Those who denounce Paul

[Frogster]

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?

is he writing food laws on our hearts? Do we have to keep jeeish festivals, stoned if we wrok on the sabbath? Why were the jewish christians in antioch, peter, barnabas, etc, living as gentiles? if the full torah was written on hearts, how could they live as gentiles?

 

[Frogster]

.

 

[Frogster]

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

did Luke lie when it says Jesus chose Paul in Acts 9, and sent him in 13, and confirmed him in 18, 22, and 23 of Acts?

 

[seeingeyes]

All I can say is that the Pharisees teach both truth and falsehood.

That's really the end of the thread, then.

There was actually a topic to stick to at one point. :

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."

 

[from scratch]

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

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.

 

[ananda]

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.

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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?

Christ in us the hope of glory. This is different from the old covenant, as your quote shows.

You can read Hebrews or Habbukuk/Galatians to understand. Revisit the promises to Abraham.

The OT was a conditional covenant between the people and God. IF-THEN.

The NT is unconditional covenant between God (God is one).

Hope that clarifies some.

 

[Calcemo]

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]

.

Hmm. Titus. Written by Paul.

 

[Frogster]

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.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Koakku

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."

​

Not really. All Paul did was recall the promises about faith and justification given to Abraham prior to the Sinai covenant and pick up a few prophesies like "I detest your Sabbaths" and "the just shall live by faith" and understand Christ's message thereby.

The group in Jerusalem running the "salvation" by the Temple works were powerful, respected, and connected. Along came Jesus who challenged their authority. They killed Him. He rose. But it's not like they died; they persisted as an alternative. They saw Christianity as a challenge to the priest and sacrifice system. When the Temple was destroyed in 70ad, they found another audience to become part of. The Caesar's were the Christ, as prophesied. (see Josephus)

So, Christ reiterated the promises of the Father to Jew and Gentile. Paul did the same. Some Jews were jealous and looked for a way to keep their system going.

 

[Calcemo]

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?

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.

 

[Erose]

I guess I should have asked this earlier, but what Christian denominations reject St. Paul?

 

[from scratch]

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.

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.

 

[ananda]

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.

 

[ananda]

I guess I should have asked this earlier, but what Christian denominations reject St. Paul?

There are no mainstream Christian denominations which reject Pharisee Paul, but that's to be expected, since they are largely built upon his shoulders.

 

[ananda]

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.

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.

 

[from scratch]

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.

So sorry you feel that way. Like I said you're free to cop out.

 

[Hentenza]

There are no mainstream Christian denominations which reject Pharisee Paul, but that's to be expected, since they are largely built upon his shoulders.

Mainstream Christian denominations are built upon Christ not upon the shoulders of Paul. The epistles of Paul are part of the canon of the mainstream churches. Its teachings are part of the corpus of scripture, not the sole teachings.

 

[BlunderAngel]

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.


Acts 17:11(NIV)


11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Hentenza]

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>

Ok then. From error to deeper error.