Was Paul A False Apostle And Were His Writings Correct?

[rainerann]

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?



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.

I have read the law many times. I love Moses just as much as I love Paul. the fulfillment of the law is the end of many aspects of it. Christ is the end of many of the laws and the fulfillment as a result. That is what the term fulfillment means-the end of it. So the law does not change, but it does come to an end--because it has been fulfilled.

For example, it was the law that after a women had given birth to a boy, she would be unclean for 33 days. However, if she had a girl, she would be unclean for 66 days (Leviticus 12). This was because of the curse that was given to Eve (Genesis 3:16). This was because part of the curse included a women serving a man as her master. Therefore, a women would be unclean for 33 more days if she had a girl than if she had a boy.

This law is fulfilled, so Paul says there is no male or female. Saying this is the instruction for how the law was fulfilled that distinguished a man or women from birth according to the curse (Galatians 3:28).

So, I will ask again, how would you define how the law was fulfilled differently from the apostle Paul?

 

[KoncreteMind]

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.

Is this your way of conceding that Jesus doesnt suggest that we are to NOT follow the law to the best of our ability?

 

[grateful servant]

So the law does not change, but it does come to an end--because it has been fulfilled.

If Jesus already fulfilled it then there would be no need for him to return.

 

[rainerann]

If Jesus already fulfilled it then there would be no need for him to return.

Could you elaborate?

 

[KoncreteMind]

I have read the law many times. I love Moses just as much as I love Paul. the fulfillment of the law is the end of many aspects of it. Christ is the end of many of the laws and the fulfillment as a result. That is what the term fulfillment means-the end of it. So the law does not change, but it does come to an end--because it has been fulfilled.

For example, it was the law that after a women had given birth to a boy, she would be unclean for 33 days. However, if she had a girl, she would be unclean for 66 days. This was because of the curse that was given to Eve (Genesis 3:16). This was because part of the curse included a women serving a man as her master. Therefore, a women would be unclean for 33 more days if she had a girl than if she had a boy.

This law is fulfilled, so Paul says there is no male or female. Saying this is the instruction for how the law was fulfilled that distinguished a man or women from birth according to the curse (Galatians 3:28).

So, I will ask again, how would you define how the law was fulfilled differently from the apostle Paul?

I think the problem lies in that you're asking me to explain what fulfill means (even though I started the discussion off in the post you quoted) instead of asking yourself where the law details in itself that it can be fulfilled to the sense where its not to be followed anymore? Shouldnt that be the first question? Where does the law say that in the future (or at some time) it is to not be followed anymore?

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?

That has to do with Jesus "fulfilling" the law.

 

[rainerann]

I think the problem lies in that you're asking me to explain what fulfill means (even though I started the discussion off in the post you quoted) instead of asking yourself where the law details in itself that it can be fulfilled to the sense where its not to be followed anymore? Shouldnt that be the first question? Where does the law say that in the future (or at some time) it is to not be followed anymore?



That has to do with Jesus "fulfilling" the law.

So then what you are saying is that you cannot express a definition for how the law was fulfilled based on your own independent study of the law that would contradict the writings of Paul. I gave a specific example from the law for how it was fulfilled in support of the apostle Paul, but you are unable to counter this with an example from the law that further proves that there is a contradiction between the words of Christ and the words of Paul.

How many times have you read through the Old Testament and/or the law, and which one of those laws do you want to keep?

 

[JoChris]

Is this your way of conceding that Jesus doesnt suggest that we are to NOT follow the law to the best of our ability?

How did you get that? Following the law out of love for God as a result of salvation is extremely different from following the law to earn salvation.
From Old Testament:
1. No-one measures up to God's standards. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14:2-3&version=KJV
2. It is faith, not works that saves. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk+2:4&version=KJV
https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-salvation.html

 

[KoncreteMind]

So then what you are saying is that you cannot express a definition for how the law was fulfilled based on your own independent study of the law that would contradict the writings of Paul. I gave a specific example from the law for how it was fulfilled in support of the apostle Paul, but you are unable to counter this with an example from the law that further proves that there is a contradiction between the words of Christ and the words of Paul.

