Lord's Supper at Passover

[Ron Amnsn]

One should remember the Paul never knew Jesus and was NOT taught by those who were the disciples. Therefore the gospel that Paul taught was indeed a different gospel than the one Jesus came to give

Is the criteria by which you judge Paul a valid way to judge Dr. Rich?:

"One should remember that Dr. Rich never knew Jesus and was not taught by those who were the disciples. Therefore the gospel that Dr. Rich teaches is indeed a different gospel than the one Jesus came to give."

[Dr. Rich]

Ron my friend, Dr. Rich does NOT have his own gospel! The gospel that Dr. Rich teaches is the same one that Jesus taught because (if you would check it out), he keeps telling people to read the words of Jesus given to us by His eyewitnesses!

[Musicman1228]

Ron,

Your logic amuses me. Of course I didn't eat the Passover Seder I attended years ago to 'celebrate' Passover, it was a learning experience. That fact that you 'pick nits' as you do indicates to me that you are having to stretch your thinking to accommodate these new concepts. This is a good thing.

I have added NOTHING to Scripture that is not already there. There are some things in the Bible that I choose not to use as salvation level truth, because there are many things that do not meet the standard of truth which God set for His Kingdom - by God's own words that standard is the Law and the Prophets (Matt.5:17-18) and the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 12:17). If these are good enough and sufficient for Jesus then they are good and sufficient for me.

As to 'concocting' a 'different' gospel than the one that Paul preached, I have done no such thing. That is because the Gospel of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus Christ to his own disciples counters Paul's gospel well enough on its own, and needs no further assistance from me. I merely point out the discrepancies, which you and others here on the Forum refuse to see. You prefer Paul's 'different' gospel over the gospel that Jesus taught His disciples. I even suppose you take Paul's part when he said that anyone that preaches a gospel different from the one he teaches, even should that person be an angel from Heaven, they are to be accursed.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8-9.

Given these words Paul, were he alive today, would probably curse me to my face. Is this something that sounds 'Godly' and 'righteous' to you?

I have never asked anyone to believe anything I (or Dr. Rich) have said concerning these things. I am only giving you my understanding so you know where I stand, nothing more.

As to the Woman of Rev. 12: What I have done is point out that the 'rest of Her offspring' are the brothers and sisters of the first born of this Woman; they have the exact same Father (God Almighty) and Mother (the Holy Spirit) as does Jesus Christ. Those that have been born of this Woman (the Holy Spirit) have characters IDENTICAL to that of Jesus Christ-they like Him are completely righteous and blameless before God (Rev.14:5). No one that has been born of this Woman has any sin in them, so except for a few notable Biblical exceptions NO ONE has as yet been 'born again', in spite of claims to the contrary. If you still continue to sin then you have not been born of the Holy Spirit, and you are not a member of the family of God, because the family of God HAS NO SIN IN THEM OR ON THEM.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

Your logic amuses me. Of course I didn't eat the Passover Seder I attended years ago to 'celebrate' Passover, it was a learning experience. That fact that you 'pick nits' as you do indicates to me that you are having to stretch your thinking to accommodate these new concepts. This is a good thing.

[Dr. Rich]

Ron, since when did you send Musicman and I a paper on Paul? I don't think I ever saw it. Please send it to me again as I sure don't want to be wrong about Paul! Perhaps you can name or point out ONE of those 'fallacies' for me to take a look at. Thanks.

As to Paul cursing an angel sent from God in Heaven for a different gospel, please tell me what Jesus did for John as found in Rev. 1:1? Is not the book of Revelation a totally different gospel? Where do you find anything in Revelation about being saved by grace or righteousness by faith? Hmmm?

And of course you don't understand about the woman of Revelation 12. No one will except for the few as found in Rev. 3:4-5 and Dan. 12:10. I would not expect you to understand. What Musicman and I did was to provide you with a different understanding---one that few will understand I suppose.

What do you mean by being 'righteous'? Is not that being sinless? Would not that be perfection?

Was Jesus righteous? Did the Jews think He was perfect? Of course not! That was why they killed Him.

Oh, and if you really do want to understand why the woman had to flee to the wilderness and what this is all about, then all you have to do is ask.

Happy Sabbath!

What one man thinks is perfection is not what God thinks. God looks upon the heart/nature of man. But didn't Jesus say to be perfect even as the Father is perfect? How about: "seek ye the Kingdom of Heaven AND His Righteousness....."?

So Ron, please point out ONE difference you said you found between what I teach and what the Law and the Prophets teach. Please?

[Musicman1228]

Ron said, "But you haven't shown that Paul's gospel is different using the context that Paul wrote in. You're interpreting Paul as if he was an imaginary proto-Protestant writing in English. Paul was a Jew writing to Torah-observant followers of the Jewish Messiah."

You are absolutely correct when you said that I haven't shown Paul's gospel is different using Paul's context. It IS different when I use the context Jesus used - His own testimony.

In a nutshell Paul's gospel is the gospel that says the only way you can become righteous is through faith that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you through grace. In this gospel the Law is done away with so where there is no Law there is no violation, which means there is no need to keep the Commandments of God, and certainly no need to hold only to the testimony of Jesus Christ. The testimony of Paul then becomes just as valid as the testimony of Jesus, and this just because Paul made the claim that he was an apostle of Jesus through visions.

The gospel that Jesus Christ taught his own disciples is the gospel of the Kingdom, which says that one must be born of the water and the Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and that one must be IN the Kingdom in order to be saved. It also says that the way that you are granted the RIGHT to sit on Jesus' throne is to OVERCOME sin just as He OVERCAME sin and now sits on His Father's throne. This gospel also says that a person must DO the truth in order to come to the light; and this DOING is keeping the Commandments of God and holding to the testimony of Jesus. Keeping the 10 Commandments shows that you belong in the Kingdom of Heaven.

These two gospels could not be more different. Even Paul called his gospel 'different' than the gospel that was being taught by Peter and John and the other original disciples who were in the Jerusalem Assembly.

So when you say that the gospel of Paul and the gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus taught are the same indicates that you have not sufficiently studied the gospel of the Kingdom enough to know the difference between the two.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, since when did you send Musicman and I a paper on Paul? I don't think I ever saw it.

Rich, I sent the paper titled "Fallacies Used against Paul" to you on August 12, 2009. It was sent as a PDF to the e-mail address you gave me that begins with eat******@***.*** . To send it again, I'd need a current e-mail address.

[Ron Amnsn]

Perhaps you can name or point out ONE of those 'fallacies' for me to take a look at. Thanks.

Fallacy: Justice on Unequal Balances

According to this fallacy, Paul and his writings are supposed to be judged by a different standard than we use to judge those who oppose Paul. In practice this means that Paul and all his writings are viewed with suspicion until it can be proven that Paul and his writings are totally faultless. On the other hand, the writings and allegations of those who oppose Paul are accepted at face value without asking whether or not these people and their writings meet the same standards that are used to judge Paul.

This fallacy can be seen when the allegations or writings of those who are clearly not upholding Torah are used to accuse Paul of not upholding Torah. This fallacy also comes into play when different portions of Paul's writings are judged by different standards. We see this when those passages that can be construed as evidence against Paul are readily accepted as valid at face value, but those portions that provide evidence in Paul's favor are considered dubious. Those who use this fallacy allow Paul to (supposedly) condemn himself, but will not allow Paul to defend himself.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Perhaps you can name or point out ONE of those 'fallacies' for me to take a look at. Thanks.

Fallacy: Justice on Unequal Balances

According to this fallacy, Paul and his writings are supposed to be judged by a different standard than we use to judge those who oppose Paul. In practice this means that Paul and all his writings are viewed with suspicion until it can be proven that Paul and his writings are totally faultless. On the other hand, the writings and allegations of those who oppose Paul are accepted at face value without asking whether or not these people and their writings meet the same standards that are used to judge Paul.

This fallacy can be seen when the allegations or writings of those who are clearly not upholding Torah are used to accuse Paul of not upholding Torah. This fallacy also comes into play when different portions of Paul's writings are judged by different standards. We see this when those passages that can be construed as evidence against Paul are readily accepted as valid at face value, but those portions that provide evidence in Paul's favor are considered dubious. Those who use this fallacy allow Paul to (supposedly) condemn himself, but will not allow Paul to defend himself.

Amen !

[Guest]

Musicman, when you 'pick nits' in order to try to show that the "last supper" that Jesus ate with his disciples was not actually a Passover meal, you want us to think that your logic is profound. But when I use a similar process to show that that the "Passover celebration" you attended years ago was not actually a Passover meal like the Jews celebrated in the time of Jesus, you belittle it and say the logic amuses you.

I don't know what "new concepts" you are referring to. A couple years ago I sent you and Dr. Rich a paper describing the fallacies commonly used against the apostle Paul. You're still using those fallacies as if they were valid and logical, but they're still fallacies.

I couldn't agree more.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Perhaps you can name or point out ONE of those 'fallacies' for me to take a look at. Thanks.

Fallacy: Justice on Unequal Balances

According to this fallacy, Paul and his writings are supposed to be judged by a different standard than we use to judge those who oppose Paul. In practice this means that Paul and all his writings are viewed with suspicion until it can be proven that Paul and his writings are totally faultless. On the other hand, the writings and allegations of those who oppose Paul are accepted at face value without asking whether or not these people and their writings meet the same standards that are used to judge Paul.

This fallacy can be seen when the allegations or writings of those who are clearly not upholding Torah are used to accuse Paul of not upholding Torah. This fallacy also comes into play when different portions of Paul's writings are judged by different standards. We see this when those passages that can be construed as evidence against Paul are readily accepted as valid at face value, but those portions that provide evidence in Paul's favor are considered dubious. Those who use this fallacy allow Paul to (supposedly) condemn himself, but will not allow Paul to defend himself.

I double Ah-men that.

[doug yowell]

I double Ah-men that.

Yep,yep!!

[Musicman1228]

I totally agree that what is written in Fallacy: Justice on Unequal Balances is a fallacy. People that condemn Paul based on what is written in Justice on Unequal Balances are just fooling themselves. No one can find anything wrong with what Paul wrote by comparing his writings to themselves, which is what Justice on Unequal Balances proposes.

But I have never said to compare Paul with himself. What I have done for myself and strongly suggest for everyone that loves the truth to do is to compare what Paul wrote with the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. In comparing the two (with self honesty) it soon becomes apparent that there are glaring differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul preached. This can be very disconcerting, I know it was for me when I first took a hard look at Paul's gospel and the gospel of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus. I didn't want to believe it either. I tried everything that I knew to prove that Paul and Jesus were actually saying the same thing, just in a different way. But the more I dug into it the more I realized that what Paul had written was diametrically opposed to what Jesus had taught to His own disciples.