Paul's Theology

[oogagoogaboo]

From a young age, most Christians are taught the same monotonous things about St. Paul. He was a Roman who persecuted Christians who later converted and spread the word of God more vigilantly than any other person in the ancient world. However, what most people do not delve into deeply are the theological teachings of Paul. We mostly look at Paul from a Christian side of the story, but what about from a Jewish side? How often do we view what Paul had to say about Judaism in an obviously trouble Jewish Israel? When we note that at the time of Paul, the Holy Land was under yet another brutal occupation and the Jews were, once again, in exile, what did one of the most vocal people of the time period have to say about his own religious group? As it turns out, he had quite an abundance of things to say. Paul said that his people had gone beyond what their religion was really about, and had turned themselves into something no better than the Pagans that they wished to convert or rid the world of.
It is well known and documented that Paul knew a Jewish world that was in the midst of a terrible time. Having been forced into another exile, and this time by one of their own people, the Jews were not very happy about their current standing with God. He had made them a promise which in the Jews’ opinion was not being kept so therefore, somebody was breaking the agreement. Obviously, as He is perfect, it is not God. Therefore, it had to be the Jews. This sound logic is how most, if not all, of the Jews saw things, and because of this they began to look for ways to explain why these things were happening to them. I believe Paul offers the best argument for the reasons behind this exile.
The Jews had been split into three groups in their search for the reason(s) of their exile. One group, the Essenes, was so sure that the end of the world was upon them that they fled to the desert and waited for God to come and judge all those deemed unrighteous by fire. Another group, the Sadducees, believed that because of the allowance of the pagans in the Temple, the Jews were being punished. The final group, the Pharisees was further split between the Hillelites and the Shammaites, Paul falling into the latter. The Hillelites wished just to study Torah, and if they were allowed to do that then everything would be fine. Paul, being a Shammaite, disagrees with this notion. This is most likely the basis behind his theology and the reason for which he condemns the way in which the Hillelites worship the Torah. Paul says that the way in which the Torah has come to be revered is no better than the way the pagans make idols for their Gods and worship them. He has come to view Judaism as being no better than Paganism.
I have to agree with St. Paul, seeing as how it is clear that the Jews of the time had grown to the point where they did, in fact, put the Torah on such a high pedestal that it became somewhat of an idol. Obviously, the Torah is sacred and the painstaking detail and effort to make a copy of the Torah extremely important and valuable. However, it is not worthy of receiving worship, for that is something that is reserved for God alone, and I think most Jews would even agree with that. The problem is that the Jews did just that, and because of it, they were punished accordingly. They began to make the Torah into a sort of idol, putting it even before God, and therefore God had no reason to not punish the Jews with another exile.

 

[allright]

The Temple was destoyed and the Jews were sent into exile for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah,
"period"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Temple was destoyed and the Jews were sent into exile for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah,
"period"

 

[Just_me_Mike]

From a young age, most Christians are taught the same monotonous things about St. Paul. He was a Roman who persecuted Christians who later converted and spread the word of God more vigilantly than any other person in the ancient world. However, what most people do not delve into deeply are the theological teachings of Paul. We mostly look at Paul from a Christian side of the story, but what about from a Jewish side? How often do we view what Paul had to say about Judaism in an obviously trouble Jewish Israel? When we note that at the time of Paul, the Holy Land was under yet another brutal occupation and the Jews were, once again, in exile, what did one of the most vocal people of the time period have to say about his own religious group? As it turns out, he had quite an abundance of things to say. Paul said that his people had gone beyond what their religion was really about, and had turned themselves into something no better than the Pagans that they wished to convert or rid the world of.
It is well known and documented that Paul knew a Jewish world that was in the midst of a terrible time. Having been forced into another exile, and this time by one of their own people, the Jews were not very happy about their current standing with God. He had made them a promise which in the Jews’ opinion was not being kept so therefore, somebody was breaking the agreement. Obviously, as He is perfect, it is not God. Therefore, it had to be the Jews. This sound logic is how most, if not all, of the Jews saw things, and because of this they began to look for ways to explain why these things were happening to them. I believe Paul offers the best argument for the reasons behind this exile.
The Jews had been split into three groups in their search for the reason(s) of their exile. One group, the Essenes, was so sure that the end of the world was upon them that they fled to the desert and waited for God to come and judge all those deemed unrighteous by fire. Another group, the Sadducees, believed that because of the allowance of the pagans in the Temple, the Jews were being punished. The final group, the Pharisees was further split between the Hillelites and the Shammaites, Paul falling into the latter. The Hillelites wished just to study Torah, and if they were allowed to do that then everything would be fine. Paul, being a Shammaite, disagrees with this notion. This is most likely the basis behind his theology and the reason for which he condemns the way in which the Hillelites worship the Torah. Paul says that the way in which the Torah has come to be revered is no better than the way the pagans make idols for their Gods and worship them. He has come to view Judaism as being no better than Paganism.
I have to agree with St. Paul, seeing as how it is clear that the Jews of the time had grown to the point where they did, in fact, put the Torah on such a high pedestal that it became somewhat of an idol. Obviously, the Torah is sacred and the painstaking detail and effort to make a copy of the Torah extremely important and valuable. However, it is not worthy of receiving worship, for that is something that is reserved for God alone, and I think most Jews would even agree with that. The problem is that the Jews did just that, and because of it, they were punished accordingly. They began to make the Torah into a sort of idol, putting it even before God, and therefore God had no reason to not punish the Jews with another exile.

