There are at least 1050 commands of God in the New Testament writings.
Who was 1 Peter written to?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
turbosixx
New member
I didn't know that.
Peter does refer to Paul's writings, yes.
Ben Masada
New member
You should doubt Luke who was the one who implied that Peter did not have the ability to write books. (Acts 4:13)
Did you say Peter had a scribe?
Ben Masada
New member
It seems to me that you have never been in touch with a Jew. When one takes upon himself to read the NT, it won't take too long for him to learn what you have taken almost all your lifetime to understand. The problem is that Jews in general don't show up here to discuss with Christians is because they consider a waste of their time to spend it with anti-Jewish Theology.
The Bible is not anti-Jewish Ben Masada. The early church was entirely Jewish. At least in its conception it was.
Ben Masada
New member
1 - Right! I am glad you know that. It is an explanation why Christians cannot accept proofs that go against their Christian preconceived notions.
2 - Not my assertion but Luke's assertion. I was not the one who wrote the book of Acts but Luke. The verse does not refer to Paul but to Peter and John only.
3 - Again: Not my idea but the idea of Luke. You too seem not to understand what we are talking about.
4 - Oh! Finally! It indeed is. Hence Peter and John were illiterate and illiterate people cannot write books.
5 - They who perceived were of those who listened to them and had some acquaintance with them.
6 - In any English dictionary if you have one.
Ben Masada
New member
This is absolutely an anti-Jewish statement for two reasons. First because it must be metaphorical to be Jewish and second, Jesus as a Jew, has never returned from the grave to be seated down at the right hand of God in flesh because God is a Spirit and spirits are incorporeal. (John 4:24)
Ben Masada
New member
No! Absolutely not. He followed God's Law as a predator follows the victim: To destroy it. If you read Romans 7:9-25, the Law served only to bring death to him. (v.8) Without the Law, Paul could live in sin without any pain of conscience but after he read about the Law, sin revived and caused his life to become unbearable to live since to live meant death to him. (v.9) Somehow, he knew that the Law is spiritual but, what could he do if he was carnal, sold under sin? (v.14) It seemed that Paul had got so accustomed to the way he used to live before that, after he found out from the Law that it was sinful, he started hating to have to live that way but he would do all the same. (v.15) Then he arrived to the conclusion of how sinful was to live that way but he could not change the sinful condition that dwelt in him. (v.17)
What had become an unbearable struggle for Paul was to love God's Law in his mind while serving the law of sin in his flesh. (v.22,23) Therefore, he considered himself a wretched man who could find no deliverance from the body of death that forced him to serve the Law of God in his mind only while serving sin in his flesh. (v. 24,25) All the above is about the famous sinful thorn on the side of Paul. Do you have any idea what could it have been? I can't be more specific here than I have been, and tell you what every thing was about Paul but, one more thing I feel allowed to add. Paul had been born on the wrong time in History. Had he been born today, he would not have to live under such sinful repressed feelings which made his life so miserable.
achduke
Active member
Paul was the best of the best when it came to knowing and observing Judaism. He followed it perfectly. But Judaism is not God's law so he was sinning. He was a pharisee who Jesus noted were following their own traditions making God's law null.
What do you mean the right hand of God in flesh? What does the "in flesh" part mean here?
The Bible says many times that Jesus is at the right hand of God.
I don't know what incorporeal means. I know God is Spirit. Jesus is not spirit.
It is not anti-Jewish.
Also, I'm not sure if metaphor / metaphorical is the right word... but the point is Jesus died for you. And that it was not a human sacrifice. Human sacrifice is or would be against God's Law. It is forbidden by God, and it is not what is meant here in this verse.
Nothing was repressed, and Paul did talk about the difference between what we want to do and what we find ourselves doing in spite of what we want to do which is right to do.
Remember, Paul said "but thanks be to God"! Do you recall what he was thanking God for?
As for the "thorn in the flesh" I don't believe it was sin. Paul knew what sin was, but the thorn in the flesh was not it.
Here is how I know Paul "followed the Law".
Acts 21:24 NASB - 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
Paul had already become a believer by this time, and ministered to Gentiles even.
Acts 21:24 NASB - 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
1 Corinthians 9:21 NASB - 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
You have presented no evidence that unlearned, means illiterate. There are many people without formal educations that can read and write.
achduke
Active member
I am talking about his past before his conversion on the road to Damascus.
Was he keeping, following, observing the law then (at that time)?
achduke
Active member
He was keeping and following the laws of the pharisees which were full of leaven.
Paul was among the best of the pharisees.
Following the law on our own is self-righteous. We should have righteous that comes from God.