Does anyone else perceive something radical Occurring with the Writings of Paul
- Thread starter JaumeJ
- 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.
It is not surprising about them, when it is written, Apostle Peter the 'Rock' himself in his second epistle 'testifies' about those who have 'twisted' the teaching of Apostle Paul (2 Peter 3; 14-18).
Jesus is the Rock Himself.......it was Peter's testimony of who Jesus was that He built His church on........sigh.......
(so much for not arguing words)
Jesus is the Rock Himself.......it was Peter's testimony of who Jesus was that He built His church on........sigh.......
(so much for not arguing words)
"You will be called Peter/Chepas meaning the 'rock' where I will build My church upon.
Are we 'ignorant witnesses' according to Grace and Truth of the New Covenant/Testament, to the 'title' given to Apostle Peter, who JESUS has 'chosen' and 'decided', is the 'rock', who is going to continue HIS 'work' henceforth building HIS church through him, as HIS 'instrument', for the Kingdom of GOD.
And that is why, even Apostle Paul in 'risk', went back to Jerusalem to seek Apostle Peter's council regarding certain matters for the Gentiles, where there was a 'conflict' about them with Jew believers, including their 'leader', the so called 'half brother' of JESUS.
You have boldly 'witness' such 'claims' and i may have 'missed out' on that according to the Holy Scripture. Please quote from the Holy Scripture that your 'claim' is from the HOLY BIBLE, and please for my 'reminder' and 'stir up of my memory'?
Thank you and may GOD bless you in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Do you 'perceive' the word/teaching of the LORD JESUS CHRIST speaking to you, because HE loves you and HE have correct personally you and your 'mistake' is our 'lesson' and they came from you and because of you.
Even the 'faithful' man of GOD's 'mistakes', written in the HOLY BIBLE, is a 'lesson' to all of us, in order we 'practice' and 'abide' and 'excel in righteousness' with CHRIST, who have given all of these only to us, who have been 'born from above'.
Do you 'perceive' the 'spiritual insight' with all of us included and in 'oneness' and 'one body of CHRIST, with many gifted members'?
GOD bless you 'all who have been born from above, to continue/keep/abide/etc. HIS written word/teaching', rather than 'going on ahead of them', in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Even the 'faithful' man of GOD's 'mistakes', written in the HOLY BIBLE, is a 'lesson' to all of us, in order we 'practice' and 'abide' and 'excel in righteousness' with CHRIST, who have given all of these only to us, who have been 'born from above'.
Do you 'perceive' the 'spiritual insight' with all of us included and in 'oneness' and 'one body of CHRIST, with many gifted members'?
GOD bless you 'all who have been born from above, to continue/keep/abide/etc. HIS written word/teaching', rather than 'going on ahead of them', in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.
The 'Rock' of CHRIST have spoken 'this' and 'testified' according to his own 'epistle' to the church, for as 'a reminder' and 'a stir up of memory', in order for the church, even today, in 'spiritual taught sound doctrine lesson', live to 'distinguish between the spirit of error and the spirit of truth' and not 'receive everything that comes our way, given initially of still CHRIST of the New Covenant/Testament.
GOD bless all in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.
GOD bless all in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Last edited:
Paul taught that all mankind, including God's people, were under condemnation.
Paul taught that justification (right standing with God) was not by law keeping as the Jews misunderstood it to be, but by faith in the Promise, Jesus Christ.
Paul taught the end of the Mosaic regulations.
Paul taught that election by God was not based on anything related to the elect (using Esau as his example), but based only on God's sovereign choice and purpose.
All were radical to Jewish understanding.
Paul taught that justification (right standing with God) was not by law keeping as the Jews misunderstood it to be, but by faith in the Promise, Jesus Christ.
Paul taught the end of the Mosaic regulations.
Paul taught that election by God was not based on anything related to the elect (using Esau as his example), but based only on God's sovereign choice and purpose.
All were radical to Jewish understanding.
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)
(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? (Acts 15:11)
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.
Jesus’ Gospel? Paul’s Gospel? Are they different? Or are they complementary? Is Paul’s Gospel ‘his’, or is it God’s Gospel embraced by Paul? Are Paul’s writings (and the other apostolic writings in the New Covenant Scriptures) what Jesus alluded to in John 16?
I was asked this question in an email recently:
“Another question, some at hrm [Hebrew Roots Movement/Torah pursuant folks] say there is the gospel of Jesus vs the gospel of Paul. Basically they teach that Paul wrote his own gospel even though Jesus clearly stated after his death burial and resurrection there would be more to come(information).”
My response (edited and expanded for this venue):
That’s a great question! In John 16, Jesus says this:
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Jesus is clearly telling His disciples that there is more truth to come that they, on that side of the Cross, could not, would not understand.
