Does Paul demand obedience to the Commandments?

[Desert Snake]

But didn't Paul say "the doers of the Law will be justified"?

"The law" has always included the theistic nature of Judaism.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

And so?

 

[Desert Snake]

And so?

and so what?

 

[Shermana]

and so what?

So how do you interpret Romans 2:13?

 

[Desert Snake]

So how do you interpret Romans 2:13?

That people practicing 'the law' (Judaism), are justified by it. Thing is, it isn't separate from belief, either.

 

[Shermana]

That people practicing 'the law' (Judaism), are justified by it. Thing is, it isn't separate from belief, either.

Well, I can agree with that....I think.

 

[dantech]

I still don't understand how someone, who is bound by a law that clearly states that it is eternal and permanent, as well as absolutely necessary in order to have a relationship with God, can just say that this new law is better and and there no longer is a need to follow the old one, which God himself(perfect being who can see the future, is never wrong and knows best) decided was forever.

 

[Shermana]

I still don't understand how someone, who is bound by a law that clearly states that it is eternal and permanent, as well as absolutely necessary in order to have a relationship with God, can just say that this new law is better and and there no longer is a need to follow the old one, which God himself(perfect being who can see the future, is never wrong and knows best) decided was forever.

I perfectly agree.

Jesus didn't teach any new Law, just his own version of it so to speak, which in many respects isn't even far removed from how modern Rabbis interpret some parts of it (i.e. eye for an eye, healing on Sabbath). It's Paul who suddenly appears to say there's a "New Law".

Jesus was quite clear that "Not one iota" of the Law would be void until Heaven and Earth collapse (i.e. forever) and that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom, and that the way to enter "age-long life" was to "Follow the commandments". Paul's the one who seemingly came and tried to change this.

 

[Desert Snake]

I perfectly agree.

Jesus didn't teach any new Law, just his own version of it so to speak, which in many respects isn't even far removed from how modern Rabbis interpret some parts of it (i.e. eye for an eye, healing on Sabbath). It's Paul who suddenly appears to say there's a "New Law".

Jesus was quite clear that "Not one iota" of the Law would be void until Heaven and Earth collapse (i.e. forever) and that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom, and that the way to enter "age-long life" was to "Follow the commandments". Paul's the one who seemingly came and tried to change this.

No, because the conversion of Gentiles at the time was clearly different from traditional Judaisms method of conversion, it simply doesn't follow that these new converts would be basically the only group to get 'special treatment' only a few rules, if they were converting to anything like traditional Judaism. Add to this the descriptions of the Essene converts, I'm guessing the first major group of people to convert to Christianity, and they clearly aren't practicing Judaism... why not? If the Epistles are fictional or the Council of Jerusalem is an interpolation?

 

[Shermana]

No, because the conversion of Gentiles at the time was clearly different from traditional Judaisms method of conversion, it simply doesn't follow that these new converts would be basically the only group to get 'special treatment' only a few rules, if they were converting to anything like traditional Judaism. Add to this the descriptions of the Essene converts, I'm guessing the first major group of people to convert to Christianity, and they clearly aren't practicing Judaism... why not? If the Epistles are fictional or the Council of Jerusalem is an interpolation?

Aside from the issue of the Council of Jerusalem being an interpolation (along with Acts 21:26) which you know where I stand on the issue, what are you talking about when you say the Essene converts didn't practice Judaism?

Are you referring to the artificial laws of the Pharisees which Jesus was speaking against when you say Judaism ? That's not the same as the Torah itself.

So if you're thinking that "Traditional Judaism" represents obedience to the Torah itself, then no, not necessarily. We've been over this.

 

[Desert Snake]

Aside from the issue of the Council of Jerusalem being an interpolation (along with Acts 21:26) which you know where I stand on the issue, what are you talking about when you say the Essene converts didn't practice Judaism?

Are you referring to the artificial laws of the Pharisees which Jesus was speaking against when you say Judaism ? That's not the same as the Torah itself.

So if you're thinking that "Traditional Judaism" represents obedience to the Torah itself, then no, not necessarily. We've been over this.

Then we don't disagree.

 

[Avoice]

Jesus didn't teach any new Law, just his own version of it so to speak, which in many respects isn't even far removed from how modern Rabbis interpret some parts of it (i.e. eye for an eye, healing on Sabbath). It's Paul who suddenly appears to say there's a "New Law".

Jesus was quite clear that "Not one iota" of the Law would be void until Heaven and Earth collapse (i.e. forever) and that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom, and that the way to enter "age-long life" was to "Follow the commandments". Paul's the one who seemingly came and tried to change this.

I don't get from Paul that he was trying to change what Jesus taught. I think he was trying to communicate that Faith in Jesus and His Father Jehovah allowed holy spirit to assist one and prompt one to obey the commandments.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't get from Paul that he was trying to change what Jesus taught. I think he was trying to communicate that Faith in Jesus and His Father Jehovah allowed holy spirit to assist one and prompt one to obey the commandments.

You must be new here.

btw I agree with you, I find no inconsistencies, though people tend to misinterpret various verses in the Epistles and Acts IMO.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, if they are practicing it in concordance with OT belief.

So, when Romans 3:20 says, "Therefore by the deeds of thelaw there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...," this only refers to Gentiles?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But didn't Paul say "the doers of the Law will be justified"?

Which is why I asked earlier to have these three verses reconciled:
"...The just shall live by faith." Rom. 1:17 KJV
"... the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13 kjv
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom 3:28 KJV

 

[Desert Snake]

So, when Romans 3:20 say, "Therefore by the deeds of thelaw there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...," this only refers to Gentiles?

No, that applies to both Jews and Christians. The 'laws' without belief are meaningless, just an arbitrary set of rules.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, that applies to both Jews and Christians. The 'laws' without belief are meaningless, just an arbitrary set of rules.

Ok, then reconcile that with this:
"... the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13 KJV

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok, then reconcile that with this:
"... the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13 KJV

This means the practicing the laws is not wrong, it is not contradictory to justification by faith alone.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This means the practicing the laws is not wrong, it is not contradictory to justification by faith alone.

So when Romans says, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...," it's not absolute?

 

[Desert Snake]

So when Romans says, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight...," it's not absolute?

It is absolute, because it implies deeds without belief, which is not valid regardless of whether one practices the 'laws'.