Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[Ken Brown]

I can most certainly agree that every commandment has a Spiritual/veiled/esoteric meaning, but that in no way means that the "Physical keeping" is not forever. In order to obey and understand the Spiritual, one must obey the Physical. In no way did Jesus say to do away with the Physical keeping, rather he said those who teach to do so even for the least commandment shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

Hi Shermana, I was wondering if there are any commandments out of the Torah that you do not follow in a physical sense? Like when you eat the Passover, do you have your staff in hand, sandals on your feet and your loins girded in a physical sense? Just how far do you take doing the commands of the Torah physically? KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, I was wondering if there are any commandments out of the Torah that you do not follow in a physical sense? Like when you eat the Passover, do you have your staff in hand, sandals on your feet and your loins girded in a physical sense? Just how far do you take doing the commands of the Torah physically? KB

This is a perfect example of an issue of interpretation.

First off, wearing underwear fits the "Girded loins" meaning.

With that said, this may only apply to the FIRST Passover(s) while they were traveling before they settled in the Holy Land, and had to be ready to move on a moment's notice. It can be said as well however that being dressed to travel is part of the ritual, to commemorate being on the move.

Feet Shod, Staff in Hand

http://nnedaog.org/sermons/SERPASS4.HTM

Thus, having a staff is not so much a requirement, but its a requirement to have it on hand if you own one, to be ready to move. But if we go by the interpretation that being dressed to travel is part of the ritual, then perhaps a walking stick could be required, assuming we needed one however.

And since I always eat wearing shoes on passover, the "Sandals" part is covered.

Context is clearly conveyed with:

This is how you are to eat it—dressed to travel,

Otherwise, feel free to ask the same question in the Judaism DIR, I'm pretty sure you'll get a similar response.

Regarding other issues, I'm not sure entirely on whether my fringes are meant to be any sort of blue or only with specific Tekhlet from Sea-snails and cuttle fish, and what exactly my Mezuzah is supposed to say. Such issues have been controversial among Rabbis as well for millenia.

 

[Ken Brown]

This is a perfect example of an issue of interpretation.

First off, wearing underwear fits the "Girded loins" meaning.

With that said, this may only apply to the FIRST Passover(s) while they were traveling before they settled in the Holy Land, and had to be ready to move on a moment's notice. It can be said as well however that being dressed to travel is part of the ritual, to commemorate being on the move.

Feet Shod, Staff in Hand

Thus, having a staff is not so much a requirement, but its a requirement to have it on hand if you own one, to be ready to move. But if we go by the interpretation that being dressed to travel is part of the ritual, then perhaps a walking stick could be required, assuming we needed one however.

And since I always eat wearing shoes on passover, the "Sandals" part is covered.

Context is clearly conveyed with:

Otherwise, feel free to ask the same question in the Judaism DIR, I'm pretty sure you'll get a similar response.

Regarding other issues, I'm not sure entirely on whether my fringes are meant to be any sort of blue or only with specific Tekhlet from Sea-snails and cuttle fish, and what exactly my Mezuzah is supposed to say. Such issues have been controversial among Rabbis as well for millenia.

Hi Shermana, how about this command? Would you command your young men or yourself to follow this command in a physical sense?

Deu 28:30
(30) Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.

KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, how about this command? Would you command your young men or yourself to follow this command in a physical sense?

Deu 28:30
(30) Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.

KB

Are you intentionally joking or do you not have any clue what context means? I would have to think you're deliberately doing this to be funny.

Because after all, I could say

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'""

So Jesus is therefore commanding you to go murder every non-Christian by your logic, right ?



But even then, this example is actually much more "in context" than yours because the context IS that non-Christians will be brought to death, whereas yours is from a list of punishments and not a commandment.

Let's try a better one:

http://bible.cc/leviticus/26-29.htm

"You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."

So Jews are commanded to cannibalize their children. I'm surprised any of them survived, according to that "Commandment", every Jew should have been devoured by now!

That's funny and all, but we're trying to have a serious discussion here.

 

[Ken Brown]

Are you intentionally joking or do you not have any clue what context means? I would have to think you're deliberately doing this to be funny.

Because after all, I could say

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'""

So Jesus is therefore commanding you to go murder every non-Christian by your logic, right ?

But even then, this example is actually much more "in context" than yours because the context IS that non-Christians will be brought to death, whereas yours is from a list of punishments and not a commandment.

That's funny and all, but we're trying to have a serious discussion here.

