The lost tribes of Israel

[smokydot]

Paul said salvation was by free grace through faith.

That's what he said, and his word did not enjoy much credibility.

He wrote more of the NT than did any other writer, and as an apostle is one of the authorities of Christianity.
He enjoys eminent credibility among those who believe the NT.

The Abraham Covenant with God was called an Everlasting Covenant. (Gen. 17:13)
So Paul broke the everlasting Word of God.

First, the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13) was a covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants, to be their God, conditioned
on their obedience (v.4, v.9), and of which circumcision was to be the sign of their total consecration to him.
God's everlasting promise, however, could be voided and terminated by man (v.14) through violation of the condition of the covenant.

Circumcision was the mark of the Jews for Abraham's descendants only, indicating their covenant with God to be their God, and they to be totally consecrated to him.
God did not give it for anyone else. . .circumcision was not for the Gentiles.

Now regarding Paul, and salvation by free grace through faith. . .this is nothing new.
Righteousness (salvation) has been by free grace through faith since Abraham.
"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6)

For the Jewish converts in Paul's day who insisted that converted Gentiles had to be circumcised, Paul points out that circumcision was not required of Abraham,
that righteousness was credited to him because of faith (Gen 15:6) before he was circumcised (Gen 17:13).
Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was not because he was in covenant, it was because of faith only.

Righteousness, since Abraham, has always been by faith, rather than by the law keeping of a covenant (circumcision).
Paul wasn't preaching anything new when he said that requiring covenant circumcision, in order for the Gentile converts to be right with God,
was contrary to God's free righteousness through faith only.

So that makes Abraham the (spiritual) "father" of believing Gentiles (the uncircumised), because Abraham believed and was therefore made righteous (justified)
without circumcision.

Likewise, Abraham is the (spiritual) "father" of all who believe but have not been circumcised, whose righteousness is credited to them because of their faith,
just as it was credited to Abraham for his faith. . .no covenant circumcision required.

Paul did not break the everlasting Word of God regarding the covenant of circumcision, which was for the descendants of Abraham only.
Paul upheld the everlasting Word of God in the face of those who would make covenant circumcision necessary in order to be right with God.
Paul upheld the everlasint Word of God that righteousness comes through faith only, it does not come through the covenant of circumsion, just as
it did not for father Abraham.

Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was by free grace through faith.

And Paul's word of "salvation by free grace through faith" enjoyed little credibility only among those who denied the OT testimony
that Abraham's righteousness was by faith only. . .no covenant circumcision required.

 

[smokydot]

Paul said salvation was by free grace through faith.

That's what he said, and his word did not enjoy much credibility.

He wrote more of the NT than did any other writer, and as an apostle is one of the authorities of Christianity.
He enjoys eminent credibility among those who believe the NT.

 

[smokydot]

The Abrahamic Covenant with God was an Everlasting Covenant. (Gen 17:13)
So Paul broke the everlasting Word of God.

First, the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13) was a covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants, to be their God, conditioned
on their obedience (v.4, v.9), and of which circumcision was to be the sign of their total consecration to him.
God's everlasting promise, however, could be voided and terminated by man (v.14) through violation of the condition of the covenant.

Circumcision was the mark of the Jews for Abraham's descendants only, indicating their covenant with God to be their God, and they to be totally consecrated to him.
God did not give it for anyone else. . .circumcision was not for the Gentiles.

Now regarding Paul, and salvation by free grace through faith. . .this is nothing new.
Righteousness (salvation) has been by free grace through faith since Abraham.
"Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6)

For the Jewish converts in Paul's day who insisted that converted Gentiles had to enter the covenant of circumcision, Paul points out that circumcision was not required of Abraham,
that righteousness was credited to him because of faith (Gen 15:6) before he entered the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13).
Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was not because he was in covenant, it was because of faith only.

Righteousness, since Abraham, has always been by faith, rather than by the law keeping of a covenant (circumcision).
Paul wasn't preaching anything new when he said that requiring covenant circumcision, in order for the Gentile converts to be right with God,
was contrary to God's free righteousness through faith only.

So that makes Abraham the (spiritual) "father" of believing Gentiles (the uncircumised), because Abraham believed and was therefore made righteous (justified)
without circumcision.

