Why Your Faith in a Doctrine or a Religion Will NOT Save You

[jsanford108]

Why include Paul?

Why did the ascended Lord deem it necessary to speak from heaven directly and uniquely to a murderer/blasphemer named Saul?

The reason to include Paul is that his writings were the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul to the church.

Compare reasons. If the claim that only Paul had the truth, there is no reason to include any other epistles. If others had truth, then the inclusion of Paul makes sense, since all the epistles would work in tandem in pointing to the teachings of Christ.

 

[steko]

The reason to include Paul is that his writings were the work of the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul to the church.

Compare reasons. If the claim that only Paul had the truth, there is no reason to include any other epistles. If others had truth, then the inclusion of Paul makes sense, since all the epistles would work in tandem in pointing to the teachings of Christ.

What is the difference between these two statements?

Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

 

[jsanford108]

What is the difference between these two statements?

Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Acts 3: Beginning in verse 20, we have a reference to the Parousia. Following, we have Peter showing that the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in Christ.

Romans 16: Paul is declaring that he is preaching the Gospel of Christ, which was a mystery, fulfilled in Christ.

Please, lead us to your next point.

 

[jsanford108]

What is the difference between these two statements?

Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Acts is Peter demonstrating Christ as fulfilling the mysteries, Romans is Paul demonstrating that Christ fulfilled the mysteries. So, the difference is two different speakers.

 

[steko]

Acts 3: Beginning in verse 20, we have a reference to the Parousia. Following, we have Peter showing that the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in Christ.

Romans 16: Paul is declaring that he is preaching the Gospel of Christ, which was a mystery, fulfilled in Christ.

Please, lead us to your next point.

Not possible at this point.

 

[jsanford108]

Not possible at this point.

Why is that? Just out of curiosity.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[steko]

Why is that? Just out of curiosity.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Futility.

 

[Tambora]

I am not calling out MADists, that is a whole different topic. Related, yes, but different.

Is Pate a MADist? If so, I honestly did not know.

And may I ask what you are implying with your quote from Matthew? I ask, just because I interpreted your point as being that the Apostles lied about Jesus being the Christ. Whereas, I believe that that particular verse is more akin to advising the Apostles to keep the identity of Christ a secret until He chose to publicly reveal it. That is just my penny's worth.

That's just it, one cannot say Matthew 16:20 is not truth.
While that instruction was certainly true at that time for those people, it is not an instruction that is true for all people of all times.

So while we, today, say that truth is not a truth we should obey today, we still cannot say that it was false at the time it was spoken.

We, today, are to tell men that He is the Christ.
That is truth.
In Matthew 16:20 they were not to tell men that He is the Christ.
That is truth.

You have two truths that oppose each other.
And yet both are truths.

So when it comes to "truth", what was once true for some to believe and adhere to is not what is true for all to believe at all times.

I'll put it this way ....
Is it truth that you should not tell men that Jesus is the Christ, or is it truth that you should tell men that Jesus is the Christ?

 

[Tambora]

What is the difference between these two statements?

Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Easy peasy.
One was revealed since the world began, and one was kept secret since the world began.

 

[jsanford108]

That's just it, one cannot say Matthew 16:20 is not truth.
While that instruction was certainly true at that time for those people, it is not an instruction that is true for all people of all times.

So while we, today, say that truth is not a truth we should obey today, we still cannot say that it was false at the time it was spoken.

We, today, are to tell men that He is the Christ.
That is truth.
In Matthew 16:20 they were not to tell men that He is the Christ.
That is truth.

You have two truths that oppose each other.
And yet both are truths.

So when it comes to "truth", what was once true for some to believe and adhere to is not what is true for all to believe at all times.

I'll put it this way ....
Is it truth that you should not tell men that Jesus is the Christ, or is it truth that you should tell men that Jesus is the Christ?

I believe you are taking that verse out of context, creating a false equivalency.

Keeping it in context, Christ was not telling the Apostles to lie or obscure the truth. Rather, He was advising them to keep what they knew to themselves, so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled. This was advise given directly to the Apostles as it suited the time frame. He did not give this command to them after His Resurrection, but the opposite.

To equate this verse as a command to all people is simply ignorance of context. Likewise, saying it is opposing other truths, is ignorant.

Allow us a suitable comparison. In the Ten Commandments, we read "do not kill." But, in only a couple books later, God commands Joshua to slay his enemies. Is this not a contradiction?

Of course not. Because, in context, we know that the Commandment is talking of needless murder. Whereas the slaying of enemies in Joshua is known to be a matter of self defense.

Hence, the verse in Matthew does not contradict or oppose any other truth set forth in the Gospels.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

Futility.

I agree. It is futile to argue against what is plainly written. I am not sure you even had a logical process for proceeding from your initial point. Thus, being derailed by accurate contextual interpretation.

But alas, I do not know you. So maybe you had some point you were gradually building to before my provided analysis.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nang]

Easy peasy.
One was revealed since the world began, and one was kept secret since the world began.

God keeps secrets from reprobates . . .

And reveals His Truths only to His chosen people.

 

[Tambora]

I believe you are taking that verse out of context, creating a false equivalency.

Keeping it in context, Christ was not telling the Apostles to lie or obscure the truth.

