law.

What Paul is demonstrating is the other people, who without finding God first had only the law, which sin used to keep them away from God.

Romans 7:1-10:
And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

It is what happens when you try and use something (dead) without establishing it in life. For if he had found God before he had the law, then surly sin would have no power over him.

The point is use the word of God (alive) so as to not get caught by the old trap of finding the law before God.

Hope that helps some,
God bless,
DaTsar

 

[Achichem]

Ok let me address some questions with shorter answers and then let you ask questions, if you wish to.

Todays 'church' rallies to the cry of Paul that the law is the path to death. But is that what Paul was saying?

And the problem with today’s churches are many are going farther and farther away from the bible and closer and closer to pagan philosophy. If they took time to get to know Paul’s character and wanted to learn instead of making the bible fit their versions of righteousness, then truly this world would be a better place.

Was God being crafty, trying to trick the people when he said his ways are life?

No, he is strait forward; that it is Love! And love includes trust and respect which would mean follow all he tells you.

That is what one must believe if he takes Pauls comments at face value, is it not?

No, that is what one takes if they just read Paul as if he is God.

Why did Yeshua need someone to come after him and clarify his teachings?

To fight the false teachers!

Is Paul saying that the People should not follow the ways of God given through Moses, or is he not?

He is saying live by the Spirit(living word) no the written word(dead word), which yes of course teaches all the same things as the laws of Moses.

For he who does not listen to his G-d, clearly does not know his G-d.

If a stranger called out to you, surly you would not listen!
If a master called out to you then surly you would do it in burden!
If a friend or any one you love called out to you surly you would listen and joyously do what was asked. For as we ask and we receive, so to should He ask and He receive, that is love.

Hope that helps
God bless,
DaTsar

 

[KelsayDL]

And the problem with today’s churches are many are going farther and farther away from the bible and closer and closer to pagan philosophy. If they took time to get to know Paul’s character and wanted to learn instead of making the bible fit their versions of righteousness, then truly this world would be a better place.

I agree. Except, one cannot get to know Pauls nature other than reading what he wrote. Even when taken in context it's difficult to discern what he is trying to convey, because the exact context is not always known, it's defianately always presumed however.

This conflict I'm experiencing is nothing new. In acts the Jerusalem council asked Paul to his face about the rumors of him teaching the people of the diaspora to forsake the teachings of God given through Moses. Paul did all they asked including the fulfillment of a vow that was quite costly to him monatarily and also included temple sacrifices.

Knowing Pauls character is far more difficult than you assume. The early church in Jerusalem called his character into question. And that, based only on rumors that they heard of his teachings.

People say Paul only did it to fit the mold he himself created that he was all things to all people in order to win them to christ. Yet who was he trying to win when the Jerusalem council confronted him concerning these rumors? The thousands of people zealous for the law were believers in christ already, albeit new. Was he trying to win the Jerusalem council to christ? James, Peter, John and the rest? Please...

Even if that were the case, the entire Jerusalem church walked in the ways of God given through Moses. For they said "do these things so we will know that you yourself walk orderly according to the law, just as we do". These weren't pharisees, these were the Apostles of Yeshua, the ones who walked with him daily.

When James speaks of a double-minded man I cannot help think of Paul.

I'm left wondering what James, Peter, and John would say if they had access to all the letters of Paul that we have today.

I see mainstream christianity twisting Pauls words to fit their theologies, in some areas. But I see messianics bending over backwards to try and make Paul fit the mold of a Torah observant Jew.

I don't think either is accurate. Especially in light of 'old testament' prophecies that have yet to come about which flat out contradict what Paul is saying.

 

[Achichem]

One cannot get to know Pauls nature other than reading what he wrote

As I have done, I have not assumed anything just read what was there, but since I offer no explanation of how I got to such conclusion then surly I should provide some.

Also I will use only Pauls letters in order to demonstrate that pauls message is the same as Lord Y’shua.