Likewise, Abraham is the (spiritual) "father" of all who believe but have not been circumcised, whose righteousness is credited to them because of their faith,
just as
it was credited to Abraham for his faith. . .no covenant circumcision required.

Paul did not break the everlasting Word of God regarding the covenant of circumcision, which was for the descendants of Abraham only.
Paul upheld the everlasting Word of God in the face of those who would make covenant circumcision necessary in order to be right with God.
Paul upheld the everlasint Word of God that righteousness comes through faith only, it does not come through the covenant of circumsion, just as
it did not for father Abraham.

Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was by free grace through faith.

And Paul's word of "salvation by free grace through faith" enjoyed little credibility only among those who denied the OT testimony
that Abraham's righteousness was by faith only. . .no covenant circumcision required.

 

[Zardoz]

[...He wrote more of the NT than did any other writer, and as an apostle is one of the authorities of Christianity.

Apostle to the Gentiles maybe, not the Jews. I have a much different opinion of him.

He enjoys eminent credibility among those who believe the NT.

If they're gentile you mean.

 

[smokydot]

Apostle to the Gentiles maybe, not the Jews. I have a much different opinion of him.
If they're gentile you mean.

What would those who believe in Jesus the Christ have against Paul?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What would those who believe in Jesus the Christ have against Paul?

Just to name a few:

- His misogyny
- Homophobia
- Support for slavery
- Tyrannical leadership style
- Lack of vision for social justice
- Failure to unite Judaism with his Christianity

 

[Ben Masada]

He wrote more of the NT than did any other writer, and as an apostle is one of the authorities of Christianity.

That he was the main authority of Christianity, I have no doubt about it. That he was an apostle, what apostle was he, the 13th? The number of apostles of any religious leader in the Judaism of the First Century was twelve on behalf of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Judas got lost and Matthias was chosen by the 11 to replace him as the 12th. (Acts 1:26) What was Paul, the 13th? There was no such a thing. Therefore, Paul was not an apostle. Perhaps a self-named apostle.

First, the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13) was a covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants, to be their God, conditioned on their obedience (v.4, v.9), and of which circumcision was to be the sign of their total consecration to him. God's everlasting promise, however, could be voided and terminated by man (v.14) through violation of the condition of the covenant.

True. Since we still practice that same circumcision on the 8th day, the Abrahamic Covenant with the Jewish People has NOT been terminated.

Circumcision was the mark of the Jews for Abraham's descendants only, indicating their covenant with God to be their God, and they to be totally consecrated to him.God did not give it for anyone else. . .circumcision was not for the Gentiles.

No argument about it. There is no circumcision in the Noahide laws for Gentiles to follow.

Now regarding Paul, and salvation by free grace through faith. . .this is nothing new.

No, it has been his policy of Replacement Theology for about 2000 years.

Righteousness

(salvation) has been by free grace through faith since Abraham. "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6)

That's not what James said. But that Abraham was justified by his works and not faith. (James 2:21)

For the Jewish converts in Paul's day who insisted that converted Gentiles had to be circumcised, Paul points out that circumcision was not required of Abraham,

That's where you err for not knowing the Scriptures. Paul was lying because circumcision was indeed required of Abraham. (Gen. 17:9,10)

that righteousness was credited to him because of faith (Gen 15:6) before he was circumcised (Gen 17:13). Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was not because he was in covenant, it was because of faith only.

You continue in your wrong. James declared that Abraham was justified not because of faith only but because of his works. (Jam 2:21) Why do you keep contradicting your own NT?

Righteousness, since Abraham, has always been by faith, rather than by the law keeping of a covenant (circumcision). Paul wasn't preaching anything new when he said that requiring covenant circumcision, in order for the Gentile converts to be right with God, was contrary to God's free righteousness through faith only.

You continue with your false doctrine of faith only. If you are right, James was lying.

So that makes Abraham the (spiritual) "father" of believing Gentiles (the uncircumised), because Abraham believed and was therefore made righteous (justified) without circumcision.

If I were not by the end of this post, I would quit because I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond repair. Abraham was not made righteous without circumcision. He was circumcised. Please, read Genesis 17:26.