Hi Shermana, it will be a very serious offense for those who do not what Yeshua to be King over them and they will be SLAYED in front of Him.

And YES, I am asking a serious question. You already said this:

Originally Posted by Shermana
In order to obey and understand the Spiritual, one must obey the Physical.

Are you going to follow the physical requirement of the Torah for anyone who is betrothed and has his future wife sleeping with another man, are you going to require that man to build a house that he will never live in and plant a vineyard that he will not harvest? It's a pretty simple question. Are you going to follow the Torah or not? KB

 

[Shermana]

Oh, you're being serious then. I really thought you were being funny for a second there

So you also assume that we are commanded to devour our children too, right?

Because after all, just like what you posted, Leviticus 26:29 is a COMMANDMENT to eat the flesh of our sons and daughters, not just a warning of things to come or anything.

Because after all, we can just cherry pick anything out of what it says in context to the rest of the passage.

Have you even read Deuteronomy by chance?

If you're joking let me know, and if you don't understand what Deuteronomy 28 is about, how its a list of punishments and not commandments, then please actually read the whole chapter

PS In the cherry picked example of that verse, Yeshua is commanding YOU (i.e. his followers) to slay all non-Christians.

So by your own logic, why aren't you out there with a semi-automatic pumping hot lead into a Synagogue?

 

[Ken Brown]

Oh, you're being serious then. I really thought you were being funny for a second there

So you also assume that we are commanded to devour our children too, right?

Because after all, just like what you posted, Leviticus 26:29 is a COMMANDMENT to eat the flesh of our sons and daughters, not just a warning of things to come or anything.

Because after all, we can just cherry pick anything out of what it says in context to the rest of the passage.

Have you even read Deuteronomy by chance?

If you're joking let me know, and if you don't understand what Deuteronomy 28 is about, how its a list of punishments and not commandments, then please actually read the whole chapter

PS In the cherry picked example of that verse, Yeshua is commanding YOU (i.e. his followers) to slay all non-Christians.

So by your own logic, why aren't you out there with a semi-automatic pumping hot lead into a Synagogue?

Hi Shermana, well I guess I have to admit that you got me on this one. I was having some interruptions as I was searching for certain commands. Please accept my apologies. KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, well I guess I have to admit that you got me on this one. I was having some interruptions as I was searching for certain commands. Please accept my apologies. KB

I suggest you look up to make sure what you're trying to use for the attack has been used before or at the very least, read the whole Torah first.

You could have used a much easier example like calling people out to be executed for various sins like breaking Sabbath or getting it on with a goat or something, or making a suspected wife drink the bitter water, or sacrificing an animal to redeem a firstborn son, or even paying the redemption fee in silver.

And the response will be: "You can't kill anyone without a Sanhedrin to bring them before, you can't perform a priesthood ritual without the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple". Thus, executions will be providential.

But again, as in Zechariah 14, during the Last days, the Gentiles will be required to obey Succoth in Jerusalem or suffer droughts and plagues, and there will be sacrifices again. Even Gotquestions.org admits this!

 

[Ken Brown]

I suggest you look up to make sure what you're trying to use for the attack has been used before or at the very least, read the whole Torah first.

You could have used a much easier example like calling people out to be executed for various sins like breaking Sabbath or getting it on with a goat or something, or making a suspected wife drink the bitter water, or sacrificing an animal to redeem a firstborn son, or even paying the redemption fee in silver.

And the response will be: "You can't kill anyone without a Sanhedrin to bring them before, you can't perform a priesthood ritual without the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple". Thus, executions will be providential.

But again, as in Zechariah 14, during the Last days, the Gentiles will be required to obey Succoth in Jerusalem or suffer droughts and plagues, and there will be sacrifices again. Even Gotquestions.org admits this!

Hi Shermana, what is keeping you from having a Sanhedrin? And as far as a priesthood is concerned, what about what Peter said in 1 Pet 2:5, 9. KB

 

[Shermana]

As far as I know, Israeli politics and Charedi disagreements prevent a Sanhedrin from forming.

As for the Malchezdiek priesthood, it's not exactly clear what such a priesthood implies and if it is to serve the same duties as Levites and Cohens.

 

[Pegg]

it could be argued that it was god saying that the old covenant had been done away with. Of course, you could also make the argument that it was man, and not god,

that is a good point and you might be interested to know that Jesus himself foretold that there would come a time when the worship of Jehovah would cease from Jerusalem....