The tolerant and passionate view here would be to ask, what do you expect the Jews to do? They reject Jesus, and have only their texts and Rabbis to govern themselves. As such they can only conclude and live as they see fit. Of course this flies in the face of Christianity, but the question still remains, what else can Jews do? They are just trying to be true to themselves and what they believe is the truth from God.

This is what we all struggle with that believe in God or the divine, we work with what our heart tells us, after looking into available information.

 

[thedope]

We know that Paul was a zealot and was predisposed to travel far and wide in pursuit of what he considered just and right. I think Paul got "caught up" in settling disputes in the early church. I think that over time after his conversion and as he became respected as an authority, the power of that position got to his head somewhat. He is recorded as voicing personal opinion even though that opinion was only truly relevant to the one who held the opinion. As a specific example I am referring to Paul's opinion that is was better not to marry. Further there was vested interest in "fulfilling prophecy" as proof of authority. He was very much caught up in the idea of sacrifice and the paschal lamb. Very much caught up in proving Jewish theology. This Jewish theology however, is not compatible with new wine, being an old theoretical container. I think this is why statements attributed to Jesus contradict statements attributed to Paul. Paul was also prone to ecstatic mystical states of consciousness and it appears to me his most profound and lovely sentiments came from those times that he was incarcerated, having opportunity for deep meditation.

I understand that this position is probably regarded as heterodox, however it can be demonstrated that to fully appreciate Paul we take our own time with his words in meditation. The deeper you go the more you see.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

well obviousl as a christian my best response as to the notion that they had nothing else to turn to, is that there shouldn't have been a need to turn somewhere else, because what they needed was right in front of them in Jesus. However seeing as how none of the three splits in Judaism accepted Jesus, yes it is understandable their inclination to read the Torah. However, Their is a difference between studying and practically worshipping.
In Buddhism, the sacred text at one point became so highly revered that the people who kept it started to think that it was only for them and they need not share it with others. This is what happens with the Jews. They get so caught up in how they have the Torah and they are the Chosen people that they fail in their mission which is to be a Kingdom of Priests, A Holy Nation.
They instead become a self-centered "everyone else can be purged" group with no intention of spreading the word, but instead keeping it to themselves.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

This is what happens with the Jews. They get so caught up in how they have the Torah and they are the Chosen people that they fail in their mission which is to be a Kingdom of Priests, A Holy Nation.
They instead become a self-centered "everyone else can be purged" group with no intention of spreading the word, but instead keeping it to themselves.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Judaism has an opt-in for non-Jews with the Noahide Laws.

 

[oogagoogaboo]

im trying to say that they started putting the actual book, not the message, but the physical scroll that is the Torah to such a high standard that they are breaking the first Noahide Law of idolatry because they started seeing the Torah as being the only thing they even needed...

