Was Paul A False Apostle And Were His Writings Correct?

[The Zone]

Back to to pro or anti Paul...

 

[JoChris]

Ephesians 2
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Out of context. Jesus preaching to Jews, telling He will fulfill that prophecy. Occurred before Jesus' death on the cross (which Islam denies) and His resurrection from the dead. 4 Gospels BEFORE letters to the early churches.

Paul preaching to Christians, therefore after Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

[Daciple]

It boggles my mind how some people can be so willfully ignorant concerning the meaning of Fulfill the Law as spoken of in Matt 5:17. Please dont take what I am about to write to convince one who willfully ignores this as me writing to change your mind, its already duly noted that your mind cant be changed or has the ability to comprehend what is to be said next. I will write this for others who may not understand what it means to fulfill vs destroy.

The simplest way to explain it is to look at the Law as a Contract which it essentially is, thus the Law being inclusive of the Old Covenant which literally means agree, especially by lease, deed, or other legal contract.

So let us say that I enter into a Contract with a Company that states that I must write a Book, it must be 400 pages, it must be about Jesus, it must contain at least 50 references to the Old Testament, it must have a cover with the Title across the top but not bottom, it must be written within 1 year. Lets say that in month 9 I hand in a Book that is 365 pages about Jesus with 40 OT references and the Title on the bottom. Would my handing this in fulfill my contract or not? Clearly not and thus I would still be bound by the Contract it would still be in force legally. If I were to completely stop refuse to do anything else and walk away, I would be in violation of the Contract, it would be broken and destroyed.

However if in month 11 I hand in a Book 400 pages long, about Jesus, with 50 OT references, and the Title is across the top of the cover then would the Contract be fulfilled then? Of course it would be, thus in my fulfilling the Contract I did not destroy it but met all of the criteria and now am no longer bound by it, I have legally completed the obligation I was bound to under the Contract.

The same principal applies to Christ and the Law, He didnt destroy it, He didnt break it, He lived up to the Legal Criteria that was necessary to consider it fulfilled, and thus by doing so He has now allowed those who believe in Him to no longer be legally bound to the Law and its penalty. Pretty simple to understand but yet for some its a Herculean task to comprehend and no longer be willfully ignorant about it...

 

[KoncreteMind]

How is the passage from Ephesians not a description of the fulfillment of the law? What does it mean to fulfill the law then?

Well to my understanding, one verse says that Jesus did not come to abolish the law while the other says he came to abolish some or part of the law. Not sure what fulfillment of the law (which doesnt bring it to an end by the way) has to do with that discrepancy...

Out of context. Jesus preaching to Jews, telling He will fulfill that prophecy. Occurred before Jesus' death on the cross (which Islam denies) and His resurrection from the dead. 4 Gospels BEFORE letters to the early churches.

Paul preaching to Christians, therefore after Jesus' death and resurrection.

But if Jesus was preaching to Jews and Jews alone, and in your belief system, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, then how does what he preached to Jews not apply to you as well? He (allegedly) said this:

Matthew 28
Go thereforec]">[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

If he, before he left, told the disciples to go to ALL nations and teach them what HE TAUGHT THEM, can we show where he taught them to NOT follow the law? Because Paul is the only one I get that indication from...

 

[KoncreteMind]

The simplest way to explain it is to look at the Law as a Contract which it essentially is, thus the Law being inclusive of the Old Covenant which literally means agree, especially by lease, deed, or other legal contract.

Contract definition:
a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

Thats the problem there. The law wasnt a contract/covenant/agreement. Just as the basis of the law being given wasnt that once it was followed by someone/anyone, that it becomes null in void when it comes to being followed. At least from the Hebrew perspective. When people come and create religions off of the NT, well they can follow whatever religion they feel comfortable creating. I rather go with what was given to Israel.

 

[JoChris]

Well to my understanding, one verse says that Jesus did not come to abolish the law while the other says he came to abolish some or part of the law. Not sure what fulfillment of the law (which doesnt bring it to an end by the way) has to do with that discrepancy...