John 4:20 '...YOU people say that in Jerusalem is the place where persons ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father.

He also foretold its destruction as a judgment by God himself:
Luke 21:20 “Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. ...22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled

Matthew 24:15 “... as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,)

Daniel prophesied the destruction of the temple which is what Jesus was pointing to in the above verse:
Daniel 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. “And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations

I won't argue this point, but only ask a question: does fulfillment equal abolishment?

in some cases, yes.
For example, Noah was given a set of instructions to build and ark. Once he did that, and once the flood had occurred, the prophecy about the deluge was fulfilled and it would never occur again....therefore the instructions to build an ark were abolished.

But obviously not all the laws found in the mosaic law are abolished...Christians still taught the high moral standards as found in that law. So they held onto the moral standards....they just didnt hold onto the many regulations

Then what is the law of Moses? A written form of these laws, or something else? Since it's not god's ultimate law, and his eternal law was in effect both before and after the law of Moses, exactly what point did the law of Moses serve?

this is a good question and its something that many find difficult. The law consisted of God moral standards, but it also gave the nation a method of worship consisting of regulations & festivals which represented heavenly things. It also provided them with dietry restrictions and ways of justice to deal with wrongdoers. So the law consisted of
1. morals
2. daily living requirements
3. ceremonial practices
4. a system for metting out justice
5. priestly teaching services
6. laws regulating family relationships
7. laws governing business transactions

there may be a few more i havent mentioned...but you get the idea that the entire mosaic law was more then just Gods moral standards.

Jews don't necessarily make this distinction as to various classes of the laws. Christians did this to differentiate between what they thought was to be followed, and what wasn't. This seems peculiar to me,

That is exactly right, the 'entire' law is the 'law of moses'.... everything makes the law a 'whole'. Yet, the moral laws of God existed before the mosaic law did.
So we can distinguish between the laws because the moral laws of God were not dependent on the mosaic law...they have always existed. They didnt come into existence with the mosaic law which means they can still exist without it.

God didnt need a priesthood to deal with Noah, Abel, Abraham, Jacob etc....so he doesnt need a priesthood to deal with mankind today either. This means that our relationship with God is not dependent on the mosaic law because people who lived without it were able to be have a relationship with God based on their adherence to Gods moral laws and standards of righteousness and justice.

I'll give you an example: Paul said the holy days were just a shadow of things to come, ...Zechariah, said that later gentile believers, especially toward the end days, would follow, along with the Jews,.. festival of booths

Yes, the 'Festival of Booths' celebrated the ingathering of the fruits of the ground, “the produce of the land,” which included grain, oil, and wine. (Le 23:39)
This festival signified the completion of the harvests of Isreal's agricultural year, therefore it was a time of rejoicing and thanksgiving for all the blessings Jehovah had given in the fruitage of all their crops. They build booths of olive branches (kind of like pitching a tent)

This festival is representative of the 'harvest' of the nations as Jesus pointed out...he said:
“The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. ...The Son of man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness, and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace....—Matt. 13:39-42.

Rev. 14:14-16 “And I saw, and, look! a white cloud, and upon the cloud someone seated like a son of man,... the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is thoroughly ripe.’ And the one seated on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.”

And the festival of Booths was linked to the incoming of the nations in that earlier account where James links the prophecy of Amos to the rebuilding to the booths of David where the nations are brought into the festival:
Amos 9:11 “‘In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and I shall certainly repair their breaches. And its ruins I shall raise up, and I shall certainly build it up as in the days of long ago, 12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E′dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, who is doing this.

In the spiritual sense, the 'ingathering' means people of the nations are collected together in the worship of God. The nations of the earth become the 'harvest' and Jesus is the 'reaper' who brings them in. They come in with rejoicing because they are calling on the name of God in faith. Its is the spiritual fulfillment of the jewish festival.

I want to ask you another few questions. Does Jesus say, anywhere, that he was the prophet to come spoken by Moses, the instigator of the new covenant, and that it would replace the old?

Was he the prophet to come?
“We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”—John 1:40, 41, 45.

The followers of Jesus viewed him as both the one Moses said would come, and the Messiah. .... and Jesus never denied being any of them. Rather he said
Matthew 16:16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo′nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.


Was he the instigator of the new covenant?
“This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf...
You are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.”—Luke 22:20, 28-30.

