Your opinion on God’s Law.

[IMJerusha]

I never said otherwise. But the crux is the presuppositions of Christ brought to the table. Is he merely a teacher and example? Is He a law giver? Or is He the Logos of God incarnate, by whose death and resurrection we are reconciled with God? If the former, than go ahead and forsake Paul. But that is not even how Christ represent Himself, nor how the gospel writers represent Him. Paul simply, eloquently, and beautiful explains the gospel of Christ. The Revelation of Christ given to Paul is a simple tool for those in Christ, a record of the testimony and witness of Christ.

Not just the former but also, and most importantly, the latter, no thanks to Paul if you get my drift.

Of course Jesus, Yeshua, is enough. But who is this Messiah? And how do we know Him?

Through many ways not the least of which is the Ruach, God's Holy Spirit.

 

[Aletheiophile]

Agreed.



I agree with this as well, however, Paul would be the first to tell us (and he did) that he didn't die for us, Yeshua did. It is through Yeshua that we have life, not through Paul, so there is no need to feel sorry for one who clings solely to Him.



I can't speak to that. I do know, however, that Yeshua is enough.

Me? I have no complaint with Paul other than he made things difficult for some to understand but Peter felt the same way. I figure we'll get it all straight when we gather at the Lord's table.



My mention of "anyone" was in the context of Yeshua, not Paul, my point being that one need not ever read one single word of Paul's in order to know and love Yeshua.



Perhaps you should read John 10 or consider the fact that Yeshua proclaimed salvation to anyone who had ears to hear and would listen.



You are aware that, according to Scripture, God chose His people from among Gentiles? Gentiles are unbelievers. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about that.

I think you're still missing the boat. I spent over a year in Hebrew Roots, and I felt similarly. I would hardly read outside of the Torah, and when I did it was the Gospels. I did not like reading the New Testament because I could only see how people misunderstood the Old Testament. But really, I was afraid of being confronted with the truth of God's Grace.

I believe the point that PPS is trying to make is that Paul represents Christ. When I was saved out of law-method and self-righteousness into the True Gospel of Christ, I fell in love with the letters of Paul because I found my savior your there. And because I had spent time in Hebrew Roots, I connected with Paul at that level understanding the typology and allusions.

That is why it is a loss for someone not to read Paul. Paul laid down his own mind, will, emotions, and desires to submit to the doctrine of Christ. His epistles are unadulterated Christ. Pure and simple.

So of course Jesus is enough, and He is not limited to the Gospels.

Besides, limiting oneself to the Gospel accounts betrays an unfortunate ignorance of the production of scripture. All of the New Testament texts were relatively contemporary compared to the OT texts and other "holy" scriptures. In the early church there was not some exclusive position of the gospels that the letters were only secondary. The majority of what is now canon was highly regarded and much viewed as inspired from even the first century. Writers such as Irrenaeus cite Paul's letters as scripture.

Christ is the perfect representation and manifestation of El Shaddai, so of course He is enough. But how do we know Him? Paul is our brother, manifesting Christ to us and thus bringing us into the gospel.

 

[eider]

Your opinion on God’s Law. Do you believe God’s Law is only for pointing out sin in a person’s life so that they can understand their need for a Savior and be saved by God and Jesus? Or, do you believe God’s Law is also to be obeyed, or is also for our obedience?

Hi....
God's laws, about 613 of them in total, were given to the Israelite people to protect them, keep them from sickness, and to generally strengthen the whole tribe.

Every single law was ideal for the above purposes AT THAT TIME.

But what some religions do with them now? Oh dear!

 

[Aletheiophile]

Not just the former but also, and most importantly, the latter, no thanks to Paul if you get my drift.



Through many ways not the least of which is the Ruach, God's Holy Spirit.

Yes...the Ruach HaKodesh via malakhim...human malakhim. How do we have the testimony of Christ? Via the apostles in the Gospels and the Epistles. What is your beef with Paul? He was a pharisee of pharisees, and bears witness to late Judaism better than any other Apostle.

If I may ask, why are you picking this issue? It seems you've latched onto something to take the conversation elsewhere.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes...the Ruach HaKodesh via malakhim...human malakhim. How do we have the testimony of Christ? Via the apostles in the Gospels and the Epistles. What is your beef with Paul? He was a pharisee of pharisees, and bears witness to late Judaism better than any other Apostle.