The first and most important point would be to see what he is not saying in any of his letters. Even though I know you already know and have looked at all of this, if we know what he is not saying, we can figure out what in fact he is saying.

Points of reference see the bottom for conclusions.

Romans 3:31,NKJV:
Do we then make void [Greek katargeo, meaning 'destroy' or 'abolish'] the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish [Greek histemi, meaning 'erect' or 'make to stand'] the law.

Romans 6:15,NKJV:
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Romans 7:7, NKJV:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law…

Romans 7:13, NKJV:
Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! …

Romans 7:12, NKJV:
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Romans 9:14, NKJV:
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

Romans 11:1, NKJV:
Say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!

Romans 11:11, NKJV:
I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

1 Corinthians 6:15, NKJV:
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!

Galatians 2:17, NKJV:
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

Galatians 3:21, NKJV:
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

Having seen these verses I will make the following list of all the things that cannot be construed from any point in his letter. This list will later be referred to in my second post on how our understanding is construed and why it is quite impossible for you to get any other idea, this referencing will use the format of code (PCBC) and then a number. ie. PCBC#1 to represent a reference to the first point:

1.A person cannot live in spirit and live in any sin (Rom. 6:5, Rom 7:13,Rom 9:14,1 Cor. 6:15,Gal. 2:17)

2.The law is not sin, nor like sin(Rom 7:7,Rom 9:14,Rom. 7:12)

3.Law is the opposite of sin(Rom 7:7,Gal. 3:21)

4.Jews still G-ds people(Rom 11:1,Rom 11:11,Gal 3:21)

5.Not come to abolish the law (Rom 3:31)

I think Paul supports the law in many places, just without using the word law, as he knows his enemy the false teachers would use this to twist mind again.

1 Timothy 1:3-7, NKJV:
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

2 Corinthians 12:19-21
Again, do you think that we excuse ourselves to you? We speak before God in Christ. But we do all things, beloved, for your edification. For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults; lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.

2 Timothy 3:16-17,NKJV:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Timothy 1:8, NKJV:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully

Galatians 5:19-30, NKJV:
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spiritis love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

What was Pauls feeling towards the laws:

Acts 24:14, NKJV:
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 25:8, NKJV:
while he answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all."

Romans 7:12, NKJV:
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

So now we have looked at some of his feelings towards the law, now let us see what exactly he wants to tell us. This list will later be referred to in my second post as it will be the point he is trying to bring across. This referencing will use the format of code (P) and then a number. ie. P#1 to represent a reference to the first point:

Romans 9:30-32, NKJV:
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

1.He refers to Israel s as not keepers of the law but transgress of the law that stumbled because they did not seek it by faith but by the works of the law. Note the reference to stumbles is parallel to Romans 11:11, which tells us why it is now open to the Gentiles.

Also note what the stumbling stone is “not by faith but by the works of the law”

1 Timothy 1:3-11,NKJV:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and fromsincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

2.Well he is clearly summarizing a good part of the purpose of his gospel (Gods gospel)

We, see him first identify the other doctrine as one of disputes, also he says they who teach it our “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.”, clearly he is saying that these teachers of the law do not understand what they are preaching, that is their fundamental problem.

What else does he say here, he says that “purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart” “and from sincere faith”, clearly he is making a link between the commandment and love/faith. He also goes on and says “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully” that clearly tells us that he thinks the law is good and useful as long as you understand it by faith.

3.But then he continues finishing his last point and most important “that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate”, this is then saying in combination with his other points that the purpose of the law is to control the insubordinate (flesh) so that we can abide in the Lord who according to PCBC#1 cannot abide in the insubordinate.

Note: This can and offten is taken the wrong way, for people assume themselves righteous, but I ask you how did Paul define righteous, was it not by the same things set out in the law.See P5 to see the purpose he saw for the written law for a christian.