 

[smokydot]

From a young age, most Christians are taught the same monotonous things about St. Paul. He was a Roman who persecuted Christians who later converted and spread the word of God more vigilantly than any other person in the ancient world. However, what most people do not delve into deeply are the theological teachings of Paul. We mostly look at Paul from a Christian side of the story, but what about from a Jewish side? How often do we view what Paul had to say about Judaism in an obviously trouble Jewish Israel? When we note that at the time of Paul, the Holy Land was under yet another brutal occupation and the Jews were, once again, in exile, what did one of the most vocal people of the time period have to say about his own religious group? As it turns out, he had quite an abundance of things to say. Paul said that his people had gone beyond what their religion was really about, and had turned themselves into something no better than the Pagans that they wished to convert or rid the world of.
It is well known and documented that Paul knew a Jewish world that was in the midst of a terrible time. Having been forced into another exile, and this time by one of their own people, the Jews were not very happy about their current standing with God. He had made them a promise which in the Jews’ opinion was not being kept so therefore, somebody was breaking the agreement. Obviously, as He is perfect, it is not God. Therefore, it had to be the Jews. This sound logic is how most, if not all, of the Jews saw things, and because of this they began to look for ways to explain why these things were happening to them.
I believe Paul offers the best argument for the reasons behind this exile.
The Jews had been split into three groups in their search for the reason(s) of their exile. One group, the Essenes, was so sure that the end of the world was upon them that they fled to the desert and waited for God to come and judge all those deemed unrighteous by fire. Another group, the Sadducees, believed that because of the allowance of the pagans in the Temple, the Jews were being punished. The final group, the Pharisees was further split between the Hillelites and the Shammaites, Paul falling into the latter. The Hillelites wished just to study Torah, and if they were allowed to do that then everything would be fine. Paul, being a Shammaite, disagrees with this notion. This is most likely the basis behind his theology

Most likely not.
Paul leaves no doubt as to the source of his theology--Jesus Christ.
Paul, as well as the letter to the Hebrews, reveals the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant:

The Old Covenant,

between God and Jacob's seed

established through the old mediator Moses and

conditioned on law keeping (If you obey me, I will be your God, and you will be my people.), which was

inferior, of lesser promises, faulty, obsolete (Heb 8:6-7,13),

has been abolished (Eph 2:15), and replaced (Heb 9:10) with

the New Covenant in Jesus' blood (Lk 22:20; 1 Co 11:25),

between Christ and his seed (1 Pe 1:23; 1 Jn 3:9, 5:1; Gal 3:26-27)

through the new mediator Jesus of Nazareth (Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24) and

conditioned on faith in Jesus Christ (Ro 3:22, Gal 2:16, Php 3:9), which covenant is

superior, of greater promises, perfect and everlasting (Heb 8:6-7,13).

and the reason for which he condemns the way in which the Hillelites worship the Torah. Paul says that the way in which the Torah has come to be revered is no better than the way the pagans make idols for their Gods and worship them. He has come to view Judaism as being no better than Paganism.

I have to agree with St. Paul, seeing as how it is clear that the Jews of the time had grown to the point where they did, in fact, put the Torah on such a high pedestal that it became somewhat of an idol. Obviously, the Torah is sacred and the painstaking detail and effort to make a copy of the Torah extremely important and valuable. However, it is not worthy of receiving worship, for that is something that is reserved for God alone, and I think most Jews would even agree with that. The problem is that the Jews did just that, and because of it, they were punished accordingly. They began to make the Torah into a sort of idol, putting it even before God, and therefore God had no reason to not punish the Jews with another exile.

The exile was not due to "worship" of the Torah.

Mt 23:25 - 24:2: " '. . .upon you (the teachers of the law and the Pharisees - vv.13,15,23,25,27,29) will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. . .'
Jesus left the temple and was walking away (he quit the temple in judgment) when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 'Do you see all these things?' he asked. 'I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another, every one will be thrown down.' "

This occured in 70 A.D.
The text makes clear what caused it.

 

[smokydot]

We know that Paul was a zealot and was predisposed to travel far and wide in pursuit of what he considered just and right. I think Paul got "caught up" in settling disputes in the early church. I think that over time after his conversion and as he became respected as an authority, the power of that position got to his head somewhat.

"The power of his position as an authority" didn't "go to his head."

He is recorded as voicing personal opinion even though that opinion was only truly relevant to the one who held the opinion. As a specific example I am referring to Paul's opinion that is was better not to marry.

