-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
saint paul
- Thread starter alishan
- Start date
wordmagnifiedabovenames
Active Member
Paul points out in a few of his writings that Jesus is better than the law, but it was Jesus who actually "did" it; Paul just wrote about it. I don't entirely understand the question. What do you mean by "put off the jew law" and "his importance?"
wordmagnifiedabovenames
Active Member
Paul didn't exactly write that "the law isn't useful yet." Basically he wrote that for someone to get into Heaven (which is where God wants people to be,) that person needs to be "justified," or "righteous." Paul writes that no flesh (man) is justified by the law (because no man, except Jesus, has managed to live up to it,) and that justification and righteousness come through faith in Christ. If righteousness comes by the law then Jesus died on the cross for nothing. Because man is incapable of obeying the law, man cannot become righteous through the law, and therefore man cannot get to Heaven through the law. However, man can become righteous with God through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, and therefore man can get to Heaven through Jesus. In this way Jesus is "better" than the law.
Gal 2:16 and Gal 2:21 pretty much spell this out.
There are a whole lot of other scriptures in the NT that support this, but that's it in a nutshell.
Gal 2:16 and Gal 2:21 pretty much spell this out.
There are a whole lot of other scriptures in the NT that support this, but that's it in a nutshell.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Paul never said that Jews who became Christian should not follow the Law, or that for them the law was not necessary.
He simply said, what Jews already knew, that the Law did not extend to Gentiles.
Even today, If a Jew becomes Christian, there is no reason that they should not keep the Law.
Paul Knew and accepted that many followers of Jesus were and remained Jews. Christian Jews ,but Jews never the less. This included many of his superiors in Jerusalem.
He simply said, what Jews already knew, that the Law did not extend to Gentiles.
Even today, If a Jew becomes Christian, there is no reason that they should not keep the Law.
Paul Knew and accepted that many followers of Jesus were and remained Jews. Christian Jews ,but Jews never the less. This included many of his superiors in Jerusalem.
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
I disagree with what has been said so far.
Paul understood that Jesus was God in the flesh. God wrote the laws and therefor Jesus was over top of the laws. Jesus tried to explain to some of the Jews that they had been misusing the laws, and only using them for vain glory and power over the people.
Example, when Jesus harvested food on the Sabbath, he tried to explain to the Jews, that while the sabbath was important, it was more important to do "good" on the Sabbath. If that meant picking food to eat, than so be it. If that meant healing then so be it.
Further stating, it is lawful to do "good" on the Sabbath.
Jesus didn't so much do away with the law, but simply declared He was the one who created the Law, and if He said something about how the law really works, His words took precedence over what their current interpretation was.
They (the Jews) didn't realize they were talking to God when they were arguing with Jesus.
Paul understood that Jesus was God in the flesh. God wrote the laws and therefor Jesus was over top of the laws. Jesus tried to explain to some of the Jews that they had been misusing the laws, and only using them for vain glory and power over the people.
Example, when Jesus harvested food on the Sabbath, he tried to explain to the Jews, that while the sabbath was important, it was more important to do "good" on the Sabbath. If that meant picking food to eat, than so be it. If that meant healing then so be it.
Further stating, it is lawful to do "good" on the Sabbath.
Jesus didn't so much do away with the law, but simply declared He was the one who created the Law, and if He said something about how the law really works, His words took precedence over what their current interpretation was.
They (the Jews) didn't realize they were talking to God when they were arguing with Jesus.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Jesus Kept the law.
However he did not always agree with the existing interpretation, or the inconsistencies of common practise.
He clarified the law, and when he appeared to not practise some element of it, he explained himself.
Jesus never said that Gentiles should keep the Jewish law. However in the case of the good Samaritan he showed that gentiles were capable of greater acts than even a law abiding Jew.
This demonstrated that his followers,Christians, should be defined by what they Do, rather than the laws they may or may not follow.
Just_me_Mike
Well-Known Member
Agreed Terry. Well said.
As I understand it, Jesus kept the law, and expected Jews to keep it up until the demonstration at the cross. Once that was over, the participating in ritual law was to be done away with. As they were all signs pointing to the sacrifice Jesus would eventually do, and did do. So it would have been correct for Jesus to observe and expect Jews to observe.
Which is where I think some confusion resides, because people think that people Jesus wanted the laws and rituals to be observed before he went to the cross, that he wanted that to remain the norm forever. Which would just be contradictory to other information we know of in the bible.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Christians have always tried to reconcile the event of Jesus Crucifixion with sin, and both Paul and the Gospel writers tried to do this.
The Gospels record Jesus as having forecast his own death and resurrection on more than one occasion, and this is recognised in the Eucharist to this day.
Why he had to die in this way is less clear. To say that it was connected with the Forgiveness of or sin, or in some way with original sin, can not be true. He believed as all Jews did at that time ( and still do today) that we are responsible for our own sin, and that original sin was not a concept believed by Jews.
It would seem more reasonable to suppose that his death, like his life, was an example to us.
In this case it was a lesson about self sacrifice
It was a lesson thousands of early Christians were to follow in martyrdom. In keeping faith with his teachings even unto death.
I think the Churches do neither Jesus nor them selves any service by creating Mystical interpretations about his death.
The simple explanation is far more easily understood and followed.
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Not many Gentiles would have Known about the Jewish law, any more than Non Jews do today.
If they had asked. Paul would have answered, as he did in Jerusalem. That it was not necessary for a gentile to become a Jew, before becoming a Christian.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Paul was clear that following the mosaic law was not required for salvation. Faith in christ was the way to approach God... no longer were works of law a requirement.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness
Paul also used an illustration to prove that Christians were no longer under the Law. He used the reasoning that a woman could not be married to two men at once. But if her husband died, she was free to remarry. Paul applied his illustration to Christians as a way to explain that they could not be subject to the Mosaic Law and belong to Christ at the same time. They had to become dead to the Law so that they could be united with Christ.
Romans 7:1-5 Can it be that YOU do not know, brothers, (for I am speaking to those who know law,) that the Law is master over a man as long as he lives? 2 For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law of her husband. ...4 So, my brothers, YOU also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ...6 But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code"
what do you think about the ebionit who were against saint paul ?
Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I dont think much of the ebionites at all. They are a speck on the pages of history, but Paul and his writings are revered the world over. Pauls words have held a lot more substance and merit because they were inspired by God whereas the ebionites were not.
esmith
Veteran Member
What makes you think that Paul's words were inspired by God?
Paul was a good snake-oil salesman and managed to sell his ideas to a majority of the non-Jewish population. That is why the proto-orthodox Christians won the battle of who would represent the religion about Jesus, not that he was right. Open your mind and attempt to study, without your preconceived prejudices, the other Christian religions that existed in the early 1st century C.E. Some of those sects were the Ebonites, Gnostics, Marcionites, and Jewish Christians.
esmith
Veteran Member
Their beliefs were their beliefs. Just because they did not survive the onslaught of the proto-orthodox Christians does not mean they were wrong. The religion based on Paul's ideas does not make it right.
James vs. Paul
James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem church.[75] Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, established many churches[76] and founded a Christian theology (see Pauline Christianity). At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49),[75] Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances[77] for his non-Jewish converts. When Paul recounted the events to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9-10), he referred only to the remembrance of the poor rather than conveying the four points of the council (Acts 15:19-21). The nature of the laws for the Gentiles described by James is contested (see Council of Jerusalem).
Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor,[78][18][79][80][81][82][83] argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death.[84][85] rather than Peter. Some scholars argue[86][87] that the Ebionites claimed a dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus. They opposed the Apostle Paul, who claimed that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised or otherwise follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.[20] Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostatized when she rejected him.[88][89] Other scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, dispute this in part by arguing that the immediate successors to the Jerusalem Church under James and the relatives of Jesus were the Nazoraeans, who accepted Paul, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot of the early second century.[
James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem church.[75] Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, established many churches[76] and founded a Christian theology (see Pauline Christianity). At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49),[75] Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances[77] for his non-Jewish converts. When Paul recounted the events to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9-10), he referred only to the remembrance of the poor rather than conveying the four points of the council (Acts 15:19-21). The nature of the laws for the Gentiles described by James is contested (see Council of Jerusalem).
Scholars who have studied the role of James in the Jerusalem Church, including Pierre Antoine Bernheim, Robert Eisenman, Will Durant, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Painter, and James Tabor,[78][18][79][80][81][82][83] argue that the Ebionites regarded James the Just as their leader, after Jesus' death.[84][85] rather than Peter. Some scholars argue[86][87] that the Ebionites claimed a dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus. They opposed the Apostle Paul, who claimed that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised or otherwise follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.[20] Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostatized when she rejected him.[88][89] Other scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, dispute this in part by arguing that the immediate successors to the Jerusalem Church under James and the relatives of Jesus were the Nazoraeans, who accepted Paul, while the Ebionites were a later offshoot of the early second century.[
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
im not sure why some hold such a view of Paul. From the writings of Paul we can see him to be a devout christian who worked tirelessly to establish the early church. The early christians loved him dearly and he was used by the Jerusalem Apostles to establish gentile congregations. He was chosen by God to be an apostle to the nations, he was guided by angels, he saw supernatural visions, he was given powers of healing and the power to speak numerous foreign languages/tongues. God was using Paul to help establish christianity...and he did a damn fine job of it too.
If Paul was not being used by God, how could he have accomplished so much? I really think that the opposition he received from the above groups simply add further evidence to Paul being a true apostle