Likewise, Abraham is the (spiritual) "father" of all who believe but have not been circumcised, whose righteousness is credited to them because of their faith,
just as it was credited to Abraham for his faith. . .no covenant circumcision required.

Circumcision was an everlasting commandment in the Abrahamic Covenant. It became unnecessary because Paul had decided to break with the everlasting law of God in order to promote his policy of Replacement Theology.

Paul did not break the everlasting Word of God regarding the covenant of circumcision, which was for the descendants of Abraham only.
Paul upheld the everlasting Word of God in the face of those who would make covenant circumcision necessary in order to be right with God.
Paul upheld the everlasint Word of God that righteousness comes through faith only, it does not come through the covenant of circumsion, just as
it did not for father Abraham.

After this post of yours, if you do not quote what you claim, that's the last time I pick a post of yours to respond. You repeat the same thing over and over again like a turky.

Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was by free grace through faith.

No, it was by his good works. Read James 2:21.

And Paul's word of "salvation by free grace through faith" enjoyed little credibility only among those who denied the OT testimony
that Abraham's righteousness was by faith only. . .no covenant circumcision required.

Wrong down to the last word. Circumcision was a Divine requirement from Abraham down throuhout his seed, the Jewish People. Paul broke away from God's everlasting law given to Abraham and built a church with the purpose to promote Replacement Theology, which is Christian Antisemitism.

 

[Ben Masada]

He wrote more of the NT than did any other writer, and as an apostle is one of the authorities of Christianity.

That he was the main authority of Christianity, I have no doubt about it. That he was an apostle, what apostle was he, the 13th? The number of apostles of any religious leader in the Judaism of the First Century was twelve on behalf of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Judas got lost and Matthias was chosen by the 11 to replace him as the 12th. (Acts 1:26) What was Paul, the 13th? There was no such a thing. Therefore, Paul was not an apostle. Perhaps a self-named apostle.

First, the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13) was a covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants, to be their God, conditioned on their obedience (v.4, v.9), and of which circumcision was to be the sign of their total consecration to him. God's everlasting promise, however, could be voided and terminated by man (v.14) through violation of the condition of the covenant.

True. Since we still practice that same circumcision on the 8th day, the Abrahamic Covenant with the Jewish People has NOT been terminated.

Circumcision was the mark of the Jews for Abraham's descendants only, indicating their covenant with God to be their God, and they to be totally consecrated to him.God did not give it for anyone else. . .circumcision was not for the Gentiles.

No argument about it. There is no circumcision in the Noahide laws for Gentiles to follow.

Now regarding Paul, and salvation by free grace through faith. . .this is nothing new.

No, it has been his policy of Replacement Theology for about 2000 years.

Righteousness

(salvation) has been by free grace through faith since Abraham. "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6)

That's not what James said. But that Abraham was justified by his works and not faith. (James 2:21)

For the Jewish converts in Paul's day who insisted that converted Gentiles had to be circumcised, Paul points out that circumcision was not required of Abraham,

That's where you err for not knowing the Scriptures. Paul was lying because circumcision was indeed required of Abraham. (Gen. 17:9,10)

that righteousness was credited to him because of faith (Gen 15:6) before he was circumcised (Gen 17:13). Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was not because he was in covenant, it was because of faith only.

You continue in your wrong. James declared that Abraham was justified not because of faith only but because of his works. (Jam 2:21) Why do you keep contradicting your own NT?

Righteousness, since Abraham, has always been by faith, rather than by the law keeping of a covenant (circumcision). Paul wasn't preaching anything new when he said that requiring covenant circumcision, in order for the Gentile converts to be right with God, was contrary to God's free righteousness through faith only.

You continue with your false doctrine of faith only. If you are right, James was lying.

So that makes Abraham the (spiritual) "father" of believing Gentiles (the uncircumised), because Abraham believed and was therefore made righteous (justified) without circumcision.

If I were not by the end of this post, I would quit because I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond repair. Abraham was not made righteous without circumcision. He was circumcised. Please, read Genesis 17:26.

Likewise, Abraham is the (spiritual) "father" of all who believe but have not been circumcised, whose righteousness is credited to them because of their faith,
just as it was credited to Abraham for his faith. . .no covenant circumcision required.