When Paul gives his personal opinion, he clearly states it as such. That occurs only in his reponse to the question of divorce between an unbeliever and a believer.
When he states his preference for celebacy, he does not say it is his personal opinion.

Further there was vested interest in "fulfilling prophecy" as proof of authority. He was very much caught up in the idea of sacrifice and the paschal lamb. Very much caught up in proving Jewish theology.

According to the NT, Paul's theology didn't come from Paul. It came from Jesus Christ. His only "vested interest" was to teach the doctrine of Jesus to the Church.

You surely do fabricate a lot of your "material" from whole cloth.

This Jewish theology however, is not compatible with new wine, being an old theoretical container. I think this is why statements attributed to Jesus contradict statements attributed to Paul.

What statements would those be?

Paul was also prone to ecstatic mystical states of consciousness and it appears to me his most profound and lovely sentiments came from those times that he was incarcerated, having opportunity for deep meditation.
I understand that this position is probably regarded as heterodox,

It is heterodox. . .at least you got that right.

however it can be demonstrated that to fully appreciate Paul we take our own time with his words in meditation. The deeper you go the more you see.

The "truth" of what you see must be measured against the Word of God written (NT).

 

[thedope]

Paul, who according to the NT was one well acquainted in the doctrine of Jesus, having received it by special revelation from Jesus, himself, offered his sense of the matter, which was based in his belief that the end of time was near, and that it would be better in the coming great persecution to be unencumbered.

In other words he was mistaken.

The "power of his position as an authority" didn't "go to his head."

Really, he spent alot of time trying to convince that he himself had privileged information. He wanted to be influential to his faith before and after his conversion.

According to the NT, Paul's theology didn't come from Paul. It came from Jesus Christ. His only "vested interest" was to teach the doctrine of Jesus to the Church.

Isn't the tradition that it is Paul who wrote the verses that said his theology didn't come from Paul.

It is written that Jesus said it was Peter on which he would build his church, and the purpose of the church was to feed people, not establish doctrine.

Jesus taught a higher righteousness than the rule of letters. He said you could follow every written rule and still not get it right, he pointed to a difference between true devotion and the rewards for good behavior sect.

You surely do fabricate a lot of your "material" from whole cloth.

No one sews a new patch on and old garment. Or the new will tear away and leave a larger rent than before.

What statements would those be?

Statements about what redeems a man.

It is heterodox. . .at least you got that right.

Thank god new wine is meant for new skins. Jesus fundamental practice for salvation is forgiveness. You teach, "NT approves of capital punishment." Either let the tree be good and it's fruit good or let it be bad and it's fruit bad. It is this glaring hypocrisy in the treatment of fellow men that draws the ire even of peace loving men. This kind uses the bible as justification for condemnation of his brother.

The "truth" of what you see must be measured against the Word of God written (NT).

See above

 

[Smoke]

I'm not convinced that Paul really had a coherent theology. I think he composed his epistles on the fly, in response to particular crises, and tailored his message to those particular crises. I mean, there are some points he's really clear on, like his idea that he received his authority directly from God and that everybody who disagreed with him about anything was deceived by Satan. But I don't think he was cerebral enough or organized enough to formulate a systematic theology, even in his own head. In my view, Paul's Christianity was a cult of personality, centered on the person of Paul.

I think he was willing to abandon the Torah for a number of reasons, the most compelling of which was that following Jewish law was a turn-off to the pagans he wanted to convert.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not convinced that Paul really had a coherent theology. I think he composed his epistles on the fly, in response to particular crises, and tailored his message to those particular crises. I mean, there are some points he's really clear on, like his idea that he received his authority directly from God and that everybody who disagreed with him about anything was deceived by Satan. But I don't think he was cerebral enough or organized enough to formulate a systematic theology, even in his own head. In my view, Paul's Christianity was a cult of personality, centered on the person of Paul.

I think he was willing to abandon the Torah for a number of reasons, the most compelling of which was that following Jewish law was a turn-off to the pagans he wanted to convert.

YES....I've been saying this for years here.....I like this....:clap

 

[smokydot]

In other words he was mistaken.

On the timing of the second coming, which was not a matter of revelation from Jesus Christ, yes. . .as others were also mistaken,
which is of no more significance than being mistaken about the timing of the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. See post #9.

