Does anyone else perceive something radical Occurring with the Writings of Paul

[JesusLives]

That's a matter of personal perception.

How are you doing Elin? Hope all is well with you. Things are great with me just a little too hot for my liking and way too humid...

 

[sparkman]

This is another Eliwood user ID. He keeps getting banned, but thinks it's fine to lie to set up new user IDs. He loves his Sabbath but doesn't mind lying.

Is it getting lukewarm in here?

God's law is done away! Let's not read the old testament anymore! All we have to do is say we love God and love our neighbors! And the "Holy Spirit" is doing it all for us!

View attachment 125090

 

[Elin]

How are you doing Elin? Hope all is well with you. Things are great with me just a little too hot for my liking and way too humid...

Hi. . .things are good. . .our hot has been replaced with cool for the last week, actually below normal cool.
Beautiful 4th today.

 

[Is]

I see you are referring to Acts 15:10.

If professing Christians would focus their supposed spiritual thoughts concerning "change" or "done way with" toward the carnal human, (which propagates the law of sin and death), rather than the unchanging Word of God, (including the law of God), I truly believe that wisdom and understanding of the truth would follow. The "yoke" that this scripture is referring to is the "oral law" not the written law via Moses. Paul is referring to the "Talmud" that put many additional burdens on the Jews, and greatly limited the ability of Gentiles to join Israel. Paul is referring to "Judaizers" not the law of God originally recorded in the Pentateuch.

The "yoke" that this scripture is referring to is the "oral law" not the written law via Moses.

That passage gives no hint that the oral law is what is being discussed.


I've been taught "where the Bible is silent about certain things" we need to be silent.

 

[sparkman]

The mission of the prophets was to correct ancient Israel for violation of the Old Covenant.

They spoke through the lenses of the Old Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant anymore.

Such Millennial prophecies also speak of animal sacrifices being offered. Yet, we know that Christ was offered once for all. It is counterintuitive for a sacrificial system to be established again in the Millennium for this reason.

Some dispensationists would disagree with me on this, and would say that animail sacrifices will indeed be offered again, but I believe my position is more reasonable..the prophets were speaking through the lense of the Old Covenant and that is why they used the language that they did. They foresaw a restoration of the relationship between mankind and God and described it in a manner that made sense to them.

By the way, the source of much of your bad theology, Herbert Armstrong, coupled this with British Israelism because he knew his theology was very weak without it. And British Israelism is so fraught with issues that no one with any serious theological understanding would support it.

The bible teaches it. During the milennial reign, there will still be birth and death. The people who are born at that time will live in peace and prosperity , and practice all of God's commanments.

View attachment 125092

 

[sparkman]

No Christian hates God's moral law. We are not subject to ceremonial or ritualistic laws like the Sabbath, Holy Days, clean/unclean meats, triple tithing, or physical circumcision like "Torah Observers" claim we are.

By the way, again I point to your hypocrisy of lying to set up new user IDs to evade bans. Your information keeps changing each time. You claim to honor God's law but your behavior betrays your hypocrisy.

I hate to break it to you, but God's law is here to stay. No matter how much you hate it, and want it to be abolished, His people are still going to continue to obey it. The scriptures show that people from all nations of the world will go to Jerusalem to learn the torah during the milennial reign.

All your accomplishing by rebelling against the truth is making yourself the "least in the kingdom". It may also invalidate your prayers.

Mathew 5:19- Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Prverbs 28:9- He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

 

[Is]

i could easily agree with this if not for what is written just a few verses before, explaining exactly what all the disciples gathered there were discussing:

But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said,
​

“It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”​

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
(Acts 15:5-6)
​

"the law of Moses" means the written law, not the Talmud, correct?

and the next thing Peter says after he calls ((the matter they were gathered to consider)) a "yoke" is this:

But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
(Acts 15:11)

​

being saved through grace is a different thing than being saved by obedience to the works of either law or tradition, right?

but hey, i don't really want to be arguing; we've got plenty of those threads --



amen, amen and amen to this! ↑↑↑
and maybe it is so that all those threads of arguments over grace are a kind of "misuse" of Paul's teachings, even if they are correct in what they say.