Right, it was not a lie Christ was telling them.
They were NOT to tell any man He was the Christ.
That is truth.

This was advise given directly to the Apostles as it suited the time frame. He did not give this command to them after His Resurrection, but the opposite.

Exactly.
Both were true, but both opposed the other.
So we see that one truth in time opposes another truth in time.

To equate this verse as a command to all people is simply ignorance of context.

Yep, and yet it was truth for them at the time.
But it was not truth for them at a later time.

Likewise, saying it is opposing other truths, is ignorant.

Not telling men that Jesus is the Christ is most definitely in opposition to telling men that Jesus is the Christ.
How can you say those two instructions do not oppose?

Allow us a suitable comparison. In the Ten Commandments, we read "do not kill." But, in only a couple books later, God commands Joshua to slay his enemies. Is this not a contradiction?

Of course not. Because, in context, we know that the Commandment is talking of needless murder. Whereas the slaying of enemies in Joshua is known to be a matter of self defense.

Yep, a difference in killing and murder, so it was not opposing the Ten Commandments.
It would only be opposing if the Ten Commandments was about any type of killing, which it was not.

But we have a clear opposing between don't tell men Jesus is the Christ, and tell men Jesus is the Christ.

Hence, the verse in Matthew does not contradict or oppose any other truth set forth in the Gospels.

It does not contradict, as both 'don't tell" and "tell" are not contradictions (because they were for different times for specific folks), but the two (don't and do) are certainly in opposition.


Don't tell ----- true for a timeframe.
Do tell ----- true for a timeframe.
No contradiction, but there is certainly opposition.

 

[jsanford108]

Right, it was not a lie Christ was telling them.
They were NOT to tell any man He was the Christ.
That is truth.



Exactly.
Both were true, but both opposed the other.
So we see that one truth in time opposes another truth in time.

Yep, and yet it was truth for them at the time.
But it was not truth for them at a later time.


Not telling men that Jesus is the Christ is most definitely in opposition to telling men that Jesus is the Christ.
How can you say those two instructions do not oppose?

Yep, a difference in killing and murder, so it was not opposing the Ten Commandments.
It would only be opposing if the Ten Commandments was about any type of killing, which it was not.

But we have a clear opposing between don't tell men Jesus is the Christ, and tell men Jesus is the Christ.

It does not contradict, as both 'don't tell" and "tell" are not contradictions (because they were for different times for specific folks), but the two (don't and do) are certainly in opposition.


Don't tell ----- true for a timeframe.
Do tell ----- true for a timeframe.
No contradiction, but there is certainly opposition.

A more suitable portrayal would be Christ saying "keep this a secret until the time is right." It eliminates the interpretation of opposition.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Tambora]

A more suitable portrayal would be Christ saying "keep this a secret until the time is right."

There is no 'until', or any time limit, in Matthew 16:20.

It eliminates the interpretation of opposition.

It adds to scripture, which we should not do.




"Do" and "don't" oppose each other, but they do no contradict each other as they were different instructions for different times.


Likewise, Paul's gospel does not contradict Peter's gospel because they were different instructions for different times.
But they do oppose.

 

[heir]

But this idea does not make sense. The Apostles literally walked and talked with Christ. How could one who did not have greater understanding of the Gospel than these?

The twelve were not committed the same gospel that Paul was.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Galatians 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Galatians 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[heir]

There is no logic or reason to include any canonical books if only Paul had the truth;

It's not that only Paul had the truth. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable...(2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV). It means what it says, as it says it and to whom it says it. It's all written FOR our learning (Romans 15:4 KJV), but it's not ALL written TO us or about us. The twelve were under command of Matthew 10:5-6 KJV. Even the Lord Himself on earth was not sent to us Matthew 15:22-24 KJV, Romans 15:8 KJV.

Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13, 1 Timothy 2:7 KJV, 2 Timothy 1:11 KJV) given the gospel by which we are saved (Galatians 1:11-12 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)/the dispensation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV) and later to us, the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:1-9 KJV). We are to follow him in doctrine (1 Corinthians 4:15-16, 1 Corinthians 11:1 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:2 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:7-8 KJV).

 

[jsanford108]

There is no 'until', or any time limit, in Matthew 16:20.


It adds to scripture, which we should not do.




"Do" and "don't" oppose each other, but they do no contradict each other as they were different instructions for different times.


Likewise, Paul's gospel does not contradict Peter's gospel because they were different instructions for different times.
But they do oppose.

There is no "until," but there is also no "do" or "don't." Our argument is one of interpretation. To claim an addition or subtraction to Scripture is false, as neither of us have done this.

Paul and Peter don't even oppose. There is a creation of dichotomy, imposed by the doctrine you are proposing. If one accepts all Scripture as true, neither oppose the other, but they work in unison.

 

[Robert Pate]

God keeps secrets from reprobates . . .

And reveals His Truths only to His chosen people.

What about the scripture that says, "God so loved the world?"

 

[jsanford108]

The twelve were not committed the same gospel that Paul was.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Galatians 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Galatians 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

By your words, Paul had a different gospel: Which would make it contrary to that taught by Christ. This makes no sense, since he came bearing the "gospel of Christ."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL