How to understand Paul

[Robert]

Actually, in context, Paul and Christ agree:

Christ:  "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"

Paul: "all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. (Why?)  For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

[Wingnut]

2 minutes ago, Robert said:

You didn't answer my question....

You don't think Christ is contradicting Paul, do you?

Nicodemus came to Jesus thinking he was OK and Christ told Nic he needed to start over (be born again).  Nothing in Nic was worth keeping.

RYR came to Christ thinking he was OK and Christ immediately told him that "there is none good" including the RYR.  Like Nic, Christ told the RYR that he had to start over, in this case with nothing, including no possessions.  This was case specific for the RYR only, since this was a call to follow Jesus and become the 13th apostle (imo).

For both, by OC standards, they were doing great, but by NC standards, both had zero.

The NC starts with belief in Jesus.  Without this one has nothing.  Both Nic and the RYR left without belief in Jesus, so both left empty.

We all start and finish with faith in Jesus.

But faith in Jesus goes somewhere.  It leads us eventually to eternal life after death.  But in this life it leads to a Christian lifestyle, not just an empty profession of belief in Christ.  My previous post gave some of the duties of the believer.

Any Gospel claiming a believer has no duties is an empty Gospel.  God has a duty to be our God, and we have a duty to be God's people.  Otherwise, why was the OC given for our learning?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/15/2016 at 1:30 AM, Wingnut said:

Paul goes to lengths to explain that faith was the original faith of Abraham (Gal 3:29).

Notice what God himself told Isaac about the faith of Abraham:

"because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” (Genesis 26:5)  Although God's laws were not written down at the time of Abraham, the author of Genesis does not give any indication that God's commandments, statutes, and laws that Abraham kept were any different than those that were given to the Israelites.

In Hebrew and Greek the word "faith" includes both the thoughts in one's head/heart and the faithful actions that are done as a result of what one believes.  That is shown in the "faith chapter" (Hebrews 11) where the great men of faith are commended for what they did, rather than for what they thought.

[Samie]

5 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Nicodemus came to Jesus thinking he was OK and Christ told Nic he needed to start over (be born again).  Nothing in Nic was worth keeping.

. . .

According to Scriptures, when was man born again, and Who caused it to happen?

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

 Quite clear. It was God the Father Who caused our being born again. And it took place when He resurrected Jesus. 

This is the same story told by Paul when he said we were made alive together with Christ (Eph 2:5; Col 2:13), having been fashioned into His Body on the cross. And since people had been made part of the Body of Christ and made alive, we have now His Power to overcome evil with good. And overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life. Keeping the commandments – which Jesus told the RYR is necessary to enter into life – is simply overcoming the evil of disobedience to the will of God. Jesus said:

 

^NAS Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.

Jesus taught that while apart from Him, man can do NOTHING (John 15:4, 5).  This tells us that we have to be attached to Him first – made part of His Body first – before we can do anything spiritual such as believing in him, repenting or overcoming evil with good.   Jesus said that no man can come to Him except the Father draws Him (John 6:44).  And the Father through Christ did just that for us, as Paul said (Eph 2: 11-19), when He fashioned us into the Body of His Son on the cross. And then He caused us to be born again by resurrecting us TOGETHER with Christ, the Head of the Body.  This is in consonance with the statement of Jesus that when He is lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself (John 12:32, 33).

 

^NKJ John 12:32-33   ³² "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."  ³³ This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

 

Now that He has drawn us to Himself, being now part of His Body, we can through His Power, overcome evil with good. But only overcomers will He not blot out from the book of life (Rev 3:5).

[Samie]

7 hours ago, Wingnut said:

. . .

Any Gospel claiming a believer has no duties is an empty Gospel.  God has a duty to be our God, and we have a duty to be God's people.  Otherwise, why was the OC given for our learning?

If one talks about overcoming evil with good, I believe he is not proposing an empty gospel. An empty gospel could be one that teaches people can do something, like believe and repent, while yet apart from Christ. Why empty? Because the deed is done while yet separate from Him. And to teach that to become part of the body of Christ, one has to first believe, seems like an example of an empty one.

[Ron Amnsn]

20 hours ago, Robert said:

 Young's Literal Translation for Galatians 2:14:

But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?

Robert, that is the only occurrence in the whole Bible of any form of the word Judaize.  Paul is asking a question, not calling any group "Judaizers".  Peer pressure had evidently caused Peter to revert to following one of the traditional regulations of Jewish oral law, a regulation that is not found in God's Law of Moses.  So if you were going to use "Judaizer" in the same way that the New Testament uses it, it would refer to those who taught or expected others to follow the man-made traditions of Jewish oral law.

Those who teach God's laws have often been called Judaizers by Gentile Christians, but that is not what is taught in Scripture. 

Jesus taught that those who teach and practice the least of the commandments would "be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". (Matt 5:19)  Since the "greatest commandment" designated by Jesus was not one of the Ten Words spoken from Sinai but rather was found in the Law of Moses, it is likely that the "least of these commandments" would also be found elsewhere in God's Law of Moses, rather than in the Ten Words.

[Wingnut]

Reason #3 why Paul is hard to understand.

Paul loves his "allegories" (Gal 4:24).
Me, not so much.
Later in this thread I hope to show how Paul forces his comparisons to make them fit.

Both Christ and Paul are fond of parables, or com-parables, comparing one thing with another.

The difference is that Christ's parables are simple and clear, whereas Paul, not so much.

 

For instance, in Gal 4 Paul has chosen two women/mountains/children to illustrate the OC and NC.
Hagar (the slave woman)/Mt Sinai/Ishmael represents the OC.  Already I feel it does not fit.
Sarah/New Jerusalem/Isaac represents the NC.

Notice Paul has to invent a mountain called New Jerusalem.

The theme seems to be freedom.  Sarah is a free woman, "Jerusalem which is above is free" (Gal 4:26), and Isaac is free.  Thus, the logical deduction is that those under the NC are free.  Those free are also the promised/prophesied/blessed children.

Christ came to set us free (presumably from death).
Under the OC, there was no promise of eternal life, only temporal blessings.
Presumably Christians are also free from the wages of sin, which is death.

Frankly, Paul has a very convoluted way of thinking and comparing things, and, like I said, forcing comparisons.

Presumably Ishmael had no real future.  He was discarded (vs 30) after persecuting the promised son (vs 29).  The OC persecuted the NC.  The OC/Ishmael was cast out when the NC/Isaac was in place.

The allegory is diminishing the OC and praising the NC as being the better one, which was promised all along.

This all made sense to Paul.  None of us living today would ever have chosen to compare the OC and the NC using this analogy.

I might have used an analogy such as "Encyclopaedias were fine until the internet came along.  Now the internet (NC) has set us free from the limitations imposed by an encyclopaedia (OC)".

 

[Robert]

Quote

Jesus taught that those who teach and practice the least of the commandments would "be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". (Matt 5:19)  Since the "greatest commandment" designated by Jesus was not one of the Ten Words spoken from Sinai but rather was found in the Law of Moses, it is likely that the "least of these commandments" would also be found elsewhere in God's Law of Moses, rather than in the Ten Words.

Be careful not to take Matt chapter five out it's context.  Jesus is not teaching salvation by works.

[Robert]

39 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Frankly, Paul has a very convoluted way of thinking and comparing things, and, like I said, forcing comparisons.

I think you are confused. Not Paul. 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, jackson said:

Rachel, 

As mentioned to you numerous times, there is good reason Jesus had no reason to wear the plain white linen as did the earthly High Priest. It is disingenuous of you to constantly  use this point to cast doubt on the accuracy of Mrs White's vision when there is a very plausible reason why she saw Him dressed as she did.

I am repeating below what I had said to you in earlier posts in different threads so that others may not be made to doubt her vision in this regard..

My earlier reply to you___________________________________________________

The earthly sanctuary service was a shadow or type of the Heavenly Service. While  the earthly service was a pattern , it could not be exact in every detail for the earthly High Priest while pleading for Israel, was himself a sinner; not so with Jesus as our High Priest 

On the Day of Atonement the earthly High Priest was to dress in garments showing his commonality with the congregation, for he ,too, needed atonement ; hence the simple white garments  of the Levite priest.

