Jesus did not say follow preachers, He said follow Me.
- Thread starter Relic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I really think people are misunderstanding Relic and what he says is actually biblical, he is not attacking or throwing away the word he is confirming it.
1 Corinthians 31 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
1 Corinthians 31 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
-
1
- Show all
The problem is with language. If we understood the word Torah that is the original word the translators use law for it would solve many problems. Torah is law, but it is so much more that Strong's uses pages to explain.
When we object to the law it is like objecting to the precision of the tides of the ocean. We can choose to be in sync with the law or choose to be out of sync with it.
When we object to the law it is like objecting to the precision of the tides of the ocean. We can choose to be in sync with the law or choose to be out of sync with it.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I am sorry if I misunderstand you. My Op said that Paul's letter are not law, and
that is correct by scripture. Jesus gave us all, every Christian one commandment
to follow and that is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and your
neighbor as yourself. That is the only law we have. Everything this else is for our
guidance to honor that commandment.
that is correct by scripture. Jesus gave us all, every Christian one commandment
to follow and that is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and your
neighbor as yourself. That is the only law we have. Everything this else is for our
guidance to honor that commandment.
S
S
Galatians 6:2, ESV: "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
According to these two verses it is correct for a believer under grace to say he is under the law to Christ. This is not the law of moses but that law of love referenced in Gal 6:2 is not optional. We should say with Paul, that we are without law, but not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. Lawlessness is still punishable by death in the kingdom of God. (not speaking of the Law of Moses)
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
According to these two verses it is correct for a believer under grace to say he is under the law to Christ. This is not the law of moses but that law of love referenced in Gal 6:2 is not optional. We should say with Paul, that we are without law, but not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. Lawlessness is still punishable by death in the kingdom of God. (not speaking of the Law of Moses)
S
Paul said...For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Gal 5:14 Now you say that this is only law you have. However you say we should not get this information from Paul? Because he is not Jesus? And yet Mark wrote the following (and this Mark was not the same Mark as the Apostle) Mark 12:28-31 “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32
Now you are thinking that Mark's statement is the same as following Jesus, but Paul's statement is less than following Jesus? About the same law of love? That equates to you saying Mark was inspired to write and Paul was not. Neither one of them is Jesus. So your logic about following Jesus himself writing something for you because it come from the Gospel is not valid. It is necessary that you believe that Mark recorded accurately and quoted accurately what Jesus said. You therefore are following what Mark said.
There is no reason to not follow what Paul said who said the same thing as Mark about the Law you say you believe you must follow.
So you ARE following a law that Paul wrote, or that Mark wrote. Your appeal to Jesus having written something for you is invalid and your argument has no grounds to stand on. It is ok to follow whatever Paul wrote about what Jesus said or taught or any instructions he gave the new testament church to follow as well.
I hope you will now enjoy Pauls writings as though they were Jesus speaking directly to you and reject any thoughts that you do not have to conform your life in accordance to them if you do not want to.
Now you are thinking that Mark's statement is the same as following Jesus, but Paul's statement is less than following Jesus? About the same law of love? That equates to you saying Mark was inspired to write and Paul was not. Neither one of them is Jesus. So your logic about following Jesus himself writing something for you because it come from the Gospel is not valid. It is necessary that you believe that Mark recorded accurately and quoted accurately what Jesus said. You therefore are following what Mark said.
There is no reason to not follow what Paul said who said the same thing as Mark about the Law you say you believe you must follow.
So you ARE following a law that Paul wrote, or that Mark wrote. Your appeal to Jesus having written something for you is invalid and your argument has no grounds to stand on. It is ok to follow whatever Paul wrote about what Jesus said or taught or any instructions he gave the new testament church to follow as well.
I hope you will now enjoy Pauls writings as though they were Jesus speaking directly to you and reject any thoughts that you do not have to conform your life in accordance to them if you do not want to.
If by this comment you are denying the inspiration and authority of Paul's epistles, you are denying that over half the New Testament is the Word of God (in direct contradiction to the apostle Peter). As you can see, that is sheer nonsense.