But if Jesus was preaching to Jews and Jews alone, and in your belief system, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, then how does what he preached to Jews not apply to you as well? He (allegedly) said this:

Matthew 28
Go thereforec]">[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

If he, before he left, told the disciples to go to ALL nations and teach them what HE TAUGHT THEM, can we show where he taught them to NOT follow the law? Because Paul is the only one I get that indication from...

Those previously Jewish apostles of Jesus were very first Christians.

The Book of Acts helps explain the transition from Jews to early churches, which started out as ex-Jewish Christians. As the church spread further afield Gentiles were included as well. Some churches were ex-Gentile Christians, explaining lack of mentioning Jewish customs. They didn't need to unlearn unessential Jewish customs. All they needed to learn about was Jesus, the Gospel and the meanings of what was done for us.

The later books are the ones which Muslims are completely biblically illiterate in - faith in Christ essential for salvation. You look for any resemblance of the Old Testament laws and like your founder choose to ignore whatever contradicts your own beliefs.

P.S. Jesus said to the apostles AFTER HIS RESURRECTION all I had commanded you. Not what the Old Testament commanded you. Take OFF your Islam glasses.

 

[Daciple]

Contract definition:
a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

Thats the problem there. The law wasnt a contract/covenant/agreement. Just as the basis of the law being given wasnt that once it was followed by someone/anyone, that it becomes null in void when it comes to being followed. At least from the Hebrew perspective. When people come and create religions off of the NT, well they can follow whatever religion they feel comfortable creating. I rather go with what was given to Israel.

Is that right?

Ex 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

Yeah buddy, that right there is a Contract, a Covenant confirmed with the Blood of a Sacrifice, I know this one guy who confirmed another Covenant with the Blood of His Sacrifice after He fulfilled this Covenant, Hes a really amazing person you should get to know Him, His name is Jesus...

Matt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[rainerann]

Well to my understanding, one verse says that Jesus did not come to abolish the law while the other says he came to abolish some or part of the law. Not sure what fulfillment of the law (which doesnt bring it to an end by the way) has to do with that discrepancy...



But if Jesus was preaching to Jews and Jews alone, and in your belief system, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, then how does what he preached to Jews not apply to you as well? He (allegedly) said this:

Matthew 28
Go thereforec]">[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

If he, before he left, told the disciples to go to ALL nations and teach them what HE TAUGHT THEM, can we show where he taught them to NOT follow the law? Because Paul is the only one I get that indication from...

Except for the fact that you can't describe what it means to fulfill the law? In your view, if the law does not change in saying that it is fulfilled rather than changed, then we should be presenting offerings too.

Also, when Jesus says that we should follow His commands, He does not retell the 4 books of law. When people say we should follow His commands which say that the law was not changed but fullfilled, it is as though they have never read the Old Testament to begin with. This is why Paul has more authority than people who object to Paul as an apostle. He was someone that knew the law better than the disciples. When Jesus says He fulfilled the law, Paul would understand what this meant, but that is not the point.

The real point is that I have read the Old Testament for myself and the authority of scripture is based on the way it integrates into all places. The Bible has authority because I know how the Old Testament is applied to the new Testament or how it is fulfilled. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't really believe that the cross was an offering for sin because this shouldn't be necessary? How is that you criticize Paul when you don't even believe this part of the Gospel. Then, you criticize people for not adhering to Christ over Paul, when you don't even believe in the account of the cross. I just think it becomes all kinds of confusing.

It is one thing to say that Jesus says that the law is fulfilled. It is another thing to not know the law well enough to define how it is fulfilled in accordance with the law in any way that provides a better description than the one you are criticizing. I know that the law is fulfilled, that is why I believe in the authority of scripture. This includes the writings of Paul.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Those previously Jewish apostles of Jesus were very first Christians.

The Book of Acts helps explain the transition from Jews to early churches, which started out as ex-Jewish Christians. As the church spread further afield Gentiles were included as well. Some churches were ex-Gentile Christians, explaining lack of mentioning Jewish customs. They didn't need to unlearn unessential Jewish customs. All they needed to learn about was Jesus, the Gospel and the meanings of what was done for us.

The later books are the ones which Muslims are completely biblically illiterate in - faith in Christ essential for salvation. You look for any resemblance of the Old Testament laws and like your founder choose to ignore whatever contradicts your own beliefs.