Lev 16:6          And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which [is] for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

Heb 7:26         For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;   7:27           Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 

Jesus is not mediating for both our sins and His own so He need not represent Himself  as both common and pure by the clothing He wore in the  Most Holy Place

.Speaking of the attire of the earthly High Priest on the Day of Atonement, the following commentaries explain it well:

"He was not to attire himself on that occasion in the splendid robes that were proper to his sacred office, but in a plain dress of linen like the common Levites, for, as he was there to make atonement for his own sins, as well as for those of the people, he was to appear in the humble charac^­ter of a suppliant. This plain dress was more in harmony with a season of humiliation, as well as lighter and more convenient for the duties which on that occasion he had singly to per­form, than the gorgeous robes of the pontificate. It showed that when all appeared as sinners, the highest and the lowest were then on a level, and that there is no distinction of persons with God.^"—Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, "Bible Commentary," on Lev. 16:4.

Dr Adam Clarke (Clarke's Commentary on the Bible) commenting on Lev 16:4 says:   'He [the high priest] was not to dress in his pontifical garments, but in the simple sacerdotal vest­ments, or those of the Levites, because it was a day of humiliation; and as he was to offer sacrifices for his own sins, it was necessary that he should appear in habits suited to the occasion. Hence he has neither the robe, the ephod, the breastplate, the miter, etc.; these constituted his dress of dignity, as the high priest of God, ministering for others, and the repre­sentative of Christ : but now he appears before God as a sinner, offering an atonement for his transgres­sions, and his garments are those of humiliation."                                                                                     

We should be careful in not going too far in comparing the earthly sanctuary service with that of the Heavenly, for speaking of the Ceremonial Law, Paul said"    Heb  10:1        For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect

Yes Jackson,  I remember your arguments.  I was just giving some of my reasons for NOT believing that the Day of Atonement began back in 1844.  We will have to agree to disagree. 

When you tell me (indirectly) to "be careful" you seem to be saying that I may cross the line somehow, or misrepresent God, to my own harm.  I prayed earnestly for light concerning the whole "investigative judgment" - 1844 message.  I do not share my reasons carelessly, or without thought.  I sincerely believe what I have posted. 

I realize this is an Adventist forum, but my understanding is that I may disagree with specific Adventist doctrines, and state my reasons.  If my opinions are not welcome, I'm sure the moderators will notify me. 

Every person posting on CA needs to "be careful".  Every person needs to post with prayer and thought. 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Wingnut said:

If one does a concordance search of "the law" as used by the Bible, this phrase means...

1)  The 10 commandments.

2) The writings of Moses or the Pentateuch. (when used as "the law and the prophets")

3) The whole OT

I cannot think of a scripture which even considers the oral Jewish traditions as part of "the law".

If you can find such a scripture, I would like to see it.

There are mentions of "your traditions", referring to the "traditions" of the Pharisees.  

 Mark 7:13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." (NKJ)

Mark 7:9  "He said to them, 'All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.'" (NKJ)

Matthew 15:3 "He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?'" (NKJ)

Jews still TODAY have the "Oral Law".  Look it up on Wikipedia  And still today the Rabbis teach that the Oral Torah takes precedence over the Written Torah. 

[8thdaypriest]

    1 Corinthians 7:18-20  “Was anyone called while circumcised?  Let him not become uncircumcised.  Was anyone called while uncircumcised?  Let him not be circumcised.  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.  Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.”

Those who were "called while circumcised" would most likely be those circumcised as 8 day old infants.  Those "called while uncircumcised" would be Gentile converts.  

So far so good. 

"keeping the commandments of God is what matters"  OK - but circumcision WAS a command from God.  Right?  Or is Paul just referring to the TEN? 

When Paul says "Let him not be circumcised", he doesn't add (with the circumcision of the Oral Law, or the circumcision of the Pharisees).  Paul just wrote "circumcised". 

If I was a Corinthian Gentile convert, reading this, I would understand it to say that I need NOT be circumcised - period. Then someone like Ron shows up, and tells me that there is a TYPE of circumcision that I SHOULD submit to.  Seems to me Paul would have covered this in one of his letters, if there really was a TYPE of circumcision that all converts should submit to. 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/15/2016 at 3:17 PM, Robert said:

It wasn't just circumcision the the Judaizers were demanding.  

Acts 15:5  But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to

1] circumcise them, and

2] to command them to keep the law of Moses (i.e., the first, five book of the OT).”

BTW, this "sect of the Pharisees who believed" were Jews who had converted to Christianity, but insisted that ultimately the Christian is saved by the keeping of the law (Pentateuch).