Paul showed that the new covenant was a spiritual arrangement as opposed to a physical/fleshly arrangement which is what the mosaic covenant was:
2 Corinthians 3:6 who has indeed adequately qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not of a written code, but of spirit; for the written code condemns to death, but the spirit makes alive



Would it replace the Old?
Jesus said: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35.

Matthew 7:12 “All things, therefore, that YOU want men to do to YOU, YOU also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean

Paul made jesus point more firm when he said the following:
Romans 13:10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.
Galatians 5:14 For the entire Law stands fulfilled in one saying, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

And it was Jesus brother James who wrote that that 'kingly' law is not the mosaic law, but the law of love:
James 2:8 If, now, YOU practice carrying out the kingly law according to the scripture: “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” YOU are doing quite well.


So has the Mosaic law been replaced? I would say yes it has....its been replaced by the 'Law of the Christ' which is the law of 'Love'. You cannot fault love and therefore, if you live by this law, you do not come under the 'curse of the law' because love fulfills the mosaic law.

 

[Pegg]

I can most certainly agree that every commandment has a Spiritual/veiled/esoteric meaning, but that in no way means that the "Physical keeping" is not forever. In order to obey and understand the Spiritual, one must obey the Physical. In no way did Jesus say to do away with the Physical keeping, rather he said those who teach to do so even for the least commandment shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

Jesus did show that the physical or flesh is unable to give life...only the spirit can do that.
“It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63)

With that in mind, i think it could be argued that it is more important to keep the spirit of the law then the physical aspects of it.

 

[Rise]

Sorry it took a while to respond, I wanted to be thorough in compiling some scripture.
I may have to put each response in it's own post due to space.

First, compare Mat. 5:17-19 with Ephe. 2:15. While Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the Law, Paul said that the Law was abolished on the cross. Paul gives us the impression that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The following are questions you need to ask yourself, and be able to answer, if you wish to understand it's meaning:
-If He were talking about obedience to the Mosaic law then why even mention the Prophets? There's more to what He is saying here than an observance of
the Mosaic covenant's conditions.
-How does Jesus define the Law and the Prophets?
-He says He has not come to abolish them, but to complete them (Greek: Plerosai)
How exactly is He going to complete the Law and the Prophets?
-He implies that the Law actually can pass away, and gives two conditions for this. The first is that heaven and earth pass away.
The second, is that the law stands until it has been accomplished.
What must be accomplished?


Understanding what he means here requires a larger understanding of who He was and what He did based on the scripture:
Jesus is Messiah. He is the one whom the Law and Prophets refer to.
His arrival and actions are the completion of what they spoke of.
He is also the fulfillment of the promise God gave through Moses and the Prophets.
He is also the perfection of the law embodied in mankind.


John 5
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; andit is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come
to me that you may have life.

John 1
45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of
Joseph.”



When he said he had not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to complete them, let's look at how Jesus defines the Law and the Prophets:

matthew 7:12
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest
commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Luke 10:
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love
your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”


Jesus did not come to abolish the Golden Rule, love, which underpins everything that God instructs people through Moses and the Prophets. He came to
bring a completion to it, a perfection to it, to render it full in existance (More on this further down when we examine the greek meaning of the word behind "fulfill")


He then commands us to follow this commandment:

John 13:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will
know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”


matthew 5
48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Here He is telling us, after an exposition on what God's law really means (The spirit behind the written law, how the mosaic commands only reflect
guidelines designed to point us towards righteousness) that we must display perfect love in the same way that the Father does.





To understand what he means by fulfill, let's examine some greek words:

Matthew 8:17
17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses.”

The greek word for fulfilled here is the same one used in matthew 5, and the same one used throughout scriptures like this - Pleroo.
Pleroo carries the conotation of the completion of something, to render full, to fill up to fullness.
This word is used many more times in the gospel with reference to Jesus "fulfilling what was spoken by the prophets".


luke 22:37
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning
Me have an end.”

The word used for "accomplished" is telesthenai. It implies to accomplish, execute, perform, fulfil.
The word used for "end" is telos, which implies completion, perfection, connsumation, an end, a closure brought to something with results.


This very clearly outlines for us the concept Jesus is communicating to us: That He is the fullfillment, the completition, the accomplishment of what
was written in the Law and the Prophets.
He also tells us that the things "concerning Him" have "an end", a closure, a completion.
Jesus tells us that Moses and the Prophets were witnessing to Him, and that in Him these things are completed and brought to a conclusion.