1 Corinthians 2:1-5, NKJV:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preachingwere not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

4.Flase teachers use the wisdom of man, skewing the bible line, by making assumptions by it, and giving you human reasoning to why it means something. Someone who teaches the true gospel uses only the power of God (100% bible agreeing)

Why 100% bible agreeing:

2 Timothy 3:16-17,NKJV:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

5.The laws purpose for a Christian is “for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

I think that is enough for now, I can now address I think any situations and easily reference you to the logic why what we think is the only way Paul could have meant for it to be taken.

If I need more sources I will be sure to post some. If you need more references to any given subject or Idea, feel free to ask, I have many more that support the same ideas and more ideas.

Hope this helps,
God bless,
Datsar

 

[Achichem]

As for your questions,

I don't think either is accurate. Especially in light of 'old testament' prophecies that have yet to come about which flat out contradict what Paul is saying.

I would be happy to readdress circumcision or law being a trap under this new system of referencing. If these are the ones you are referring, if it is another that you are referring then I would be happy to address that one in great deal, I think I understand what you want now.

But I don't see how that view reconciles what Paul said. That it (circumcision) is nothing.

I realize concerning salvation it is nothing, but how do we reconcile it to the very clear words of God? He clearly states circumcision of the heart and flesh are required to enter his holy sanctuary. Perhaps I need insight on this particular holy sanctuary. From a casual reading, I am understanding it to be the last and final temple, the one in the messianic kingdom, or perhaps heaven its self.

Regardless, it would appear to me from it, that circumcision of the flesh has some value before God, but only IF one is circumcised in the heart as well. Otherwise it is meaningless.

If Paul was the one who truly said this might be true, but it was the Lord God who gave the sprit unto the uncircumcised that made Paul say this.

Acts 15:8, NKJV:
So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,

Acts 11:15-18, NKJV:
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, "John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

And remember, the Spirit can not abide in those who live in sin.So clearly it is the Lord God who made this, not Paul.

 

[KelsayDL]

Thanks all for your input, especially you DaTsar. Your words gave me alot to ponder. Don't think I've just waived them off, I haven't.

I would now like to ask what Paul meant in the following passages. Perhaps what the Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew say as well.

1 Timothy 1:18-20
18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1 Corinthians 5:1-6
1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

Is it our job to deliver a sinner unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh?

Paul flat out says he 'delivered' two people unto Satan. So that they may learn not to blaspheme.

What is meant by "delivering someone to Satan?"

How do we as believers today imitate Paul, as he imitates christ in this aspect? How do I deliver someone unto Satan for the destruction of his flesh?

 

[KelsayDL]

Well, I have learned from other sources that Pauls words in my last post could have meant any number of things... (naturally)


From being a now extinct gift from the Holy Spirit, to ex-communication from the "church."

So I suppose it will remain a mystery.


But, I do have a couple of more queries for anyone interested.

First would be the art of craftiness!

Crafty fellow that paul himself claims to be;

2Co 12:16 - But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile

Why then did he say this, only moments sooner;


2 Corinthians 4:1-7 1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; 2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully;


Also...

Further dealing with the text of 2 Corinthians chapter 4.
The ending of verse two caught my attention while researching Pauls craftiness.

Paul claims to not handle the word of God deceitfully yet he claims that God hated Esau before he was born;

Romans 9: 9-13- 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Now...

I've learned a few things since studying Paul. Not the least of which is whenever he quotes scripture, look it up.

I can tell you if you do the same, you will see that the message Paul is trying to convey here, most certainly is not the intent of the Tanakh texts he uses, some would argue deceitfully.

In fact, I cannot find anywhere in the Tanakh where that teaching of Paul is reinforced. Let alone written the way he attempts to use it here.

Can you?


One thing I have heard of the Roman text chapter 9- I forget how far, is that it was a forgery not present in the earliest manuscripts.

So perhaps Paul didn't even write it.