Circumcision was an everlasting commandment in the Abrahamic Covenant. It became unnecessary because Paul had decided to break with the everlasting law of God in order to promote his policy of Replacement Theology.

Paul did not break the everlasting Word of God regarding the covenant of circumcision, which was for the descendants of Abraham only.
Paul upheld the everlasting Word of God in the face of those who would make covenant circumcision necessary in order to be right with God.
Paul upheld the everlasint Word of God that righteousness comes through faith only, it does not come through the covenant of circumsion, just as
it did not for father Abraham.

After this post of yours, if you do not quote what you claim, that's the last time I pick a post of yours to respond. You repeat the same thing over and over again like a turky.

Abraham's righteousness (salvation) was by free grace through faith.

No, it was by his good works. Read James 2:21.

And Paul's word of "salvation by free grace through faith" enjoyed little credibility only among those who denied the OT testimony
that Abraham's righteousness was by faith only. . .no covenant circumcision required.

Wrong down to the last word. Circumcision was a Divine requirement from Abraham down throuhout his seed, the Jewish People. Paul broke away from God's everlasting law given to Abraham and built a church with the purpose to promote Replacement Theology, which is Christian Antisemitism.

 

[smokydot]

That he was the main authority of Christianity, I have no doubt about it. That he was an apostle, what apostle was he, the 13th? The number of apostles of any religious leader in the Judaism of the First Century was twelve on behalf of the 12 Tribes of Israel. Judas got lost and Matthias was chosen by the 11 to replace him as the 12th. (Acts 1:26) What was Paul, the 13th? There was no such a thing. Therefore, Paul was not an apostle. Perhaps a self-named apostle.

Apostle = one who is sent. . .and meant the authorized agents or representatives of Jesus.

In the NT apostle is used to refer to
1) the twelve,
2) larger groups, including Barnabas (Ac 14:14), James the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19), Andromicus and Junias (Ro 16:7), and
3) Jesus himself, in the letter to the Hebrews at 3:1.

Paul testifies that he was personally commissioned by Jesus (that makes him an apostle), according to the will of God, after Jesus returned to heaven and then later appeared to Paul (Ac 9:3-19, 22:10, 14-16; 2 Co 12:2-4, 7; Gal 1:11-16; Eph 3:3-5).

True. Since we still practice that same circumcision on the 8th day, the Abrahamic Covenant with the Jewish People has NOT been terminated.
No argument about it. There is no circumcision in the Noahide laws for Gentiles to follow.
No, it has been his policy of Replacement Theology for about 2000 years.
That's not what James said. But that Abraham was justified by his works and not faith. (James 2:21)

Okay, I will assume that you just do not understand James, even though the very next verse makes the meaning clear.

James said, "his faith was made complete by what he did." (Jas 2:22)

"His faith was made complete" (made evident, proven), not his righteousness. . .because completed righteousness had already been credited to Abraham (Gen 15:6)
before "what he did" in obedience, by offering Isaac (Gen 22).
Offering Isaac did not complete his already completed righteousness, the text says it completed "his faith," it completed what was inward by making it outwardly evident, it completed what was inward by outwardly proving that it was genuine, his faith was completed by his obedience.

[It's as Paul says, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, the salvation which God has worked in you." ( Php 2:12-13)
Complete your faith, give outward evidence that your inward faith which saves is genuine.]

So God credited his faith to Abraham as righteousness, it was not his obedience in offering Isaac for which God credited righteousness to Abraham.
Nor was it his obedience to circumcision. . .because righteousness was credited to Abraham (Gen 15:6) before his obedience to circumcision (Gen 17:13).
God credited his faith as righteousness to him (Gen 15:6) before his obedience in both Gen 17:13 and Gen 22.

And it's the same with the Christian.
Obedience to Jesus' commands does not impart to him the righteousness thats saves from the just wrath of God on his sin.
Only faith gives the righteousness which saves. . .obedience is the evidence (proof) of genuine faith. . .and is why James insists
that faith without obedience is not genuine faith.

It is genuine faith only, not obedience, which imparts the righteousness that saves (Jn 3:18, 36), just as it was with father Abraham. . .and has been ever since.
Righteousness by faith only is not something new from Paul.