P.S. Jesus said to the apostles AFTER HIS RESURRECTION all I had commanded you. Not what the Old Testament commanded you. Take OFF your Islam glasses.

I think you'd be better off if you didnt assume that Im muslim because I dont agree with your stance. Couldnt be further from the truth. But I guess my "founder" if not the Most High, would be Moses.

Also, what am I missing here? Jesus comes and preaches to his disciples. He doesnt (to me recollection) make mention of them NOT following the law. He then tells them to go make disiciples of ALL nations going by what he taught them. So why arent you a believer in following the commandments He did again? Is there a place where Jesus insinuates for us that come after Him to NOT follow the law that Im forgetting?

In this thread it should go without mentioning that Jesus is not Paul and Paul is not Jesus. I say this because Im sure there is something from his letters, that you can use to justify your stance. Im wondering if its the same for Jesus...

 

[Daciple]

How is that you criticize Paul when you don't even believe this part of the Gospel. Then, you criticize people for not adhering to Christ over Paul, when you don't even believe in the account of the cross. I just think it becomes all kinds of confusing.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unlearned and Unstable wresting Paul and the other Scriptures unto their own destruction...

 

[Daciple]

He then tells them to go make disiciples of ALL nations going by what he taught them.

Might want to quote the Scripture verbatim so we know what Jesus actually told them to do:

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And what was Jesus Command? Was it follow the Law? Or something else?

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.J

I assume you also reject John but here is what John who walked with Jesus says was the Commandment of Jesus:

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

This is the Commandments of Jesus, not the Law and of course everyone knows you dont even keep the Law you are out here trying to tell others they need to keep...

 

[KoncreteMind]

Is that right?

Yes. In Deuteronomy 28/29 you can read about the covenant and how that was if they obeyed, they got blessed and if they disobeyed, they got cursed. They as in Israel and "obey" as in, obey the law. If Im wrong, can you go to Deuteronomy 28 and explain how? Because Deuteronomy 29:1, obviously right after Deuteronomy 28, says this:

These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.

Yeah buddy, that right there is a Contract, a Covenant confirmed with the Blood of a Sacrifice, I know this one guy who confirmed another Covenant with the Blood of His Sacrifice after He fulfilled this Covenant, Hes a really amazing person you should get to know Him, His name is Jesus...

Matt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Yes I do believe the Most High made a covenant/agreement/contract with Israel. I do not believe the law was this covenant/agreement/contract because of Deuteromony 28 saying that if they obey the law, they would be blessed and if they disobeyed, they'd be cursed. Of course this is a paraphrase of the chapter, as the chapter is very detailed into what will happen to the Israelites if they disobeyed/obeyed. Somehow none of these blessing/curses happened to the people you all call Israelites today, but thats neither here nor there I guess.

Deuteronomy 28, because of Deuteronomy 29:1 essentially saying that Deuteronomy 28 is the covenant, says that the contract was obey and get blessed/disobey gt cursed. The "contract" was not "do not steal, do not covet, honor your father and mother etc..." all the way down.

 

[JoChris]

I think you'd be better off if you didnt assume that Im muslim because I dont agree with your stance. Couldnt be further from the truth. But I guess my "founder" if not the Most High, would be Moses.

Also, what am I missing here? Jesus comes and preaches to his disciples. He doesnt (to me recollection) make mention of them NOT following the law. He then tells them to go make disiciples of ALL nations going by what he taught them. So why arent you a believer in following the commandments He did again? Is there a place where Jesus insinuates for us that come after Him to NOT follow the law that Im forgetting?

In this thread it should go without mentioning that Jesus is not Paul and Paul is not Jesus. I say this because Im sure there is something from his letters, that you can use to justify your stance. Im wondering if its the same for Jesus...

Sincere apologies for assuming you were a Muslim. I haven't ever met any Jews or Old Testament believers only before, online or in real life.
But the apostles did go and teach everything Jesus did to them personally in the Gospels, reworded and rephrased for the individual church/ group of churches.
Love for God and love for neighbour was the summary of Old Testament Law. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:36-40&version=KJV

Loving your neighbour as a sign of faith in Jesus Christ is covered especially well in 1 (Letter of) John. Obviously not written by apostle Paul.