Really, he spent alot of time trying to convince that he himself had privileged information.

Gal: chp 2:
Paul went to Jerusalem to refute the Judaizers, who had even influenced Peter to compromise the gospel by requiring Gentile converts to be circumcized for salvation.
He demolishes that notion in chp. 5. . .but I'm getting ahead of myself, or rather getting ahead of Paul.

The Judaizers, who placed great importance on, and claimed to be from, the leaders in Jerusalem, held that only apostles had authority and that Paul was not an apostle.
Paul establishes the authority of what he preaches as coming from Jesus Christ alone, and not from any mortal man, including himself.
While there, he visits with James, Peter and John, the leaders in Jerusalem, to set before them the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. They add nothing to his message.
Then he addresses Peter on compromising the gospel by adding works to the only requirement of faith for salvation (vv. 14-16).

So Paul establishes his authority, not because "it went to his head" (good grief!), but to stop the church in Jerusalem from compromising the gospel.

He wanted to be influential to his faith before and after his conversion.

Paul was charged by Jesus Christ with establishing churches, not influencing them.

Isn't the tradition that it is Paul who wrote the verses that said his theology didn't come from Paul.

It is the testimony of Paul in his epistles. . .your point is?

It is written that Jesus said it was Peter on which he would build his church, and the purpose of the church was to feed people, not establish doctrine.

And their food is "every word that comes from the mouth of God," which are the words of Biblical "doctrine."

Jesus taught a higher righteousness than the rule of letters. He said you could follow every written rule and still not get it right,

And that higher righteousness is "a righteousness from God through faith in Jesus Christ, from first to last." (Ro 1:17)
No part of it is either from devotion, or good works.

he pointed to a difference between true devotion and the rewards for good behavior sect.

There is no devotion that is true without faith in him.

No one sews a new patch on and old garment. Or the new will tear away and leave a larger rent than before.

That refers to the inadequacy of the old covenant of works compared to the new covenant of grace.

Statements about what redeems a man.

The meaning of the statements of Jesus and Paul are in complete agreement.

Thank god new wine is meant for new skins.

Thank God the new covenant of salvation is based on faith alone, and is not like the old covenant based on works.

Jesus fundamental practice for salvation is forgiveness.

Jesus' fundamental practice for salvation is faith in him. (Jn 3:18,36)

You teach, "NT approves of capital punishment."

I say. . .and it does.

Either let the tree be good and it's fruit good or let it be bad and it's fruit bad.

Is this one of the commands you've authored for the religion you're apparently founding. . .because a lot of what you articulate here doesn't have much to do with NT Christianity.

It is this glaring hypocrisy in the treatment of fellow men that draws the ire even of peace loving men. This kind uses the bible as justification for condemnation of his brother.

So "peace loving men" get to pass judgment on the Word of God?
Isn't that backwards? . .The Word of God passes judgment on all men, and that includes the "peace loving" ones.

 

[smokydot]

I'm not convinced that Paul really had a coherent theology. I think he composed his epistles on the fly, in response to particular crises, and tailored his message to those particular crises. I mean, there are some points he's really clear on, like his idea that he received his authority directly from God and that everybody who disagreed with him about anything was deceived by Satan. But I don't think he was cerebral enough or organized enough to formulate a systematic theology, even in his own head. In my view, Paul's Christianity was a cult of personality, centered on the person of Paul.

Even Peter agrees that Paul sometimes can be hard to understand.

There is no "Paul's" Christianity. There is only Jesus Christ's Christianity, revealed to Paul.

I think he was willing to abandon the Torah for a number of reasons, the most compelling of which was that following Jewish law was a turn-off to the pagans he wanted to convert.

That's in disagreement with what the NT says.

 

[smokydot]

YES....I've been saying this for years here.....I like this....:clap

It might be worthy of applause if it didn't disagree with what the NT says.

 

[thedope]

On the timing of the second coming, which was not a matter of revelation from Jesus Christ, yes. . .as others were also mistaken,
which is of no more significance than being mistaken about the timing of the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. See post #9.

Yes, his closest disciples did not comprehend what he said on occasion, that is Jesus.
This fact is of epic significance. There are large parts of christian theology that are based on a mistaken premise, that is the eminent apocalyptic return of Jesus, and the battle of god like forces of good and evil. Jesus put forth a technology for restoring our inherent relationship with the creator that we may have life and have it more abundantly. He taught how to remember the divine and everlasting nature of the children of god, through forgiveness and service to each other.

