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.
Wow you're right. I didn't think that was true, but it is God's Word. He's the Word.
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah . . .
I will put my Torah within them, and on their heart I will write it.
(Jeremiah 31:31, 33)
Who is within us?
I take it straightforwardly. YHWH saves His people. But there's no point in expounding on it, because I'm sure you'll disagree, since you already disagreed with another (to me) undeniably clear & straighforward passage about YHWH sending false prophets ...
Our readers can decide on their own
All I can say is that the Pharisees teach both truth and falsehood.
It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living; so, what do you make of the people who denounce Paul? They claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and what is your take on Paul?
To back-track. Recently I've got into a small discussion or a light-debate with someone about the law and the teachings of Paul. Basically this person has said that we are to follow the Ten Commandments and that there is no "new law" and that the "old law hasn't been done away with" as Paul and the writer of Hebrews stated against. This person has also claimed that Paul had no right to change anything written in Scriptures and then this person has also claimed that Paul was a follower of the original law. These are some notable quotes from the person: "Paul isn't my Deity. He didn't try to be either." "The problem is with translation and traditions of men. They sucked me in, too, for a long time. If you will get online and research the ways language translations and traditions of men are twisting Paul's words, you will, I believe, learn a lot."
Sure you don't wish to. I understand and know why.I take it straightforwardly. YHWH saves His people. But there's no point in expounding on it, because I'm sure you'll disagree, since you already disagreed with another (to me) undeniably clear & straighforward passage about YHWH sending false prophets ...
Our readers can decide on their own
Other topics regarding what Torah does and does not teach is beyond the purpose of this thread, and I do not wish to deviate much from the intended purpose.Sure you don't wish to. I understand and know why.I'm beginning to wonder why the pro law folks don't wish to explain (defend) any of their texts anymore.
Wow you're right. I didn't think that was true, but it is God's Word. He's the Word.
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah . . .
I will put my Torah within them, and on their heart I will write it.
(Jeremiah 31:31, 33)
Who is within us?
Those who denounce Paul
Are heretics!
Heresy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christianity
Main article: Heresy in Christianity
According to Tit 3:10 a divisive person should be warned two times before separating from him.
The Greek for the phrase "divisive person" became a technical term in the early church for a type of "heretic" who promoted dissension.[7] In contrast correct teaching is called sound not only because it builds up in the faith, but because it protects against the corrupting influence of false teachers.[8]
The use of the word "heresy" was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents during the early centuries of the Christian community.[citation needed] He described the community's beliefs and doctrines as orthodox (from ὀρθός, orthos "straight" + δόξα, doxa "belief") and the Gnostics' teachings as heretical.[citation needed] He also pointed out the concept of apostolic succession to support his arguments.[9]
.
It's pretty obvious that if Paul wasn't in the scriptures there will be a massive change in the understanding of the gospel and Christian living; so, what do you make of the people who denounce Paul? They claim that there was many errors in the passages he partaken in the bible and to the others that claim that he was a false apostle and what is your take on Paul?
But I must. If I were to state the truth I'd be banned.Other topics regarding what Torah does and does not teach is beyond the purpose of this thread, and I do not wish to deviate much from the intended purpose.
Please don't assume what is and what is not my motivation, I find that rude and condescending.
Paul can't be denounced completely. IMO, much of what he says is helpful and true, and of those things, not particularly unique. For example, his advice to hate evil and cling to what is good, and this being an expression of sincere love. I agree with this. His advice to have only one wife. Again, agreed. These concepts are hardly biblically new, though.
Anyone who has made bread or brewed alcohol knows the purpose and use of yeast to do that. A few tiny flakes work their way into the dough, or brew and cause it to rise - the CO2 trying to escape.
Some of us take the position that while Paul teaches some things that are in line with the bible elsewhere, there are other teachings that are considered "yeast", and from our perspective - it is those teachings that Jesus warned about when He said to "beware the yeast of the Pharisees". In other words, they are mixed in with the dough, making it rise instead of remaining unleavened.
I think that among the Messianics, there is some disagreement as to what those are.
Again, the personal attacks? No thanks. This ends our conversation.But I must. If I were to state the truth I'd be banned.
You're free to cop out all you want. Lack of defense or refutation is no refutation. This leaves the other party established as the truth.
So sorry you feel that way. Like I said you're free to cop out.Again, the personal attacks? No thanks. This ends our conversation.
I'm more than happy to entertain this or any line of inquiry with anyone else who is mature enough to debate without resorting to ad hominems, in the appropriate thread. I have done this to the best of my ability, and I expect the same from those who oppose my perspective.
There are no mainstream Christian denominations which reject Pharisee Paul, but that's to be expected, since they are largely built upon his shoulders.
That would be an easy answer.I guess I should have asked this earlier, but what Christian denominations reject St. Paul?
That would be an easy answer.
Those denominations or sects that allow gays into the clergy.
Sects or denominations that accept Paul's teachings, which include condemnation of homosexuality, do not. Therefore, those sects that do marry homosexuals, or permit non-celibate homosexuals into the clergy are rejecting the apostle Paul and his teachings which he allege arrived through Christ. <snip>
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?