No Im not saying that. Its more that you're not even trying to have a discussion. You want me to engage in this on your terms, instead of both of us bringing something to the table and both of us taking from what the other brought to the table and responding to it. I responded to your point about Paul's view on "fulfillment" of the law by asking you where the law even states that the law could be fulfilled in a manner to which it didnt have to be followed anymore? If you dont have an answer, you could just say so...

How many times have you read through the Old Testament and/or the law, and which one of those laws do you want to keep?

I dont know how many times I've read thru the OT and I want to follow all that the Most High wants me to follow. What about you?

 

[KoncreteMind]

How did you get that? Following the law out of love for God as a result of salvation is extremely different from following the law to earn salvation.
From Old Testament:
1. No-one measures up to God's standards. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+14:2-3&version=KJV
2. It is faith, not works that saves. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk+2:4&version=KJV
https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-salvation.html

So you believe in following the Passover? Feast of Tabernacles?

1. Abraham and Noah measured up to God's standards. Maybe its you that cannot measure up to His standards (and I disagree) but you shouldnt put that on everyone else if you believe that to be the case.
2. And included in faith is works.

 

[JoChris]

So you believe in following the Passover? Feast of Tabernacles?

1. Abraham and Noah measured up to God's standards. Maybe its you that cannot measure up to His standards (and I disagree) but you shouldnt put that on everyone else if you believe that to be the case.
2. And included in faith is works.

No. Ceremonial and legal laws for Jews.
Moral laws in Old Testament are repeated, often re-worded using positive words in New Testament.

Do not commit adultery becomes husbands love your wives. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5:25-27&version=KJV
Do not bear false witness becomes provide things honest... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12:17&version=KJV
Do not covet your neighbour's goods becomes rejoice with those who rejoice... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12:15-16&version=KJV

A husband who truly loves his wife as commanded would never commit adultery. ETC.

 

[rainerann]

No Im not saying that. Its more that you're not even trying to have a discussion. You want me to engage in this on your terms, instead of both of us bringing something to the table and both of us taking from what the other brought to the table and responding to it. I responded to your point about Paul's view on "fulfillment" of the law by asking you where the law even states that the law could be fulfilled in a manner to which it didnt have to be followed anymore? If you dont have an answer, you could just say so...



I dont know how many times I've read thru the OT and I want to follow all that the Most High wants me to follow. What about you?

You're not saying it but you don't have an example to offer for the law is to be applied in a way that would contradict the writings of Paul.

I am not asking you to engage on my terms. I am asking you to engage in a discussion that is legitimate by showing that you can use the law to support your argument that the law should still be in practice in it's every detail.

However, all you have responded with is that the lying scribes are part of the problem. Therefore, is the law even accurate in your estimation? If the law is tampered with, what does it mean if Jesus says it is fulfilled? Then, how does Paul even become an issue in a discussion that is based on whether the lying scribes have tampered with the law? What you are saying then is that we should take Jesus at His word, but question whether or not the law that we have is accurate in order to know what He meant by it or vice versa. This is all sorts of confusing and requires other sources to support it at this point. You need to break out other history books to support tampering with the law, in order to demonstrate that we don't have the law. Then, you would need to use this in order to claim that Jesus meant that the law was fulfilled in some other way according to a law that was not tampered with. But, did Jesus really even say this, and if He didn't, why should we go to all this trouble?

That is why the Bible is so amazing because you can thread continuity through many centuries and many writers to come to conclusions like I tried to present in my example with the curse, and the period of being unclean, and then Jesus saying the law was fulfilled, and Paul saying there was no male or female. It is like passing a torch and it is why the Bible has an anointing, including the writings of Paul. It starts with the curse, it goes to the law, it is passed to Christ, then continued with Paul. That is why the Bible has authority. Therefore, what does Jesus mean when He says the law was fulfilled?

So it would all be much easier and clearer if you could just use the law to support your argument instead of trying to tiptoe around it.

 

[KoncreteMind]

You're not saying it but you don't have an example to offer for the law is to be applied in a way that would contradict the writings of Paul.

I am not asking you to engage on my terms. I am asking you to engage in a discussion that is legitimate by showing that you can use the law to support your argument that the law should still be in practice in it's every detail.

If you're not asking me to engage on your terms, than why isnt my answer good enough? I've repeatedly said to you that theres no mention in the law of the law being "fulfilled" by someone at some future point in time and at that time that meaning that no one else had to follow it anymore, so why would that be something Im expected to explain?

However, all you have responded with is that the lying scribes are part of the problem. Therefore, is the law even accurate in your estimation? If the law is tampered with, what does it mean if Jesus says it is fulfilled? Then, how does Paul even become an issue in a discussion that is based on whether the lying scribes have tampered with the law? What you are saying then is that we should take Jesus at His word, but question whether or not the law that we have is accurate in order to know what He meant by it or vice versa. This is all sorts of confusing and requires other sources to support it at this point. You need to break out other history books to support tampering with the law, in order to demonstrate that we don't have the law. Then, you would need to use this in order to claim that Jesus meant that the law was fulfilled in some other way according to a law that was not tampered with. But, did Jesus really even say this, and if He didn't, why should we go to all this trouble?

That is why the Bible is so amazing because you can thread continuity through many centuries and many writers to come to conclusions like I tried to present in my example with the curse, and the period of being unclean, and then Jesus saying the law was fulfilled, and Paul saying there was no male or female. It is like passing a torch and it is why the Bible has an anointing, including the writings of Paul. It starts with the curse, it goes to the law, it is passed to Christ, then continued with Paul. That is why the Bible has authority. Therefore, what does Jesus mean when He says the law was fulfilled?

So it would all be much easier and clearer if you could just use the law to support your argument instead of trying to tiptoe around it.

Group A- Everyone from Moses to Jesus/James in the bible: "We're going to follow the law and you should too"

Group B- MAYBE Peter/Paul: "We're going to kinda/sorta follow the law but you shouldnt"

KM: I think Im going to go in Group A's footsteps
Rainerann: Why? Why shouldnt we go in Group B's footsteps?

Thats essentially where we are in this conversation. You really havent established exactly where Im off base with this line of thinking. Also what do I have to "prove" concerning the law being tampered with when its Jeremiah (not me) who made the statement that it was tampered with? When its God who said He gave Israel over to statutes they could not keep? Shouldnt you be going to God for that understanding on why He had His servants write those things down if we were not to take them as I did? Certain things in the bible can only be established by precept over precept, but if you cant even accept the first one, how could I go further at establishing anything? You'd argue against Jeremiah saying the lying PEN of the SCRIBES handled the law falsely, so how could I go further to Ezekiel and show that God Himself gave Israel over to statutes they could not keep (i.e. the corrupted law)? You keep asking me to explain what he meant by fulfill, but you're not even addressing the starting point.

Instead of continuously speaking for me and suggesting what Im saying, why not leave it at what is actually being said in my posts? What my posts actually suggest is that you should probably approach scripture from the lens of the Israelites so that you could see that Jesus only came to restore them to their worship of God and not institute a "new" way of worship like what would have happened if we went with the assumption that "Jesus" instituted "christianity".

 

[KoncreteMind]

No. Ceremonial and legal laws for Jews.
Moral laws in Old Testament are repeated, often re-worded using positive words in New Testament.

Do not commit adultery becomes husbands love your wives. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5:25-27&version=KJV
Do not bear false witness becomes provide things honest... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12:17&version=KJV
Do not covet your neighbour's goods becomes rejoice with those who rejoice... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12:15-16&version=KJV

A husband who truly loves his wife as commanded would never commit adultery. ETC.

See thats where you lose me. You just said that you follow the laws of God out of love for God, but when I ask you specific laws that were of God, you say you dont follow them. Of course to each their own, but Im just not seeing the logic that led you to that conclusion...

 

[JoChris]

See thats where you lose me. You just said that you follow the laws of God out of love for God, but when I ask you specific laws that were of God, you say you dont follow them. Of course to each their own, but Im just not seeing the logic that led you to that conclusion...

The specific ceremonial laws, rituals e.g. sacrifice of sheep, and legal laws made only for Jews in Old Testament.

http://crossexamined.org/cherry-picking-the-bible-are-christians-expected-to-follow-the-levitical-laws/

E.g. I doubt very much if you/ your wife would obey the whole Old Testament uncleanness laws for that time of the month. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+15:19-30&version=KJV

 

[Kung Fu]

A non-Christian text written at least 500 years AFTER the last book of New Testament is disqualified.
No Muslim was present in 1st century AD, therefore Islamic beliefs have no relevance.

The KJV was compiled 1400 years after the "death" of Jesus and all known manuscripts are dated after the 1st century AD. Your most complete and oldest Bibles were compiled 200-300 years after the 1st century. If you disagree show me one NT manuscript that dates all the way back to the 1st century?

No Christian was present during the 1st century and even to this day we still have no idea who their writers really were.

Please get your facts straight before you attempt to discredit others.

 

[Kung Fu]

Manama, those people actually knew Jesus personally OR the apostles personally.

Outside of the Bible, which is full of forgeries and inconsistencies and not to mention copies of one another, there is absolutely no proof that these people are who they say they are or that they even existed, or that they ever even met Jesus or knew him personally.

 

[JoChris]

Outside of the Bible, which is full of forgeries and inconsistencies and not to mention copies of one another, there is absolutely no proof that these people are who they say they are or that they even existed, or that they ever even met Jesus or knew him personally.

Can you provide *proper* evidence to back up those claims of yours?

The KJV was compiled 1400 years after the "death" of Jesus and all known manuscripts are dated after the 1st century AD. Your most complete and oldest Bibles were compiled 200-300 years after the 1st century. If you disagree show me one NT manuscript that dates all the way back to the 1st century?

No Christian was present during the 1st century and even to this day we still have no idea who their writers really were.

Please get your facts straight before you attempt to discredit others.

No Christian was present in 1st century AD?
Evidence that no Christian existed in 1st century AD please. i.e. no followers of Jesus Christ.

KJV is a *translation* of the scripts that have been passed down through the centuries. Even the oldest copies of the New Testament found are still dated more than 3 centuries BEFORE Muhammad was born. http://irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php

 

[Daciple]

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.

Wait what? Goodness KM you think Peter is making a case for your position and against Paul? Sorry but that is not the case, it is very obvious to anyone who reads just that verse let alone the surrounding text that Peter is literally endorsing Paul and his doctrine.

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?

You are correct that most people wont find the path to Life, and Jesus specifically told us exactly how to find the path of Life which was to believe on Him not the Law, because He is the Way the Truth and the Life. He also said to love one another and by doing so you are keeping the Entire Law.

It is clear that your made up Doctrine is the complete Anti Thesis to what Jesus and the Apostles all taught and preached so according to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles your Doctrine one doesnt lead to Life, and second your Doctrine since it doesnt lead to Christ and Christ Alone leads to Death and Hell. You can say you are not trying to get anyone to follow anything but the fact of the matter is you are clearly endorsing your Doctrine as the correct Doctrine thus the way to Life, while negating the Doctrine people are showing is the Doctrine to the way of Life according to Jesus, the Apostles and the Word of God. We can do a dance but the facts are when we lay our cards on the table your telling people that in order to have Eternal Life they need to accept the things you say and those who dont arent going to find Eternal Life, and I am out here preaching the Gospel which is the only way anyone will find Eternal Life, which is what all the Apostles and Jesus preached. I am not here to mince words, I am here to preach the Gospel, to show others the path to Eternal Life, and hope that those who are reading can come to hear the Gospel and be saved, aka find the path to Eternal Life. If you want to tell me that you dont believe the Doctrine you preach is the Doctrine to Life and you are out here trying to explain it so others can find Life then so be it but I dont accept that, no need to beat around the bush for political correctness....