That's where you err for not knowing the Scriptures. Paul was lying because circumcision was indeed required of Abraham. (Gen. 17:9,10)

Yes, circumcision was required of Abraham as a sign of his total consecration to God in covenant, but it was not required of Abraham for righteousness.

Paul was not lying when he made clear that circumcision was not required for Abraham's righteousness, because Abraham was credited with righteousness in Gen 15:6, before his obedience to circumcision in Gen 17:13.
God credited his faith to him as righteousness, without obedience to circumcision, and without obedience in offering Isaac.

The truth of the matter is: rather than lying, Paul was upholding the very Word of God written in Gen 15:6, as it applied to Gen 17:13 and 22:1-10.

There is no cause for confusion on the matter of Abraham's righteousness by faith only, and the requirment of circumcision. My post was very clear that:
1) Paul's discussion of circumcision was in relation to Abraham's righteousness in Gen 15:6, and not in relation to the requirement of it in Gen 17:13.
2) Paul was addressing the Judaizers' requirement that the Gentile converts obey God's command of circumcision in order to be right (righteous) with God.
3) Paul showed that obedience to God's command of circumcision was not necessary to be made right (righteous) with God, because Abraham had not been circumcised
---(Gen 17:13) when God credited him with righteousness. . .it was because of his faith only (Gen 15:6), not obedience to circumcision.
4) the Everlasting Covenant of Circumcision was for descendants of Abraham only, it was not for the Gentiles,
---who were the subject of Paul's exegesis on the relationship of righteousness to faith (only), and to obedience to circumcision (not required).
See Gal 3:1-14, 23-29, 5:1-3.

You continue in your wrong. James declared that Abraham was justified not because of faith only but because of his works. (Jam 2:21) Why do you keep contradicting your own NT?

Why do you not read the next verse? See second response above where James clarifies in 2:22 what he meant in 2:21.

All of the following is already addressed above.

You continue with your false doctrine of faith only. If you are right, James was lying.
If I were not by the end of this post, I would quit because I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond repair. Abraham was not made righteous without circumcision. He was circumcised. Please, read Genesis 17:26.
Circumcision was an everlasting commandment in the Abrahamic Covenant. It became unnecessary because Paul had decided to break with the everlasting law of God in order to promote his policy of Replacement Theology.
After this post of yours, if you do not quote what you claim, that's the last time I pick a post of yours to respond. You repeat the same thing over and over again like a turky.
No, it was by his good works. Read James 2:21.
Wrong down to the last word. Circumcision was a Divine requirement from Abraham down throuhout his seed, the Jewish People. Paul broke away from God's everlasting law given to Abraham and built a church with the purpose to promote Replacement Theology, which is Christian Antisemitism.

 

[Ben Masada]

Apostle = one who is sent. . .and meant the authorized agents or representatives of Jesus.

In the NT apostle is used to refer to
1) the twelve,
2) larger groups, including Barnabas (Ac 14:14), James the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19), Andromicus and Junias (Ro 16:7), and
3) Jesus himself, in the letter to the Hebrews at 3:1.

Paul testifies that he was personally commissioned by Jesus, according to the will of God, after Jesus returned to heaven and then later appeared to Paul.
Okay, I will assume that you just do not understand James, even though the very next verse makes the meaning clear.

James said, "his faith was made complete by what he did." (Jas 2:22)
His faith, not his righteousness, was completed, or evidenced. . .for God credited righteousness to Abraham (Gen 15:6) before his action of offering Isaac (Gen 22).

And it's the same with the Christian.
Obedience to Jesus' commands does not save him from the just wrath of God on his sin.
Only faith saves him. . .obedience is the evidence of genuine faith. . .and is why James emphasizes that faith without evidence is not genuine faith.
Paul was not lying when he made clear that circumcision was not required for Abraham's righteousness.
Abraham was credited with righteousness in Gen 15:6, before the Covenant of Circumcision was given in Gen 17:13.
God credited his faith to him as righteousness, without circumcision.