Robert, you are correct that the issue in Acts 15 is how Gentiles are saved.  That is an important issue and an important beginning step for Gentile believers, but it is not the end of their journey with Christ.  Jesus commissioned his disciples to "make disciples of all nations", not just get them to the first step of "getting saved".

Which of the two kinds of circumcision were the Pharisees promoting?  Were they wanting Gentiles to be circumcised as Paul circumcised Timothy, or were they wanting Gentiles to be "saved" by going through the traditional proselyte program required by their oral law?  The traditional proselyte program had been the status quo for Gentiles converting to Judaism as far back as anyone could remember.  The seventh deacon listed in Acts 5:5, Nicolas, had been converted to Judaism (or Christianity) through the traditional proselyte program.

That traditional proselyte program required Gentile converts to be taught how to "guard" the Law of Moses by keeping the traditional laws of Jewish oral law.  And that is the wording that the Pharisees used in Acts 15:5.  The Greek word translated as "to keep" or "to observe" in this verse is terein (a form of the word tereo) with the primary and literal meaning of "to guard".  It can also carry the meaning of "to observe" or "to keep".

There is enough evidence in Acts 15 to show that God's Law of Moses was not the issue that was causing problems for the Gentiles. For instance, James tells us in verse 21, "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."  If the Law of Moses had been the problem for Gentile believers, the Council would have addressed their letter to the Gentile believers in every city, but they didn't. They addressed their letter only to those regions where the unauthorized men had gone stirring up trouble.  If Moses had been the problem, the Council could have at least told the Gentiles they shouldn't go where Moses is read every Sabbath, but they didn't include any such instruction. 

Also, Peter said that whatever the believing Pharisees were trying to impose on the Gentile believers was "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear".  Does Scripture ever speak of God's Law of Moses as an unbearable yoke? No. Scripture speaks of God's Law as a blessing.  Moses taught that it was not too hard to keep the Law.  Luke tells us there were Israelites who were "righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord."  On the other hand, does Scripture speak of something that is a heavy burden for people to carry? Yes. Speaking of the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus said, "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." (Matt 23:4) And again Jesus said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers."  (Luke 11:46)  Was this God's Law of Moses that Jesus was speaking against? No!  Jesus himself was living perfectly according to the Law of Moses when he told people, "Follow me", "I am the way", "My burden is light."  It was the man-made regulations that Scripture speaks of as heavy burdens.

[Wingnut]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

There are mentions of "your traditions", referring to the "traditions" of the Pharisees.  

 Mark 7:13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." (NKJ)

Mark 7:9  "He said to them, 'All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.'" (NKJ)

Matthew 15:3 "He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?'" (NKJ)

Jews still TODAY have the "Oral Law".  Look it up on Wikipedia  And still today the Rabbis teach that the Oral Torah takes precedence over the Written Torah. 

I agree with you Rachel.

My point is that Christ does not call HIS law "your traditions".

When Christ refers to "the law" He is referring to 1) the 10C specifically  2) the first 5 books of Moses   3) the whole OT.

I know the Jews have traditions for everything.  To me these traditions are worthless.  As worthless as the traditions which all cultures have.

[Ron Amnsn]

22 hours ago, Wingnut said:

If one does a concordance search of "the law" as used by the Bible, this phrase means...

1)  The 10 commandments.

2) The writings of Moses or the Pentateuch. (when used as "the law and the prophets")

3) The whole OT

I cannot think of a scripture which even considers the oral Jewish traditions as part of "the law".

If you can find such a scripture, I would like to see it.

I have no argument with you about how "the law" was used in the Old Testament.  It wasn't until after the Old Testament was written that the Jewish oral law became prominent.

In modern times Jews often do not distinguish between the Torah that God gave to Moses and the Oral Law that eventually was written into the Talmud, Mishna and other traditional writings.  When they study Torah, they often spend most of their time studying what the sages wrote about the Torah, rather than reading what Moses actually wrote.  (This is quite similar to when Christians have a "Bible Study" but they read what a scholar or pastor says about the Bible rather than reading the Bible itself in context.) 

It might be difficult to determine how far back in time the Jews would have included Oral Law when they said "Torah" or "the law". However, there are some New Testament references that show that "the law" sometimes included the traditional teachings of Oral Law.