Ephesians 2:
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of
commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both
to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Paul is writing to gentiles here.
The subject here is putting to rest the hosility between Jew and gentile, the wall or ordinances and commands according to the law which divides them.
Under Messiah's overriding commandment of love, being fulfilled through the gift of the Holy Spirit in us, there is no need for the ritual observances
of the Mosaic ordinances when we have God's law written on our hearts as part of the Messianic covenant. For, as Jesus and Paul both tell us, if we
follow the commandment to love then everything else falls into line with God's law. The only problem is that people lack the capacity to Love the way
God does on their own. Jesus and Paul both tell us that only by being born again with the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, and following it's leading, can we
actually follow God's law. (All the scriptures supporting this would be beyond the scope of this post though)
"Law" or "Torah" is a word denoting received instructions from God. Any instruction from God is always right and becomes law to those who it is given
to.
The Mosaic covenant was a type of law for a specific group as part of a specific covenant, but they could never keep it. They could never seem to
inherit it's blessings, only it's curses, because of their inability to follow God's instructions.
God's Spirit, through Messiah, is what empowers us to be able to actually keep any instruction He gives us by giving us a new heart.

 

[Rise]

Second, if you read Luke 16:13, Jesus said that no one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other or be attentive to one and
despise the other. Now, if you read Romans 7:25, Paul said that with his mind, he would serve the Law of God and with his flesh, the law of sin. As you
see, Paul proved to be the exception to the rule claimed by Jesus.

Luke 16:13
13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”


Jesus, in Luke 16, tells us we must have single minded devotion to Christ, serving only Him.


However,
Romans 7:25 is taken out of context. Let's look at both the preceding parts of Romans 7, and the following paragraphs of Romans 8 (this was all originally written as one letter, as I'm sure you are aware).

Romans 7-8
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[a] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[d] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brothers,[e] we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons[f] of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.


What he says in Romans 8, he had previously said in Romans 6, before Romans 7:

6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.


Paul is not confused about what he is teaching, going from one idea to another and then back to the original.
Paul is actually describing in Romans 7 what one's fallen state is like as they try to obey the law, the futility that results from setting their mind to the law when they are by themselves powerless to stop serving the flesh despite their desire to do what is right. Romans 7 is not a statement of his current position but is a statement of what his position was like, before Messiah, under the law.
Paul then goes on to describe in Romans 8 the reality of our situation through Messiah, The Annoited. Here we find Paul describing us as people who don't have to be double minded any longer, by setting our mind fully to do what is right. By the Spirit it is now possible to live fully according to things of the Spirit. Those who live by the Spirit do what is right as they are submitted to God's law. The flesh is made to bow to the will of the Spirit. What was impossible through law and the flesh becomes possible through The Annoited One and His Spirit in us.


Paul elsewhere tells us of the importance of having a single minded devotion to Christ (there may be even more verses than these if I had kept looking):

1 Corinthians 2:
And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

2 Corinthians 11:
3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Romans 14
7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

1 Corinthians 7: 32-35
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.\

Paul is right in line with what Jesus taught in Luke 16.

 

[Rise]

Third, if you read Luke 16:29,31, to escape hell, one must listen to Moses. Then, if you read Acts 21:18,21, when Paul paid a visit to James, this
reported to him that he had been informed that Paul was teaching the Jews in the Diaspora to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to
quit with the Jewish customs.

There are two issues here. First is a misinterpretation of what Jesus said. Second, is a misreading of what was said about Paul.


Luke 16:29,31
27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers[g]—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”


First off, your interpretation of Jesus's words, the idea that He is saying one must obey the Mosaic commandments, ordinances, or even hebrew customs, in order to avoid hell, is not consistent at all with the overwhelming body of gospel scripture where Jesus tells us (in his own words) what is necessary for salvation through Him.

I could list more than this, but suffice it to list some for the sake of establishing this truth:
He gave his life as a ransom for us. (Mark 10:45)
Forgiveness of Sins in His name, the Messiah. (Luke 24:46-47)
Eternal life comes through faith in Messiah. (John 3:14-16)
Faith in God, and His Word, is required to avoid judgement and death. (John 5:24)
The only work required is to believe in Jesus (John 6:28-29)
Jesus brings life to us, which requires us to believe in Him (John 6:33-35)
Forgiveness of sins and eternal life linked with belief in who Jesus truthfully is. (John 8:24)
Jesus is the way to salvation. (John 10:7-10)
Eternal life is given us by Jesus (John 10:27-28)
Belief in Jesus is equivalent to belief in God, and belief in Him is what brings us out of darkness (John: 12:44-46)
Jesus is the way to truth, life, the Father (John 14:6)
Abiding in Jesus is necessary to avoid withering and being cast into the fire (John 15:6)

Nowhere is the new covenant tied to the observance of the mosaic law (He established a new covenant in His blood - Luke 22:20)
Nor does Jesus ever say that salvation and avoidance of hell come by observance of the mosaic law.