Then he addresses Peter on compromising the gospel by adding works to the onlyfaith for salvation (vv. 14-16). requirement of

So Paul establishes his authority, not because "it went to his head" (good grief!), but to stop the church in Jerusalem from compromising the gospel.
Paul was charged by Jesus Christ with establishing churches, not influencing them.
It is the testimony of Paul in his epistles. . .your point is?

And their food is "every word that comes from the mouth of God," which are the words of Biblical "doctrine."

God speaks in all things, a god of the living. Jesus taught to fulfill the law through mercy, be merciful even as your father in heaven is merciful, not through demanding thoughtless obedience. The faith needed to enter the kingdom of heaven is the faith to abandon all other efforts at salvation save to love god first and always together with your brother. To practice those things, to focus our whole effort on them, as opposed to career and financial stability brings them into manifestation. He who looses his life for my sake shall gain it. Seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added to you.

No part of it is either from devotion, or good works.

Seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added unto you. Love god with all your heart, devotion. These are acts which are carried out because of faith that they will work. Your theology totally misses statements attributed to Jesus, that when considered would show you that what you say is inconsiderate of the whole picture.

That refers to the inadequacy of the old covenant of works compared to the new covenant of grace.

Or the inadequacy of blood sacrifice as opposed to mercy. I desire mercy not sacrifice.

Is this one of the commands you've authored for the religion you're apparently founding. . .because a lot of what you articulate here doesn't have much to do with NT Christianity.

Words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, matt;12, 33-37
I don't care for religion. It is communion with the holy spirit that enlivens me.
If you are representative of NT christianity then yes you are correct, what I say doesn't have anything to do with that. What I have to say deals with christ teaching, what you are saying does not.

So "peace loving men" get to pass judgment on the Word of God?
Isn't that backwards? . .The Word of God passes judgment on all men, and that includes the "peace loving" ones.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of god.

 

[smokydot]

Yes, his closest disciples did not comprehend what he said on occasion, that is Jesus.
This fact is of epic significance. There are large parts of christian theology that are based on a mistaken premise, that is the eminent apocalyptic return of Jesus,

A now immient return is not Christian theology. That is a new notion originating about 150 years ago.
Paul states two things must happen first before the return of Jesus (2 Th 2:3):
1) the great apostasy must occur and
2) the man of lawlessness must be revealed.
When these events occur, then it will be an imminent return.

and the battle of god like forces of good and evil.

That battle is in the Scriptures.

Jesus put forth a technology for restoring our inherent relationship with the creator that we may have life and have it more abundantly.

And that technology is his sacrifice for remission of sin, which benefits are made available only through faith in him.

He taught how to remember the divine and everlasting nature of the children of god, through forgiveness and service to each other.

He revealed the divine and divine truth.
The everlasting nature of the children of God is due to their rebirth through faith in Jesus Christ, and is due to nothing else.

God speaks in all things, a god of the living.

Is that from Scripture. . .where?

Jesus taught to fulfill the law through mercy, be merciful even as your father in heaven is merciful, not through demanding thoughtless obedience.

Mt 5:18: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen (iota) will by any means disappear from the law until everything is fulfilled (in Christ)."
At his death Jesus completed all fulfillment of the ceremonial law, showing himself to be the object of all its shadows,
so that now those in Christ are no longer under the OT ceremonial law.

The faith needed to enter the kingdom of heaven is the faith to abandon all other efforts at salvation save to love god first and always together with your brother.

The faith needed to enter the kingdom of God by its only door, Jesus Christ (Jn 10:9), is faith in him.
To try to climb in some other way--devotion, good works--steals and robs one of the salvation he thinks he has (Jn 10:1).

To practice those things, to focus our whole effort on them, as opposed to career and financial stability brings them into manifestation. He who looses his life for my sake shall gain it. Seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added to you.
Seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added unto you. Love god with all your heart, devotion. These are acts which are carried out because of faith that they will work.

"It is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ro 4:5; Eph 2:8-9)

Your theology totally misses statements attributed to Jesus, that when considered would show you that what you say is inconsiderate of the whole picture.