I also want to point out to those reading that you put quotes around Jesus, because you dont actually believe in Jesus, you have made up your own Religion apart from Christ and even Moses, Abraham and all the forefathers, because in all reality the Faith of Moses, Abraham, Jacob and the forefathers is the Faith in Christ the Messiah, which is preached by the Apostles and made known in the New Testament...

You ask why I believe Jesus is coming back for me? Because by Faith in Him and Him alone, accepting the Gospel which is that I am wicked sinner with nothing righteous in and of myself, which I come to find by the fact that it is utterly impossible for me to keep the Law even 10 of the Commandments let alone 613, that my Sin had separated me from God. That because of this Separation and the Wrath that comes upon Sinners spoken of in the Law, I was only worthy of that Wrath and Eternal Separation from God in Hell. However Christ came and declared that He has as prophesied in the Old Testament, come to fulfill the Scriptures, to fulfill the Law so that being the Sacrifice needed to cleanse Sin, just as the Old Testament Sacrifices would do for the moment, He has done once and for all, and thru Faith in Him the Blood and His Righteousness has been applied to me, thus I have been granted by Grace thru Faith Eternal Life. Which is the only way anyone can find Eternal Life, all other Doctrine and Paths lead to Hell.

I believe what He said concerning those who believed on Him for Eternal Life, which is that He is He has gone away to prepare a mansion for me in Heaven and when He returns it will be for those who believe on Him as the Messiah, the Son of God who died on the Cross for their Sins, that became the Propitiation for their Sins and who 3 days later Resurrected overcoming Death and Sin declaring that the Sacrifice was accepted and then proceeded to Ascend to the Right Hand of the Father..

The Israelities believed He was going to do alot of things, but He ended up not doing most of them as they had believed, and I believe His 2nd Coming with be the exactly the same concerning those who believe they are the physical descendants of Israel, who put stock in that as tho it matters, it will be another rude awakening for them because He isnt coming back to do what they want Him to do, He is bringing Judgement upon everyone who rejects the Gospel regardless of heritage. People who think Jews will get some free pass are sorely mistaken, no one enters the Kingdom of God unless they accept Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God who died on the Cross for their Sins and if they havent done so by the time He Returns, the door is shut, Judgement awaits all who reject the Gospel..

 

[JoChris]

Outside of the Bible, which is full of forgeries and inconsistencies and not to mention copies of one another, there is absolutely no proof that these people are who they say they are or that they even existed, or that they ever even met Jesus or knew him personally.

A huge amount of evidence disproves that claim of yours. http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/asbook11.asp#Early Church: First Century

 

[Kung Fu]

Can you provide *proper* evidence to back up those claims of yours?

I'll gladly give you proof of the forgeries. However, the burden of proof is on you since YOU first claimed that they knew him personally. I'll make it easy for you. There's absolutely no proof outside of the Bible, which is unreliable due to forgery, to identify who these gospel writers actually were. For example, Luke never met Jesus, Mark was probably written by Peter, and etc. But if you believe they did know him personally then please back up the claim.

No Christian was present in 1st century AD?
Evidence that no Christian existed in 1st century AD please. i.e. no followers of Jesus Christ.

KJV is a *translation* of the scripts that have been passed down through the centuries. Even the oldest copies of the New Testament found are still dated more than 3 centuries BEFORE Muhammad was born. http://irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php

I didn't say, followers of Jesus, I said Christians.

Your very own link says that you don't have the original manuscripts and the ones you do have don't even match one another. You're talking about 3 centuries before Muhammad as opposed to Christians not even having the original manuscripts and the ones that came 300 years laters don't even match with one another.

Now let's get on to the KJV and forgeries. You say the KJV is a translation of the scripts that have been passed down through the centuries yet why does John 5: 7-8, in the KJV, read as such “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”?

The bolded portion doesn't exist in any Greek manuscripts prior the 15th century and some of the Latin texts that contain it, which were copied from the original Vulgate are not in the original Vulgate written by Jerome. Also, it's not in the oldest and most complete Bibles available to us such as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. What this means is that when the Textus Receptus was created it was inserted and made it look like it was written by John, which then by definition becomes a forgery. They passed it off as being written by John when John never wrote it. That's called forgery.