The Work of the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and His Perfect High Priesthood all needed to be in place before the fullness of the Gospel of Grace could be explained.
With the implications to the Law and Israel’s relationship with it and with God, when you think about it, it kinda had to be Paul to receive that revelation of the Gospel of Grace.
Paul was a Pharisee of the highest reputation, knowing the Law inside and out. For him to embrace the Gospel of Grace, which he proclaimed to be ‘his’ Gospel, was huge. To address that question real quick, Paul, by the end of his letter to the Romans states that it is ‘his’ Gospel, not in an ‘I thought it up and created it’ way, but in an ‘I now embrace this Gospel of Grace as my Good News, applied to my life – the New Covenant, superior to the Old Covenant for which I had such passion’ way.
Note that in Romans 1, Paul says this:
16 For I am not ashamed of >>> the <<< gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
At the beginning of the letter to the Romans it is ‘the’ Gospel, and the letter to the Romans is a treatise on our
>>> need <<< for the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, the
>>> supply <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, and the
>>> results <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike.
>>> supply <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, and the
>>> results <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike.
And Paul expertly weaves the proper use of the Law and the application and superiority of Grace throughout –at the end proclaiming, as a former Pharisee Law-keeper, that this is *his* Gospel – a Gospel that he embraces *himself*, after having gone through the issues of Law and Grace point by point throughout the letter (and also in his other letters).
Now read Paul’s closing comments in Romans 16:
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations,
>>> according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— <<<
27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
>>> according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— <<<
27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
So the Gospel that Paul preached was not a gospel apart from Christ’s, but Paul’s and the other apostolic New Covenant writings were the fulfillment of what Christ said in John 16.
Paul minces no words here when establishing the source and authority for what he was teaching to the Galatians:
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,
>>> but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. <<<
13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16
>>> was pleased to reveal his Son to me, <<<
in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,
>>> but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. <<<
13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16
>>> was pleased to reveal his Son to me, <<<
in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
One thing to note here, as well, is that Jesus said that the Spirit of Truth would point to and glorify Christ – not to point to and glorify the Law, but to Christ, which is what Paul and the other apostles do all throughout the New Covenant Scriptures.
God was no longer relating to mankind – nor was He desiring mankind to relate to Him – through the Law, but through the Work and Person of God in the flesh, Christ Jesus.
So Paul (and the others) were not writing their own ‘gospels'; they were carrying out the fulfillment of Jesus’ words in John 16 – they were receiving that further information that could be understood on the side of the Cross where they now lived and we do too – revealing what was actually accomplished at the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and with the High Priesthood of Christ – and writing it down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The point of this post is to show that Paul does not contradict the Gospel of Christ, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explains it.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak,and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine;therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (from John 16)
Paul, in particular, expertly goes back to the Law and the Prophets and shows how the Old Covenant shadows give way to the New Covenant realities in Christ.
So the next time a Law ‘keeper’ tries to tell you that Paul’s Gospel is either ‘misunderstood’ (those who try to twist Paul’s words to support Torah observance for believers) or a ‘different’ gospel from Jesus’ Gospel (those who reject Paul’s writings outright), point them to John 16!
Grace and peace to you in our Lord, Jesus Christ!
-JGIG
(from the article, "Jesus’ Gospel? Paul’s Gospel?" at JGIG)
E
What a way to dispel the truth of God and twist it to something paul would not even mention.
Why would paul be talking of the talmud? this makes no sense at all. He is talking of the law given to moses. the law you love to shove down everyones throats. Which paul makes clean in gal 3 is nothing but a schoolmaster. to lead us to Christ.
You following the mosaic law is not going to make you holy, if nothing, it should prove to you how UNHOLY you really are. and you wonder why Grandpa said you were SO CLOSE to the truth, yet so far? You almost get it, but then you go back to law and destroy what you had.
You absolutely are asking for an argument.
You've put a fishing line out there with controversial bait on the hook.
If you're trolling for 'like-minded' folks, that's fine, but don't expect those of us who guard the Gospel of Grace to sit idly by as you and your ilk try to re-write the Gospel into the image of Jesus + Law-keeping.
Nope.
Not gonna happen.
Please post a less lengthy response with the same content if possible, if not I will try to get to it. God bless you always.
-JGIG
Last edited:
Read the bold. If that is what you gathered from my thread, you didn't read it or you did, and misunderstood it. Not once was it ever stated that we should not forgive. It was simply stated we do not forgive to be forgiven, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. That is the Gospel, nothing twisted.
Circumcision did not originate from the law of Moses, it's from Abraham. The circumcision of the heart is from Moses in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6.
"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." John 7:22
Circumcision, however, is a written law in the Talmud, along with many other things that didn't originate with Moses, as I understand. I'm not saying the Talmud is bad, but it is very burdensome.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." 1 John 5:3
"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?" Acts 15:10
Obviously there are 2 different entities described here because scripture doesn't contradict itself when rightly divided.