Paul received his doctrine from Jesus. Paul's epistles are the doctrine of Jesus.
You keep using the statements of Jesus to the Jews who were still under the law before Jesus completed the fulfillment of the law.
Jesus, prior to his death, did not reveal the coming new covenant in his blood, with its new order, requring new wine skins, because they had no basis to understandd it prior to his sacrifice once for all (Heb 9:12), which replaced the endlessly repeated animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin.

Or the inadequacy of blood sacrifice as opposed to mercy. I desire mercy not sacrifice.

That was God's admonition to faithless Israel who offered sacrifices while continuing to disobey God's law in regard to their fellow Jews.
It has nothing to do with the NT sacrifice of Jesus, once for all.

Words attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, matt;12, 33-37

I stand corrected.

I don't care for religion. It is communion with the holy spirit that enlivens me.
If you are representative of NT christianity then yes you are correct, what I say doesn't have anything to do with that. What I have to say deals with christ teaching, what you are saying does not.

Paul's teaching is Christ's teaching. You cannot set them one against the other.
You do not understand the relation of the old covenant to the new covenant, of the old order to the new order.
You are taking Jesus' responses to the Jews, who were still under the law of the old order, old covenant prior to his death,
to be the teaching of the new order, new covenant established by his death, and revealed to Paul,
who was then charged by Jesus with establishing churches among the Gentiles, using the gospel revealed to him by Jesus Christ personally.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS ARE IRRELEVANT, IT IS TO SAY THEY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE NT.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of god.

The sons of God in the old covenant were Israel.
Those who enacted such precepts would resemble God in his goodness and would thereby be owned by God as his sons.
This is according to the old covenant (compact), in force from Moses until the death of Christ, when the new covenant (compact) was enacted.
Jesus did not reveal this coming new compact (covenant) because they had no basis for understanding it.
Since it was enacted by his sacrifice (Lk 22:20) [and condiditoned on faith (Eph 2:8-9)--
just as the covenant with Abraham was enacted by animal sacrifices (Gen 15:9-21) and conditioned on faith (Ro 4:1-3)],
Jesus did not fully reveal it until after his death, when he revealed it to Paul.

And again, you are interpreting the NT through some grid foreign to it.
This false grid is the basis for your interpretation, rather than the NT text itself.
Your grid is major deception regarding the NT,
and you will always be in grave error regarding what it means to be Christian as long as you cling to that fundamentally deceptive grid.

 

[smokydot]

oogagoogaboo said:
Paul disagrees with the notion of the Hillelites. This is most likely the basis behind his theology.

Most likely not.
Paul leaves no doubt as to the source of his theology--Jesus Christ.
Paul, as well as the letter to the Hebrews, reveals the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant:

The Old Covenant,

between God and Jacob's seed

established through the old mediator Moses and

conditioned on law keeping (If you obey me, I will be your God, and you will be my people.), which was

inferior, of lesser promises, faulty, obsolete (Heb 8:6-7,13),

has been abolished (Eph 2:15), and replaced (Heb 9:10) with

the New Covenant in Jesus' blood (Lk 22:20; 1 Co 11:25),

between Christ and his seed (1 Pe 1:23; 1 Jn 3:9, 5:1; Gal 3:26-27)

through the new mediator Jesus of Nazareth (Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24) and

conditioned on faith in Jesus Christ (Ro 3:22, Gal 2:16, Php 3:9), which covenant is

superior, of greater promises, perfect and everlasting (Heb 8:6-7,13).


Nor was the exile due to "worship" of the Torah:

Mt 23:25 - 24:2: " '. . .upon you (the teachers of the law and the Pharisees - vv.13,15,23,25,27,29) will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. . .'
Jesus left the temple and was walking away (he quit the temple in judgment) when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 'Do you see all these things?' he asked. 'I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another, every one will be thrown down.' "

This occured in 70 A.D.
The text makes clear what caused it.

 

[Smoke]

There is no "Paul's" Christianity. There is only Jesus Christ's Christianity, revealed to Paul.

If you believe Paul's claims. My view is that there is no "Jesus Christ's Christianity" at all, that Jesus was a believing Jew who would have been horrified to know what Paul would make of him.

That's in disagreement with what the NT says.

It's not that unusual for me to disagree with the New Testament.