 

[Daciple]

I do not believe the law was this covenant/agreement/contract

I mean do whatever mental gymnastics youd like to try and keep your made up Religion to make sense to you but umm the Book of the Covenant contained what exactly?

Ex 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

I mean you can go ahead and read Ex 20-24 for yourself, that is the Law, IDK what else you choose to call it, but again I already know where you stand on this, there isnt any convincing you and I also can read between the lines to see you believe in that nonsense that Black People are the Israelities. Again you wrest all the Scriptures to your own destruction, Israel indeed had all the curses happen to them maybe go back and read the Bible again, smh...

 

[KoncreteMind]

Except for the fact that you can't describe what it means to fulfill the law? In your view, if the law does not change in saying that it is fulfilled rather than changed, then we should be presenting offerings too.

Theres nothing in the law that suggests that the law being "fulfilled" by someone/anyone means that others do not have to follow it. And I could explain how Jeremiah says the pen of the scribes handled the law falsely and Ezekiel wrote that God said He (as in God Himself) gave Israel over to statutes they could not keep after they (Israel) disobeyed His own law. Or I could explain how the law says that we shouldnt be presenting offerings with no temple, but shouldnt these be things YOU came across when you read the OT?

Also, when Jesus says that we should follow His commands, He does not retell the 3 books of law. When people say we should follow His commands which say that the law was not changed but fullfilled, it is as though they have never read the Old Testament to begin with. This is why Paul has more authority than people who object to Paul as an apostle. He was someone that knew the law better than the disciples. When Jesus says He fulfilled the law, Paul would understand what this meant, but that is not the point.

The real point is that I have read the Old Testament for myself and the authority of scripture is based on the way it integrates into all places. The Bible has authority because I know how the Old Testament is applied to the new Testament or how it is fulfilled. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't really believe that the cross was an offering for sin because this shouldn't be necessary? How is that you criticize Paul when you don't even believe this part of the Gospel. Then, you criticize people for not adhering to Christ over Paul, when you don't even believe in the account of the cross. I just think it becomes all kinds of confusing.

It is one thing to say that Jesus says that the law is fulfilled. It is another thing to not know the law well enough to define how it is fulfilled in accordance with the law in any way that provides a better description than the one you are criticizing. I know that the law is fulfilled, that is why I believe in the authority of scripture. This includes the writings of Paul.

To discuss what "fulfill" meant, we'd have to go thru a list of things that the OT says starting with what I posted in the first part of this post. I left christianity alone because most people in it, were not interested in answering such questions because it threatens the legitimacy of christianity to begin with. And theres really more where that came from.. Speaking from experience, which you dont have to believe, when the bible starts saying something against christianity, christians shy away from the topic. I've seen this with pastors even...

I have to be honest. I find it hard to believe that you read the OT, then the NT, then became Christian lol. I mean I cant speak on your experience so I cant say it DIDNT happen this way, only that its hard to believe. I'd be more likely to believe that you had some kind of inkling towards christianity, and read the OT and the NT thru that lens of understanding. Because honestly speaking, once you read the OT, then you should have, and I mean without a doubt, walked away with the understanding that the foundation of your "faith" is in following the Torah, i.e. God's INSTRUCTIONS, to the best of your ability because in that is life. I can take it a step further, if you read the words of Jesus and Jesus alone, again, you should walk away with the understanding that following the Torah, which isnt "law" as I've stated but is really instruction, is the foundation of your faith. If Im wrong, then you would be able to show, from these things (the OT or Jesus words) how we are NOT to follow the law. But the problem is, you cant. So from my perspective, I can only assume that Im not wrong with the conclusion I came to.

 

[KoncreteMind]

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unlearned and Unstable wresting Paul and the other Scriptures unto their own destruction...

This is speaking of people who say they read the bible but came away with the conclusion that we should NOT follow God's laws lol. Because to Israel, THAT brings and brought destruction.

While I didnt declare to be saved so that could be my destination, thats not speaking of my position. Thats speaking of your position.

Might want to quote the Scripture verbatim so we know what Jesus actually told them to do:

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And what was Jesus Command? Was it follow the Law? Or something else?