If I may ask, why are you picking this issue? It seems you've latched onto something to take the conversation elsewhere.

The real concern should be that Meshak (and others) deny the ontological divinity of our Lord. If He was not authentically human and divine, there is no salvation.

 

[Aletheiophile]

Your opinion on God’s Law. Do you believe God’s Law is only for pointing out sin in a person’s life so that they can understand their need for a Savior and be saved by God and Jesus? Or, do you believe God’s Law is also to be obeyed, or is also for our obedience?

Can we have a proper understanding of what Law is? Torah is not legislation. It is literally teaching. The Ten "Commandments" are not even commandments. They are the Ten Words. How can you "do" "I am YHWH your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage"? You can't. Pure and simple. All of God's Teaching is rooted in that first principle: Grace. Everything else follows from there.

In the Greek, Law is Nomos - distribution, allocation, allotment. Thus, literally the distribution of God's righteousness. How could either of these basic lexical meanings be codification or legislation? The written ordinances are according to the ontology of righteousness put forth by God. They are the result, produce, and fruit of God's Grace, not requirements for obtaining it.

If we could simply understand what Law is, a lot of these silly little disputes would be unnecessary...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Can we have a proper understanding of what Law is? Torah is not legislation. It is literally teaching. The Ten "Commandments" are not even commandments. They are the Ten Words. How can you "do" "I am YHWH your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage"? You can't. Pure and simple. All of God's Teaching is rooted in that first principle: Grace. Everything else follows from there.

In the Greek, Law is Nomos - distribution, allocation, allotment. Thus, literally the distribution of God's righteousness. How could either of these basic lexical meanings be codification or legislation? The written ordinances are according to the ontology of righteousness put forth by God. They are the result, produce, and fruit of God's Grace, not requirements for obtaining it.

If we could simply understand what Law is, a lot of these silly little disputes would be unnecessary...

I'm going to clone you so you can spread truth everywhere. What a breath of fresh pneuma/ruach.

 

[IMJerusha]

I think you're still missing the boat. I spent over a year in Hebrew Roots, and I felt similarly. I would hardly read outside of the Torah, and when I did it was the Gospels. I did not like reading the New Testament because I could only see how people misunderstood the Old Testament. But really, I was afraid of being confronted with the truth of God's Grace.

I believe the point that PPS is trying to make is that Paul represents Christ. When I was saved out of law-method and self-righteousness into the True Gospel of Christ, I fell in love with the letters of Paul because I found my savior your there. And because I had spent time in Hebrew Roots, I connected with Paul at that level understanding the typology and allusions.

That is why it is a loss for someone not to read Paul. Paul laid down his own mind, will, emotions, and desires to submit to the doctrine of Christ. His epistles are unadulterated Christ. Pure and simple.

So of course Jesus is enough, and He is not limited to the Gospels.

Besides, limiting oneself to the Gospel accounts betrays an unfortunate ignorance of the production of scripture. All of the New Testament texts were relatively contemporary compared to the OT texts and other "holy" scriptures. In the early church there was not some exclusive position of the gospels that the letters were only secondary. The majority of what is now canon was highly regarded and much viewed as inspired from even the first century. Writers such as Irrenaeus cite Paul's letters as scripture.

Christ is the perfect representation and manifestation of El Shaddai, so of course He is enough. But how do we know Him? Paul is our brother, manifesting Christ to us and thus bringing us into the gospel.

We all represent Christ, not just Paul. And if Paul's epistles were unadulterated Christ, Peter would have been anti-Christ in his words about Paul in 2 Peter 3:16.

 

[IMJerusha]

Yes...the Ruach HaKodesh via malakhim...human malakhim. How do we have the testimony of Christ? Via the apostles in the Gospels and the Epistles. What is your beef with Paul? He was a pharisee of pharisees, and bears witness to late Judaism better than any other Apostle.

If I may ask, why are you picking this issue? It seems you've latched onto something to take the conversation elsewhere.

I have no beef with Paul. My beef is with elevating Paul to something that was not intended and with cannibalism of the Body.