 

[Achichem]

I've learned a few things since studying Paul. Not the least of which is whenever he quotes scripture, look it up.

the refrence in my bible says it Malachi 1:2-3
and I looked it up, and it's says the same,

So can you please expand

 

[Achichem]

First would be the art of craftiness!

First thing to note is there is a slight diffrence in the word used.

12:16 Panourgos [3835](alway used in a good sence)

4:2 Panourgia [3834](always used in a bad sence)

However that does not explain, the diffrence.

I would just say they have have a good sence and bad sence.

Good sence: Clever
Bad Sence: Tricky

I really just shotty translation work, which is all over Rabbi Saul work, for just looking at strong numbers you can see shooty work(saddly not well fixed in any translation I have come across) in every chapter.

If you open up the orginal greek texts, Your mouth drops, at the poor workmanship(IMO) of all the translations I have seen.

 

[KelsayDL]

Dig deeper than the reference your bible gives, or perhaps get a new one if it teaches God hated the man Esau before he was born.

For it only gives half of the cited text. That being "...Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated."


In Paul’s context, the second of the two phrases appears to have been spoken by God in the very next—if not the same—breath, at a time before Jacob and Esau were born. The first phrase was indeed spoken before they were born. So it would make sense that if God did hate Esau before he was born as Paul wants us to believe, God probably spoke the next phrase at that same time. Guess what? The first quote comes from the first book of the Bible, Genesis 25:23, and the second comes from the very last book of the Tanach, Malachi 1:1-4, and was spoken over a thousand years after Esau had died! And it is obvious from the context in which it is found that God is speaking of Esau’s descendants the nation of Edom and not Esau himself. And this is long after Esau's descendants had the opportunity to do "any good or evil”. God spoke this after Edom had proved to be evil and deserving of God’s hatred.

Nowhere in the Genesis passage is there any indication whatsoever that God hated Esau before he was born!

The fact is, God said He would make a great nation of Esau. Just because God promised to make an even greater nation of his brother is in no way a curse on Esau or evidence that God hated him. If this is the way God expresses hatred toward someone, I hope He hates me likewise and makes a great nation of my descendants!​

~Scott Nelson

 

[Achichem]

Well the first thing I would say is it si just Malachi; I do not see why you think it indicates he is taking before they were born.



First,

It says: (Kathos Grapho) according to the written



This would indicate it comes from the same place(IMO).

And Malachi 1:2,3 contains both God love Jacob and God hated Esau, supporting this



Second,



He point to prove: “Not however that the Word of God has failed, for not all those of Israel are Israel” [Rom. 9:6]



His evidence,
Prophesy: "The elder shall serve the younger."


Proof that the prophecy came true: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”



In other words, he is talking about the seed as Malachi, only quoting from Malachi, with nothign to do with anying hating before birth.



Third,



“for not all those of Israel are Israel” [Rom 9:6]

“That is, not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed.” [Rom 9:8]



Further proof to me he is talking as way of descendents (IMO)



Fourth,

IF it is Rom 9:11 that give you this idea, I will explain using my own translation::

μήπω γὰρ γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάντων τι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν, ἵνα ἡ κατ᾿ ἐκλογὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόθεσις μένῃ,





For they being not yet born, neither practiced certain good or evil,

This being in order that it be according to choosing.

You see, God’ decision was not being decided out of acts but out of calling.



This point explain the very contrary to what you are saying(IMO), being the logical explaination, that this decition of the promise to be given to Jacob was out of God's Grace not Acts.



I do not think he ever hints that God hated Esau before he was born.



Are we clear yet, or am I still missing something here?

 

[KelsayDL]

Are we clear yet?

Clearly in disagreement, yes.

I think it's apparent Paul is trying to convey the message that God hated Esau the man before he was born.

And the text is not just from Malachi, it's also plainly from Genesis. Paul links the two together to illustrate more of HIS gospel.

Link to scotts site when you have the time and take him up on his challenge.

I'd like to hear his response to you.

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/challenge.htm