Second, you misunderstand what Jesus is saying:
-How can the implication be that salvation from hell comes from adhering to Mosaic law, being under the mosaic covenant, when Abraham died before Moses?
-He also doesn't say salvation comes by listening only to Moses, but He says "Moses and the Prophets". There's more implied here than simply observance of the Mosaic law.
-What is the issue of contention in this verse? It is a lack of belief in the Word given by God through Moses and the Prophets. One must first have faith to repent.


Other scriptures illuminate for us what the verse really implies:

Genesis 15
6 And he (Abraham) believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”

Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him,
but the righteous shall live by his faith.

John 5
24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.


We see that Paul expresses this truth in line with Jesus in Romans 10:
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ


Faith comes by first hearing the Word of God, then choosing to believe it - That is the way to eternal life, the avoidance of judgement and death.
Repentence comes out of true faith in the truth of God's Word.
Adherance to the conditions of the Mosaic covenant are never listed as a requirement for salvation under the Messianic covenant.





Look closely at Acts 21 again. It says that he was accused of teaching the Jews to abandon Moses, but then it says he was not actually guilty of the rumors being spread about him.

Acts 21
18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled,[a] and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

So, James and the other christian leaders in Jerusalem:
-Glorified God over what Paul had done, clearly pleased with his methods and results.
-Said that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were zealous for the law, yet still they were pleased with what Paul had done.
-Said that there were accusations being throw around about Paul telling the Jews to forsake Moses and their customs.
-But then tells Paul to go to the temple so that everyone will realize that these rumors about him were not actually true!
-They say that Paul actually did live in observance to the law.
-They then go on to agree with Paul that they should not attempt to require the gentiles to follow Jewish customs and laws, saying that there are but a few things they should be instructed to avoid.

 

[Rise]

Do you also think John the Apostle wrote the Gospwl of John? (because he didn't)

I'd like to see you try to support that conclusion so definitively.

 

[Rise]

I can't say that for sure, and it really doesn't affect me either way. I was simply arguing the point that Paul and Jesus taught different things that were sometimes contrary and contradictory to each other.

I'd still like to see the scriptures where you think Paul and Jesus contradict each other.

I originally posed the question to you, but was happy to explain the scriptures that Shibolet brought up in addition to whatever you may offer up.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'd still like to see the scriptures where you think Paul and Jesus contradict each other.

I originally posed the question to you, but was happy to explain the scriptures that Shibolet brought up in addition to whatever you may offer up.

We'll take up this topic, since it seems to be one of the most perplexing. We all know that Paul taught that one is saved by faith alone, not by works. Now, what we see Jesus teaching is something a bit different. He did say that faith in him was required, but he also added works to that list of requirements for salvation. We see in the parable of the sheep and the goats, that it's not faith, but works, which determines one's eternal destiny.

We'll start with this, and go on from here.

 

[Rise]

We'll take up this topic, since it seems to be one of the most perplexing. We all know that Paul taught that one is saved by faith alone, not by works. Now, what we see Jesus teaching is something a bit different. He did say that faith in him was required, but he also added works to that list of requirements for salvation. We see in the parable of the sheep and the goats, that it's not faith, but works, which determines one's eternal destiny.

We'll start with this, and go on from here.

I asked you for specific quotations from Jesus in constrast to quotations from Paul, because a lot of your ideas about what was actually said are mistaken.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I asked you for specific quotations from Jesus in constrast to quotations from Paul, because a lot of your ideas about what was actually said are mistaken.

I've seen all the twisting Protestant bible scholars have done to the words of Jesus in order for him to come in line with Paul on salvation by faith alone, but I'll go ahead and post some, and see what you have to say about them. We'll go passage by passage, instead of me posting everything at once, that way we can discuss them individually.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

This verse pretty much speaks for itself. Now, since we know that Paul taught faith alone, I'm not going to quote the verses in Ephesians and such, but discuss why Jesus taught salvation by faith and works, against Paul teaching faith alone, by just quoting Jesus, since there is no dispute about what Paul taught.