- Aug 14, 2019
- 9,082
- 8,298
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
You reject the authority of Paul? No wonder you have no concept of grace.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You reject the authority of Paul? No wonder you have no concept of grace.You assume Peter and Luke were not deceived; I assume they were. I begin doubting Paul, you do not.
It is to meet together, as the body of Christ, for fellowship in the name of Jesus. That will usually include praise, worship, thanksgiving and teaching.What is it to be gathered in His name?
You have no basis for your claim, which is heretical. When did Paul claim to be pope? When did he try to take over the whole church as Catholicism did for centuries? The apostle John referred to the believers he wrote to as little children also. (1 John 2:1)Does that make him an alternate pope?I genuinely appreciate your concern, but I believe it is misplaced. There are things I know, for example, I know that if I were raised and indoctrinated as an Orthodox, I would believe what you believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated into the Catholic Religion I would believe what they believe; if I were raised as a Muslim I would believe what they believe; if I were raised and indoctrinated as a Jew I would believe what they believe. God is looking for overcomers, Israelites.
The Catholic Church claims that Peter was the first Pope, I am not aware Peter ever called himself Father, or assumed the authority of God; Paul may not have used the “F”word, but he did refer to his congregation as his little children, and by abrogating circumcision he made them gentiles eternally.
Paul was the first Vicar of Christ, in sheep's clothing.
What is it to be in His name?It is to meet together, as the body of Christ, for fellowship in the name of Jesus. That will usually include praise, worship, thanksgiving and teaching.
Jesus promised to be with us when we meet in His name. I do not recall any mention of the sabbath in that statement. See, I died to the Law. Now I live to God. Galatians 2:19. I expect that is in your bible too. If not, throw it away and get the real one.
I do not need your permission in anything to do with the things of God. I would love to bless you with truth and grace. You reject that. You prefer what comes through Moses to that which comes through Jesus. That's in your hands, not mine.
God through Jesus through Paul are all saying the same thing. God’s word.You do not understand the difference between your perceptions and mine.
Moses was spokesman for the Great God of Israel, who made a blood covenant with Israel. The Great God of Israel Established a foundation called the blood covenant, Then, as Jesus he confirms the foundational covenant, down to the point of shedding His blood.
Jesus and His Father are two witnesses to the same thing, you stamp your little foot insisting that Jesus and His father testify to different things and are not in agreement. You base your opinion on the appendage, stuck on the side of the great covenant and its confirmation, called the epistles of Paul.
You have no basis for your claim, which is heretical. When did Paul claim to be pope? When did he try to take over the whole church as Catholicism did for centuries? The apostle John referred to the believers he wrote to as little children also. (1 John 2:1)Does that make him an alternate pope?
No. The issue is you really are not saying anything. Paul this, John that with nothing to substantiate it.Heretic yes, heretic is when on gets up the nose of the Church, blasphemy no, blasphemy is when one gets up God's nose.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. But you are right Paul and John used the same Greek words; and that was a weak argument.
I would not accuse John, who also made mistakes, of usurping the authority of the Father.
God through Jesus through Paul are all saying the same thing. God’s word.
I did give you my best shot.No. The issue is you really are not saying anything. Paul this, John that with nothing to substantiate it.
I admit that I am a poor communicator. My allegiance is to Christ, not to Paul. My comparison was the relation of Mohammad to Christ verses Paul to Christ. Mohammad is more important than Jesus the Messiah in the Koran, Paul is more important in the mind of many Christians. Mohammad has no Biblical credibility and seems to be the father of terrorism.In post #90 you apply some “line of rhetoric” to rationalize a matter of faith. It is reasonable to suspect by your own logic that you are not a Christian. I might as well say well what makes the prophets like Isaiah, expressing the word of God? It seems like Mohammad had credibility in what you say.
You seem to claim to have some special understanding of the Lord that Paul apparently does not. By a “line of rhetoric” I guess Mohammad has greater credibility than Paul. Jesus Christ said John the Baptist was the greatest and last of the prophets ( Matthew 11:11-13).
Are you Messianic?As a line of rhetoric, how is that different to:
God through Jesus through Mohammad are all saying the same thing, God's word.
You could say Mohammad does not say the same as the God of Israel, and most Mohammedans would agree. Muslims would probably claim that Jews wrote the Bible to suit themselves.
I will offer some arguments, but my convictions came first and my arguments are after thoughts.
“God through Jesus through Paul”, for my mind this is blasphemy, we know that Jesus is equal to God, but who made Paul equal to Jesus and equal to God, Who is guilty? Some say Paul delivered the new covenant, so it stands to reason Paul would be mediator of that covenant.
You bet.Did God and Jesus agree with Paul on circumcision?
Are you Messianic?
Jesus proclaimed God as His source of Strength and life. Paul proclaimed God through Jesus as His Source of Strength and life. Mohammed did not proclaim God through Jesus. What is the problem?
You mentioned thinking that John was not entirely inspired either. Does that include the Gospel or just his letters and the Revelation?
If you have no issues with the Gospel what do you see in chapter 17 in relation to what is just said second sentence above?
According to the Gospels everything Jesus did He did through the Father. Everything Paul Did He did through Christ through the Father.
You bet.
Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.To the best of knowledge the only time Jesus spoke of circumcision was when he asked the Pharisees if they were breaking the Law when they circumcised a man on the Sabbath. There is hardly confirmation for not circumcising Gentiles, in John 7:22,23. There is no record of Jesus or the Father agreeing with Paul regarding the discontinuance of circumcision.
I do not understand why you are quoting these verses, which in themselves are very useful, but have nothing to do with Paul assuming the authority to discontinue circumcision.Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Hi thereTo the best of knowledge the only time Jesus spoke of circumcision was when he asked the Pharisees if they were breaking the Law when they circumcised a man on the Sabbath. There is hardly confirmation for not circumcising Gentiles, in John 7:22,23. There is no record of Jesus or the Father agreeing with Paul regarding the discontinuance of circumcision.
You do not seem to be addressing my post that you quote, unless you picked out a portion, like - There is no record of Jesus or the Father agreeing with Paul. One could say Paul is mostly in agreement, regarding technicalities, but Paul is primarily an interpreter of scripture and debater; it is here that modern scholars erroneously use him as an authority.Hi there
I believe what you are looking for is this...
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
Acts 15:23-29
You do not seem to be addressing my post that you quote, unless you picked out a portion, like - There is no record of Jesus or the Father agreeing with Paul. One could say Paul is mostly in agreement, regarding technicalities, but Paul is primarily an interpreter of scripture and debater; it is here that modern scholars erroneously use him as an authority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?