But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said,
​

“It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”​

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
(Acts 15:5-6) ​

I agree with that.
​

 

[sparkman]

Yup. Until heavens and earth pass away, that is. After that, who knows? We'll be spiritual beings, and one with God.

Here you go agreeing with your own posts. Hilarious.

 

[Elin]

The mission of the prophets was to correct ancient Israel for violation of the Old Covenant.

They spoke through the lenses of the Old Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant anymore.

Such Millennial prophecies also speak of animal sacrifices being offered. Yet, we know that Christ was offered once for all. It is counterintuitive for a sacrificial system to be established again in the Millennium for this reason.

Some dispensationists would disagree with me on this, and would say that animail sacrifices will indeed be offered again, but I believe my position is more reasonable..the prophets were speaking through the lense of the Old Covenant and that is why they used the language that they did. They foresaw a restoration of the relationship between mankind and God and described it in a manner that made sense to them.

By the way, the source of much of your bad theology, Herbert Armstrong, coupled this with British Israelism because he knew his theology was very weak without it. And British Israelism is so fraught with issues that no one with any serious theological understanding would support it.

So that's where this stuff comes from.

 

[convallaria]

By the way, the source of much of your bad theology, Herbert Armstrong, coupled this with British Israelism because he knew his theology was very weak without it. And British Israelism is so fraught with issues that no one with any serious theological understanding would support it.

What on earth is British Israelism? I live here and I have never heard of it. Is it something political? Is it different from American Israelism? I think someone just made it up.

 

[tanach]

Your question made me smile because you make it sound as if Paul was still writing epistles somewhere and they have been more radical in content recently. I wish he was still scribbling away. Perhaps we could get some sensible answers from him
about topics discussed here.

 

[tanach]

convallaria. Im no expert on the subject but I understand that the main idea behind British Israelism is that British people and the Royal Family in particular are descended from the ten so called lost tribes of Israel. By way of extension the ex British colonies such as the USA and Canada are also populated by the tribes descendants. It seems to me to be a way of claiming Jewish descent althouigh I dont think it would get anyone Israeli citizanship by this route. Same sort of idea claimed by the Mormons with regard to Native Americans.

 

[just-me]

That passage gives no hint that the oral law is what is being discussed.


I've been taught "where the Bible is silent about certain things" we need to be silent.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Jesus said in John 7:22; “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.”

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

*Grievous in 1 John 5:3 = 926.barusbar-ooce' from the same as 922; weighty, i.e. (fig) burdensome, grave:--grievous, heavy, weightier.

**Burden Acts 15:28 = 922. baros bar'-os probably from the same as 939 (through the notion of going down; compare 899); weight; in the New Testament only, figuratively, a load, abundance, authority:--burden(-some), weight.

So in Acts 15:5 the Pharisees say that Gentiles should be circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then in John 7:22 Jesus says that circumcision is not of Moses.

Then in Acts 15:10 the disciples say neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear whatever the Pharisees demanded. (was this the law of Moses?) Then in Luke 11:46 Jesus accuses the lawyers of causing grievous burdens.

In Acts 15:19, and 28 the disciples agree that the Gentiles should not have to be troubled with things they themselves cannot even bear. Then John (the beloved) says that God's commandments are not *grievous, related to the **burden described in Acts 15.

This is what I have attempted to define. I will start another thread about this as to not derail this one. It appears to me that the burden of the Pharisaical lawyers (the Talmud) is not the same as the law of Moses as defined in scripture. The law of Moses is actually God's law He gave to Israel via Moses.

 

[Is]

The mission of the prophets was to correct ancient Israel for violation of the Old Covenant.

They spoke through the lenses of the Old Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant anymore.

Such Millennial prophecies also speak of animal sacrifices being offered. Yet, we know that Christ was offered once for all. It is counterintuitive for a sacrificial system to be established again in the Millennium for this reason.