While Christ did not teach that Christians should become disciples of preachers, He gave the Church evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the edification of the saints.
While Christ did not teach that Christians should become disciples of preachers, He gave the Church evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the edification of the saints.
-
1
- Show all
i am not completely clear on what he's saying so i'm asking questions 
i don't think the passage means the epistles are "optional" -- both Saul and Apollos spoke of Christ, and IMO, if you love Christ, you want to read and keep everything in scripture about Him. that's what makes scripture, "scripture" -- the fact that it is about Him. that's what He says in John 5:39 ((bonus points! i cited something from the gospels instead of any other part of scripture!)) -- He says these are they which testify of Him, and says we're supposed to search them for Him.
what Paul writes is about, is Christ. what Matthew writes about, is Christ. what John writes about. what Moses writes about. what the prophets write about, what Luke writes about, what Solomon & David write about, is Christ.
IMO the passage you put for us to remember, says Apollos and and Paul are servants of Christ, assigned by Him to be -- and what their assignment is, is to teach us about Christ. we have writings from Paul; God determined that we should. so what sense is it to set that aside like it's different from what the same LORD assigned to Mark to write?
and btw -- we **might** have something from Apollos. i know that the majority opinion is that Hebrews was written by Paul, but it's possible it was Apollos - one thing that's pointed out as evidence that it's possibly Paul's work is the depth of knowledge about the Law, which is something Paul also displays in his letters. but of Apollos it's said in Acts 18:24 that he was 'mighty in the scriptures' and that he was arguing in the synagogues and no one could oppose him. so he also understood the Messiah in the OT, and it was two disciples converted through Paul who taught him about the revelation of Christ and the gift of the Spirit, so if there are similarities in Hebrews with the qualities of Paul's discourses, that could be explained by the gospel having been explained more accurately to Apollos through Paul, via Priscilla & Aquila. it's said in the same part of Acts that Apollos greatly helped those who had believed through grace -- so he also is indicated by the things in Hebrews, the explanation of the grace of God through the Son, in the same way Paul is.
i'd like for Hebrews to be Apollos' writing. i think he is such an interesting character in the Bible; i love him. the book doesn't tell us who it was that wrote it down; it may not be, and most people, people who are a lot more knowledgeable on the subjects than me, think it wasn't. but it may be. there's a 'maybe'
i don't think the passage means the epistles are "optional" -- both Saul and Apollos spoke of Christ, and IMO, if you love Christ, you want to read and keep everything in scripture about Him. that's what makes scripture, "scripture" -- the fact that it is about Him. that's what He says in John 5:39 ((bonus points! i cited something from the gospels instead of any other part of scripture!)) -- He says these are they which testify of Him, and says we're supposed to search them for Him.
what Paul writes is about, is Christ. what Matthew writes about, is Christ. what John writes about. what Moses writes about. what the prophets write about, what Luke writes about, what Solomon & David write about, is Christ.
IMO the passage you put for us to remember, says Apollos and and Paul are servants of Christ, assigned by Him to be -- and what their assignment is, is to teach us about Christ. we have writings from Paul; God determined that we should. so what sense is it to set that aside like it's different from what the same LORD assigned to Mark to write?
and btw -- we **might** have something from Apollos. i know that the majority opinion is that Hebrews was written by Paul, but it's possible it was Apollos - one thing that's pointed out as evidence that it's possibly Paul's work is the depth of knowledge about the Law, which is something Paul also displays in his letters. but of Apollos it's said in Acts 18:24 that he was 'mighty in the scriptures' and that he was arguing in the synagogues and no one could oppose him. so he also understood the Messiah in the OT, and it was two disciples converted through Paul who taught him about the revelation of Christ and the gift of the Spirit, so if there are similarities in Hebrews with the qualities of Paul's discourses, that could be explained by the gospel having been explained more accurately to Apollos through Paul, via Priscilla & Aquila. it's said in the same part of Acts that Apollos greatly helped those who had believed through grace -- so he also is indicated by the things in Hebrews, the explanation of the grace of God through the Son, in the same way Paul is.