 

[Aletheiophile]

We all represent Christ, not just Paul. And if Paul's epistles were unadulterated Christ, Peter would have been anti-Christ in his words about Paul in 2 Peter 3:16.

???? That makes no sense. Paul and John both clearly outline spirit of Anti-Christ as denial of the doctrines of truth and physical incarnation of the Son. Peter is not denying either of those things, only admonishing the church to read Paul's letters carefully. Thus NOT anti-christian.

At this point your arguments are tangential, and not really getting to the heart of the issue. I'm not going to dance this dance if you do not answer my question already raised: What is your deal with Paul?

[edit- I was writing this while your reply was posted.]

I do not elevate Paul to godhead status. Do not misunderstand me. But the writings of Paul are foundational for Christian doctrine. Without him and the other apostles, we would be quite lost.

That said, this is still tangential to the OP and previous discussion.

 

[IMJerusha]

The real concern should be that Meshak (and others) deny the ontological divinity of our Lord. If He was not authentically human and divine, there is no salvation.

And this, Aletheiophile, is the latching and source of tangential posting I believe you were pointing out.

 

[IMJerusha]

???? That makes no sense. Paul and John both clearly outline spirit of Anti-Christ as denial of the doctrines of truth and physical incarnation of the Son. Peter is not denying either of those things, only admonishing the church to read Paul's letters carefully. Thus NOT anti-christian.

It makes sense to me. I don't see how unadulterated Christ can lead anyone to their destruction.

At this point your arguments are tangential, and not really getting to the heart of the issue. I'm not going to dance this dance if you do not answer my question already raised: What is your deal with Paul?

[edit- I was writing this while your reply was posted.]


I do not elevate Paul to godhead status. Do not misunderstand me. But the writings of Paul are foundational for Christian doctrine. Without him and the other apostles, we would be quite lost.

That said, this is still tangential to the OP and previous discussion.

Well, when one states that Paul's words are "unadulterated Christ," that's quite an elevation. That being said, all Scripture is God-breathed. In terms of salvation however, I would remind all that Yeshua stated "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That's through Him, not through a particular doctrinal understanding or a particular brother's inspired writings.

And yes, I agree that bone picking has nothing to do with the OP and previous discussion.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Paul said nothing in Hebrews. But that can be another thread.

To my point, Paul was the author of the book of Hebrews hence why i credited Paul with that verse.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

The question is what is law in relation to the new covenant? Is there a new covenant law as there was a law with the old covenant?

Essentially yes. But its not a prescriptive law as was the case with the Mosaic Law of the Torah/Pentatuch. This 'New covenant' refers only to a 'little flock' and a very specific group of anointed Christians who make up the spirtual Nation of Israel and rule with Jesus during his millenial reign as Kings and Priests of Gods heavenly government/organisation. This new covenant is why Jesus insituted the 'Lords evening meal' which replaced the Jewish passover and the previous Abrahamic covenant.

 

[meshak]

It is mysterious...that is the mystery revealed, as Paul writes.

You see, you are using Paul's teachings to make simple Jesus' word complicated. That's a grave sin, dear.

 

[meshak]

Paul was in Christ.

If you believe Paul was in Christ, you will embrace and appreciate Jesus' teachings or commands.

Paul himself strived to love God and love his neighbor as himself.

 

[meshak]

The real concern should be that Meshak (and others) deny the ontological divinity of our Lord. If He was not authentically human and divine, there is no salvation.

That's how you focus on your own doctrines, not Jesus and His word.

Jesus is the Lord, not your own doctrine and make simple Christianity complicated and confused.

This kind of comments are deceptive.

 

[jamie]

I see no reason Biblically to not do so.

Do you send your money directly to the high priest?

 

[jamie]

A person who knows God's grace is under grace and not under Law. This person still can obey God though, and always should. Not all people know the grace of God. This is why the gospel needs to be proclaimed.

The Father has changed the Mosaic law which means if you are trying to keep that defunct law you are not obeying God.

Jesus is now High Priest which is contrary to the law Christ gave to the people of Israel through Moses.

 

[jamie]

...and the previous Abrahamic covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant is with Abraham and with Christ. God has not backpedaled or rescinded his agreement with his Son nor with Abraham.

We are Abraham's seed. (Galatians 3:29)