My post was very clear that:
1) Paul's discussion of circumcision was in relation to Abraham's righteousness (Gen 15:6), and not in relation to its requirement of him personally.
2) Paul was talking about requiring the Gentile converts to enter the Covenant of Cirumcision in order to be right (righteous) with God.
3) Paul showed that entering the Covenant of Circumcision was not necessary to be made right (righteous) with God, because Abraham had not entered the Covenant of Circumcision (Gen 17:13) when God credited him with righteousness. . .because of his faith only (Gen 15:6).
4) the Everlasting Covenant of Circumcision was for descendants of Abraham only, it was not for the Gentiles,
who were the subject of Paul's exegesis on the relationship of righteousness and faith to the Covenant of Circumcision.
Why do you not read the next verse? See second response above where James clarifies in 2:22 what he meant in 2:21.

All of the following is already addressed above.

Sorry my friend, but the impression you have put in my mind is that the NT is a Babylon of confusion and contradictions.

 

[smokydot]

Just to name a few:
- His misogyny
- Homophobia
- Support for slavery
- Tyrannical leadership style
- Lack of vision for social justice
- Failure to unite Judaism with his Christianity

So they don't believe the NT is the Word of God written?
They don't believe that Paul was appointed, commanded and authorized by God to declare God's truth?
See Tit 1:2-3 (Ac 9:15-16, 22:10, 14-15); 1 Tim 1:11; Gal 2:7-8, 1:15.

They don't believe Paul's teaching comes directly from God?
See 2 Co 12:2-4, 7; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:3-5.

They don't believe that God gave Paul the very words he uses? that just as Moses recorded the very words of God himself to Israel,
and just as Jesus spoke exactly as God told him to say (Jn 12:49), so Paul spoke exactly as God told him to say?
See 1 Co 2:13; 1 Th 2:13.

So they believe Paul is lying when he claims these things?
They view themselves in a position to reject Paul's testimony of these things. . .Paul who wrote a significant part of the NT. . .Paul whose doctrine was approved by the apostles (Gal 2:7-9)?

Amazing. . .so do they believe that salvation is by faith alone, and not by obedience? that obedience is the proof of one's faith, but it is faith only that saves?

 

[smokydot]

Sorry my friend, but the impression you have put in my mind is that the NT is a Babylon of confusion and contradictions.

Or at least your understanding of it is, because it contradicts your beliefs.

Your impression is your responsibility.

I find it clear, holy, powerful and true.

 

[Zardoz]

What would those who believe in Jesus the Christ have against Paul?

Maybe because like the Egyptians before him, he turned Yeshua ha Mashiach ben Yosef... into an idol.

So they don't believe the NT is the Word of God written?

Only the parts that Paul and his ilk didn't pervert may be.

They don't believe that Paul was appointed, commanded and authorized by God to declare God's truth?

No.

See (a bunch of Paul's poison)

Don't quote Paul to prove Paul, that should be obviously no proof at all.

They don't believe Paul's teaching comes directly from God?

No.

See (a bunch of Paul's poison)

Don't quote Paul to prove Paul, that should be obviously no proof at all.

They don't believe that God gave Paul the very words he uses?

No.

that just as Moses recorded the very words of God himself to Israel,and just as Jesus spoke exactly as God told him to say (Jn 12:49), so Paul spoke exactly as God told him to say?

Don't compare Paul to Moses and Yeshua, that's just sick.

See (a bunch of Paul's poison)

Don't quote Paul to prove Paul, that should be obviously no proof at all.

So they believe Paul is lying when he claims these things?

Yes.

They view themselves in a position to reject Paul's testimony of these things. . .Paul who wrote a significant part of the NT. . .Paul whose doctrine was approved by the apostles ?

Gee, I wonder why Paul wrote most of the NT.... could it be that his Roman followers who decided what would be in the NT made sure of that?
Yes, I'm in a position to reject Paul's poison, as I'm not a Christian but a Jewish follower of Yeshua.

 

[smokydot]

Maybe because like the Egyptians before him, he turned Yeshua ha Mashiach ben Yosef... into an idol.
Only the parts that Paul and his ilk didn't pervert may be.No. Don't quote Paul to prove Paul, that should be obviously no proof at all. No. Don't quote Paul to prove Paul, that should be obviously no proof at all. No.Don't compare Paul to Moses and Yeshua, that's just sick. Don't quote Paul to prove Paul, that should be obviously no proof at all. Yes.
Gee, I wonder why Paul wrote most of the NT.... could it be that his Roman followers who decided what would be in the NT made sure of that?
Yes, I'm in a position to reject Paul's poison, as I'm not a Christian but a Jewish follower of Yeshua.

Do you believe that righteousness is by faith alone, as it was with Abraham (Gen 15:6), who was made righteous before his obedience to God's command of circumcision (Gen 17:3) and before his obedience in offering Isaac (Gen 22); in other words, God credited his faith to him as righteousness, without obedience?
As shown in the following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2283350-post69.html

That is NT doctrine (Jn 3:18, 36).

I'm not quoting Paul to prove Paul, I am quoting Paul's testimony.
Whether it is true or not cannot be proven.
It is a matter of faith. . .you either believe it or you don't.
You don't. . .and I do.

I believe all of the OT and all of the NT are the Word of God written.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So they don't believe the NT is the Word of God written?
They don't believe that Paul was appointed, commanded and authorized by God to declare God's truth?

Well, everyone is different and experiences God in different ways. I realize that your belief system falls apart when one carefully crafted peice is removed, but 'belief in Christ' has absolutely nothing to do with believing Paul or otherwise confessing that the NT is the "Word of God written."

I should hope that they don't think that the NT is the "Word of God written," because that's heresy. Jesus alone is the Word of God and cannot be contained on a text.

Secondly, Christians may believe that "was appointed, commanded and authorized by God to declare God's truth" and still not like what he had to say, his leadership style, or habits.

 

[smokydot]

Well, everyone is different and experiences God in different ways. I realize that your belief system falls apart when one carefully crafted peice is removed,

What "carefully crafted piece" would you remove?

but 'belief in Christ' has absolutely nothing to do with believing Paul or otherwise confessing that the NT is the "Word of God written."

What about belief that salvation is by faith alone, and not by obedience? That is the testimony of Paul. . .and of the Reformers. I have it in writing from both.

I should hope that they don't think that the NT is the "Word of God written," because that's heresy. Jesus alone is the Word of God and cannot be contained on a text.

Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.
Scripture is the Word of God written. "Word of God" is not my name, that is what Jesus called it (Mt 15:6).

Secondly, Christians may believe that he "was appointed, commanded and authorized by God to declare God's truth" and still not like what he had to say, his leadership style, or habits.

Yeah. . .and I've also heard of Christians who didn't like what even Jesus had to say.
My favorite is: "I'm sure we'd all think a lot more of him if he hadn't said some of those things."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What "carefully crafted piece" would you remove?
What about belief that salvation is by faith alone, and not by obedience? That is the testimony of Paul. . .and of the Reformers. I have it in writing from both.
Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

Yet that's not what I dispute.

I said that Jesus alone is the Word of God. Do you think that you can write Jesus down in words, or that you should worship the Bible as the Word of God as you worship Jesus as the Word of God?

 

[smokydot]

Yet that's not what I dispute.
I said that Jesus alone is the Word of God. Do you think that you can write Jesus down in words, or that you should worship the Bible as the Word of God as you worship Jesus as the Word of God?

Do you?

And what "carefully crafted piece" would cause my "belief system to fall apart" if it were removed, as you maintain in the link below?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284373-post76.html

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What "carefully crafted piece" would you remove?

Only you can do that.

It seems to me that if you were to modify, change, or disregard any number of unsubstantiated dogmas that your faith would be severely shaken.

Examples:

1) Forgo infalliability and inerrancy of Scripture
2) Approach the Bible as literature
3) Abandon the heresy that the Bible is the Word of God
4) Recognize that the Bible is an arbitrary collection of writings and not a whole
5) Study church history and recognize that the fathers had widely varying theologies

 

[Ben Masada]

Or at least your understanding of it is, because it contradicts your beliefs.

Your impression is your responsibility.

I find it clear, holy, powerful and true.

Great! If indeed you find the NT clear, holy, powerful and true, try to break down the following for me. I'll be grateful.Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1. I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus.(Mat. 1:1-17)
2. I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph.(Mat. 1:18-25)
3. I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.(Mat. 2:1,2)
4. I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was.(Mat. 2:9-11)
5. I am not talking about the flight with the child to Egypt.(Mat. 2:13-15)
6. I am not talking about the slaughering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus.(Mat. 2:16-18)
7. And I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignores in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)

Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?

I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. The smell will be too strong.

Ben