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.J

I assume you also reject John but here is what John who walked with Jesus says was the Commandment of Jesus:

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

This is the Commandments of Jesus, not the Law and of course everyone knows you dont even keep the Law you are out here trying to tell others they need to keep...

The thing is Im not trying to get you to follow anything. Most people, like Jesus said, will not find the path to life. Which is why most people read the bible, and come away with a conclusion that they are to NOT follow the law to the best of their ability. I mean how do you even come to the conclusion that when "Jesus" comes back that he's coming back for YOU and not to gather the Israelites to their homeland like they thought he was going to do the first time?

So please, can we keep it on the topic and not persons? Because again, I could point out things about your person that wouldnt be so nice to say also...

 

[KoncreteMind]

Sincere apologies for assuming you were a Muslim. I haven't ever met any Jews or Old Testament believers only before, online or in real life.
But the apostles did go and teach everything Jesus did to them personally in the Gospels, reworded and rephrased for the individual church/ group of churches.
Love for God and love for neighbour was the summary of Old Testament Law. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:36-40&version=KJV

Loving your neighbour as a sign of faith in Jesus Christ is covered especially well in 1 (Letter of) John. Obviously not written by apostle Paul.

Its not a problem at all, just thought I'd point that out but yes, I agree that Jesus was simplifying the OT to Loving God and your neighbor. What Im wondering about is where Jesus, not Paul, led us to the conclusion that we should not be following the law?

 

[rainerann]

Its not a problem at all, just thought I'd point that out but yes, I agree that Jesus was simplifying the OT to Loving God and your neighbor. What Im wondering about is where Jesus, not Paul, led us to the conclusion that we should not be following the law?

Paul's description is a description of the fulfillment of the law. He does not say we should not follow the law. He explains how it is fulfilled. Can you give a better description? What would you do with the law concerning lepers?

 

[KoncreteMind]

I mean do whatever mental gymnastics youd like to try and keep your made up Religion to make sense to you but umm the Book of the Covenant contained what exactly?

For one, I dont know know why you approach scripture and discussion of it negatively. Maybe a christian website where everyone believes exactly as you do would keep your mood in better places? Secondly, whats made up about what Deuteronomy 29:1 says? That very first verse says that the chapter before it is the covenant. In the chapter before it, it says:

Deuteronomy 28:1 Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God:

AND

15 “But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

This is the AGREEMENT that God made with Israel that day. That if they obeyed His COMMANDMENTS (i.e. law/instructions/TORAH) they'd be blessed if they disobeyed, they'd be cursed. You dont want to address this, but somehow want me to read Exodus 20-24? lol

I mean you can go ahead and read Ex 20-24 for yourself, that is the Law, IDK what else you choose to call it, but again I already know where you stand on this, there isnt any convincing you and I also can read between the lines to see you believe in that nonsense that Black People are the Israelities. Again you wrest all the Scriptures to your own destruction, Israel indeed had all the curses happen to them maybe go back and read the Bible again, smh...

I never said the covenant wasnt based on the law. But "do not steal" is not a covenant. Its a LAW. its a COMMAND. The covenant God made with Israel was that if they obeyed the law of not stealing (amongst others) they'd be BLESSED and if they disobeyed they'd be CURSED to certain measures. I brought up Deuteronomy 28 to explain the covenant not to bring up the fact that blacks are Israelites, though, yes, they are lol. I didnt have to "wrest" with that one either since Deuteronomy 28 says that the curses would be a SIGN on the descedants of the Israelites, and the only people in modern times that they can comfortably rest upon, are blacks in the Americas. But thats a subject again, most christians dont want to broach so I usually leave it alone just like the bible depicting the earth as being flat with water above it (might as well let that one out too)....

 

[JoChris]

Its not a problem at all, just thought I'd point that out but yes, I agree that Jesus was simplifying the OT to Loving God and your neighbor. What Im wondering about is where Jesus, not Paul, led us to the conclusion that we should not be following the law?

Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is talking about faith in Him is what brings eternal life. Not works. Not faith PLUS good works. Faith. Look at results for Gospel of John (New Testament).
Read https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=Believe&begin=50&end=5

The Gospel of John also says that if we love we will obey His commandments. That is not a contradiction of faith in Christ is what saves a Christian. People who already love God seek to please Him.