Some dispensationists would disagree with me on this, and would say that animail sacrifices will indeed be offered again, but I believe my position is more reasonable..the prophets were speaking through the lense of the Old Covenant and that is why they used the language that they did. They foresaw a restoration of the relationship between mankind and God and described it in a manner that made sense to them.

By the way, the source of much of your bad theology, Herbert Armstrong, coupled this with British Israelism because he knew his theology was very weak without it. And British Israelism is so fraught with issues that no one with any serious theological understanding would support it.

They spoke through the lenses of the Old Covenant. We are not under the Old Covenant anymore.

The visions they had were not their own, they were given to them by God, so why would the vision of the Millenial Temple in Ezekiel 40 show that the architecture provided for a sacrificial area?

 

[Grandpa]

The visions they had were not their own, they were given to them by God, so why would the vision of the Millenial Temple in Ezekiel 40 show that the architecture provided for a sacrificial area?

Hebrews 9:23-24
[SUP]23 [/SUP]It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

 

[Elin]

Your question made me smile because you make it sound as if Paul was still writing epistles somewhere and they have been more radical in content recently. I wish he was still scribbling away.
Perhaps we could get some sensible answers from him about topics discussed here.

We already have God's answers in them, whether they seem sensible or not.

Anything he would write would be received no differently than it is now.

It's not about lack of understanding of them, it's about lack of belief of them.

 

[Elin]

convallaria. Im no expert on the subject but I understand that the main idea behind British Israelism is that British people and the Royal Family in particular are descended from the ten so called lost tribes of Israel.

There are no official genealogical records to support such, that is speculation.

By way of extension the ex British colonies such as the USA and Canada are also populated by the tribes descendants. It seems to me to be a way of claiming Jewish descent althouigh I dont think it would get anyone Israeli citizanship by this route. Same sort of idea claimed by the Mormons with regard to Native Americans.

 

[Is]

The visions they had were not their own, they were given to them by God, so why would the vision of the Millenial Temple in Ezekiel 40 show that the architecture provided for a sacrificial area?

Hebrews 9:23-24
[SUP]23 [/SUP]It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

So, if I'm getting your drift, are you saying the temple of Ezekiel is heavenly? If so why then does Heb.9:28 say Christ will appear to us a second time?

 

[Is]

There are no official genealogical records to support such, that is speculation.

What's interesting is nowhere in the Bible does it provide for a queen on the throne.

 

[Elin]

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Jesus said in John 7:22; “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.”

Yes, God told Moses that infants were to be circumcised (Lev 12:3) as commanded by the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 17:11).

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

*Grievous in 1 John 5:3 = 926.barusbar-ooce' from the same as 922; weighty, i.e. (fig) burdensome, grave:--grievous, heavy, weightier.

**Burden Acts 15:28 = 922. baros bar'-os probably from the same as 939 (through the notion of going down; compare 899); weight; in the New Testament only, figuratively, a load, abundance, authority:--burden(-some), weight.

So in Acts 15:5 the Pharisees say that Gentiles should be circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then in John 7:22 Jesus says that circumcision is not of Moses.

Circumcision did not originate with the Mosaic law, but with the Abrahamic covenant, which Israel was still under, along with the Sinaitic (Mosaic, old covenant), and were to be circumcised (Lev 12:3) in obedience to the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 17:11).

Then in Acts 15:10 the disciples say neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear whatever the Pharisees demanded. (was this the law of Moses?) Then in Luke 11:46 Jesus accuses the lawyers of causing grievous burdens.

In Acts 15:19, and 28 the disciples agree that the Gentiles should not have to be troubled with things they themselves cannot even bear. Then John (the beloved) says that God's commandments are not *grievous, related to the **burden described in Acts 15.

The Mosaic regulations and the Pharisaical obligations were the grievous burden referred to.
The Ten Commandments were not a grievous burden.

This is what I have attempted to define. I will start another thread about this as to not derail this one. It appears to me that the burden of the Pharisaical lawyers (the Talmud) is not the same as the law of Moses as defined in scripture. The law of Moses is actually God's law He gave to Israel via Moses.