The Talmud is the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law and legend comprising the Mishnah and the Gemara. There are two versions of the Talmud: the Babylonian Talmud (which dates from the 5th century AD but includes earlier material) and the earlier Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud.
"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." John 7:22Circumcision, however, is a written law in the Talmud, along with many other things that didn't originate with Moses, as I understand. I'm not saying the Talmud is bad, but it is very burdensome.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." 1 John 5:3
"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?" Acts 15:10
Obviously there are 2 different entities described here because scripture doesn't contradict itself when rightly divided.
The Talmud is the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law and legend comprising the Mishnah and the Gemara. There are two versions of the Talmud: the Babylonian Talmud (which dates from the 5th century AD but includes earlier material) and the earlier Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud.
Hmmm?
I got confused:
Is Paul the second name of the Lord Jesus?
I would not fight as Paul, himself, did, his lifetime.
"1Co 9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. "
" 1Co 9:2 Others may think that I am not an apostle, but you are proof that I am an apostle to you.
1Co 9:3 When people question me, I tell them "
I wished I have heard another of the known apostles (Jesus fasted and prayed for) would have shown such thoughts in one of their wide spread letters (although I do regret They didn´t write at lenght)
I got confused:
Is Paul the second name of the Lord Jesus?
I would not fight as Paul, himself, did, his lifetime.
"1Co 9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. "
" 1Co 9:2 Others may think that I am not an apostle, but you are proof that I am an apostle to you.
1Co 9:3 When people question me, I tell them "
I wished I have heard another of the known apostles (Jesus fasted and prayed for) would have shown such thoughts in one of their wide spread letters (although I do regret They didn´t write at lenght)
If any one hasn't caught on to what is being called radical, that would be
.
Or in the words of the legalists...
They cannot fathom the limitless and unending grace of God, so they define it as greasy and sloppy... there must be an end to His grace, or better said, "There must be a point at which I cannot save myself." That is self-righteousness, that is not of faith.
.Or in the words of the legalists...
They cannot fathom the limitless and unending grace of God, so they define it as greasy and sloppy... there must be an end to His grace, or better said, "There must be a point at which I cannot save myself." That is self-righteousness, that is not of faith.
Attachments
V
Well, no offense, but you're 0-for-1. Someone else made the same accusation, to which the OP responded:
So as you can see, that's not what the OP is talking about, thought the thread has obviously attracted some legalists who have attempted to insert their misperception that the law of sin and death is actually the law of grace and life. And about them, it can obviously be stated, as you did so eloquently:
But as the OP used the word "radical," that isn't the kind of teaching he was espousing. In fact, I think you could safely say he called the "sin-and-death" crowd "radical," if I'm not mistaken.
So as you can see, that's not what the OP is talking about, thought the thread has obviously attracted some legalists who have attempted to insert their misperception that the law of sin and death is actually the law of grace and life. And about them, it can obviously be stated, as you did so eloquently:
But as the OP used the word "radical," that isn't the kind of teaching he was espousing. In fact, I think you could safely say he called the "sin-and-death" crowd "radical," if I'm not mistaken.
read that bit from the council at Jerusalem again:
two things the Pharisee believers were thinking all Gentiles should be compelled to do.
both things were rejected by the council.
i really doubt Peter was calling circumcision "a yoke neither he nor his ancestors could bear"
don't you think??
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)
(Acts 15:5-6)
two things the Pharisee believers were thinking all Gentiles should be compelled to do.
both things were rejected by the council.
i really doubt Peter was calling circumcision "a yoke neither he nor his ancestors could bear"
don't you think??
Last edited:
read that bit from the council at Jerusalem again:
two things the Pharisee believers were thinking all Gentiles should be compelled to do.
both things were rejected by the council.
i really doubt Peter was calling circumcision "a yoke neither he nor his ancestors could bear"
don't you think??
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)
(Acts 15:5-6)
two things the Pharisee believers were thinking all Gentiles should be compelled to do.
both things were rejected by the council.
i really doubt Peter was calling circumcision "a yoke neither he nor his ancestors could bear"
don't you think??
I do agree that the Talmud is taking the law Moses wrote as is foundation, but then the Pharisees added to it causing it to be burdensome.
Jesus backs up this when He said "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matthew 23:23
These weightier things of the law are certainly not burdensome. I have always thought that the instructions to the Gentiles were a very good starting point, and then they would increase in the knowledge of the scriptures from that point. The writer of Hebrews also mentions that if God permits, we should strive for maturity. I'm sure that the disciples in this situation in acts didn't want to stalemate the Gentiles by endorsing that this was all they needed to be aware of. I'm sure they all desired them to be circumcised in their heart, as the scriptures back then stated.
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God," Hebrews 6:1