i'd like for Hebrews to be Apollos' writing. i think he is such an interesting character in the Bible; i love him. the book doesn't tell us who it was that wrote it down; it may not be, and most people, people who are a lot more knowledgeable on the subjects than me, think it wasn't. but it may be. there's a 'maybe'
-
1
- Show all
i guess i am not clear what you mean by "they are not laws"
Paul didn't write "thou shalt.." as God did through Moses -- Moses another servant of Christ, just as Paul is a servant of Christ.
but for example, the first command in the whole book of Romans is in chapter 6: reckon yourself dead to sin and alive to God through Christ our Lord. this is a command. it's written through Paul, inspires by the Holy Ghost. do you understand it to be "not a command" of the gospel since it's not written in red letters? do you think it's not from God? is it just, something inspiring you might read if you're in a rut and don't quite understand the red letters, that could be helpful to think about? or is it from God just as much as what the apostles copied down of what Jesus Himself said?
actually, while i typed that, i realized there's a more fundamental thing i don't know about you -- something extremely important to understanding what you're trying to say. would you mind telling me, do you believe Jesus Christ is the LORD God Almighty, the I AM? and do you believe that all the scripture is ultimately all about Him, a revelation of who He is and what He does?
Paul didn't write "thou shalt.." as God did through Moses -- Moses another servant of Christ, just as Paul is a servant of Christ.
but for example, the first command in the whole book of Romans is in chapter 6: reckon yourself dead to sin and alive to God through Christ our Lord. this is a command. it's written through Paul, inspires by the Holy Ghost. do you understand it to be "not a command" of the gospel since it's not written in red letters? do you think it's not from God? is it just, something inspiring you might read if you're in a rut and don't quite understand the red letters, that could be helpful to think about? or is it from God just as much as what the apostles copied down of what Jesus Himself said?
actually, while i typed that, i realized there's a more fundamental thing i don't know about you -- something extremely important to understanding what you're trying to say. would you mind telling me, do you believe Jesus Christ is the LORD God Almighty, the I AM? and do you believe that all the scripture is ultimately all about Him, a revelation of who He is and what He does?
Jesus gave this to Moses to give to the Hebrews as part of the law of the Sinai covenant, in Deuteronomy 6 & Leviticus 19. you are quoting Torah. Jesus said, these are the greatest commandments of the Torah.
you might be thinking of when Jesus said He was giving a new commandment? to love one another as He has loved us?
if Christ gave these things in the Torah to the Jews under Moses, not even as part of the 10 commandments, and the 10 were to be followed as well as all the other 606, then it stands to reason that if all those other 600+ laws besides these two were not to be ignored and were all equally binding, being 'explanations' themselves of those two, that if Christ is the God who inspired the things Paul wrote, and they are explanations of His new commandment, love one another as He has loved us, then everything Paul said is just as much law as the 10 commandments are law to anyone under Moses.
do you understand?
you might be thinking of when Jesus said He was giving a new commandment? to love one another as He has loved us?
if Christ gave these things in the Torah to the Jews under Moses, not even as part of the 10 commandments, and the 10 were to be followed as well as all the other 606, then it stands to reason that if all those other 600+ laws besides these two were not to be ignored and were all equally binding, being 'explanations' themselves of those two, that if Christ is the God who inspired the things Paul wrote, and they are explanations of His new commandment, love one another as He has loved us, then everything Paul said is just as much law as the 10 commandments are law to anyone under Moses.
do you understand?
Jesus did not write anything. You are believing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John recorded it accurately. Do you think Paul did not? You have no authority to say that you are following Jesus if it came from Matthew but not if it came from Paul. I am curious. What did Paul say that you didn't like?
compare Paul to the Son of god. I love Paul, he is a great help to my Christian faith
but his letters are not law and they never will be, it's absurd that Jesus would abolish
the old covenant as written in Hebrews and replace it with a new list of laws when
He died on the cross so people could be free and now the third millennium Pharisees want to
bring back laws. Jesus called them fools and hypocrites then and He would call them that now.
As I say I follow Paul in his help for my beginning in Christianity. But it is not a sin for me to
disagree with Paul.