Luke 5:17 "there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there"
Do you think these teachers of "the law" taught only what Moses wrote and did not include anything that the sages had taught in the Oral Law about what Moses wrote?

John 7:49 "But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed."
The crowd of which this Pharisee was speaking was in the temple, so they were not the common rabble.  Some of them had been quoting from the prophets earlier in the chapter.  So it is likely that they would also know the Law of Moses which was read each Sabbath in the synagogues.  The Pharisee contrasted the crowd with the rulers and Pharisees who knew the Oral Law, so it is likely that in this verse "the Law" referred collectively to the Law of Moses and the teachings of the Oral Law.

Acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today."
This one specifies that it refers to "the law of of our fathers" as taught by Gamaliel, so it would include Oral Law.

Acts 22:12 "A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,"
This one could go either way.  Would all of the Jews in Damascus have spoken well of this man who commissioned Paul as an apostle if he had been ignoring the teachings of Oral Law? Probably not.  Did Paul intend to include Oral Law in "the standard of the Law"?  That would depend on what the zealous Jews in Jerusalem understood that phrase to mean at that time.

Acts 25:8 "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."
This one almost certainly includes the traditional Jewish laws of Oral Law because it specifies "of the Jews".

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 "To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 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."
As Paul lists all the different groups of people he ministered to and that made up the congregations, one of those groups would likely be those like Nicolas the deacon that had already gone through the traditional proselyte program and had made the solemn vow to keep both the Law of Moses and the Oral Law (a vow not required of those born Jewish). Since both the OT and the NT teach that we should honor our vows, these would likely be those that Paul distinguished from the Jews but who were under the Oral Law.

1 Corinthians 14:34 "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." 
This one may refer to Oral Law because I've never seen anything that resembles this in the Law of Moses.

Galatians 3:2, etc. "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"
The sect of Jews that preserved the Dead Sea scrolls used the phrase "works of the law" to refer to their entrance requirements for people wanting to join their community.  These were man-made standards.  It appears that Paul was referring to similar man-made entrance requirements included in the traditions or Oral Law of the Galatian Jews.

Ephesians 2:15 "by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,"
The word "ordinances" is translated from the Greek word dogmasin, a form of the word dogma, which in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) is never used in any form to refer to any of God's laws or instructions-- it always refers to man-made regulations or decrees.  In the NT it also refers to man-made rules.  Paul says Messiah destroyed the enmity caused by man-made regulations masquerading as if they were commandments of God. I've not come across an instance where God's Law of Moses caused enmity between Jews and Gentiles, but there are many instances of man-made rules that cause such enmity.

I think that covers the instances where "the law" includes (or possibly includes) the traditional Oral Law of the Jews.  There are other passages where "lawful" and "unlawful" definitely refer to Oral Law.

[Wingnut]

How to understand Paul

#1 Read Paul in context

#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone

#3 Paul likes complicated analogies

 

#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts

In Gal 4:25-26 Paul invents "Jerusalem above" as the comparison with "Mt Sinai".

Paul is determined to have a comparison.

Paul is particularly fond of comparing Christ with Adam.  He does it in Rom 5, 1 Cor 15. 

 

Rom 5

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

Now let's see how Paul tweaks the facts to suit his analogy…

as by one man sin entered into the world - WRONG it was by one woman (unless women do not count)

through the offence of one - WRONG.  Two sinned (unless women do not count)

death reigned from Adam to Moses - WRONG.  Death started with Abel (or the lamb killed to cover them)

not as it was by one that sinned - WRONG. It was Eve who sinned first then Adam = two (unless women do not count)

for the judgment was by one to condemnation - WRONG.  Which one sinned? (unless women do not count)

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one - WRONG.  That one was Eve (unless women do not count)

as by the offence of one judgment came - WRONG. Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)

as by one man's disobedience - WRONG.  Both sinned, why pick on Adam? (unless women do not count)

sin hath reigned unto death - WRONG.  This is not technically correct.  Adam and Eve were doomed to die whether they sinned or not UNLESS they ate of the Tree of Life.

 

The idea that sin causes death is exaggerated by Paul.

Animals died before and after Adam.  Did they sin?

Many, steeped in Paul will insist that the fall of man spread to animals so that they die due to Adam's sin.

Animals had been dying for millions of years before Adam, as the fossil record shows.

Yet I expect a storm of protest by those seeped in Paul insisting that death ONLY follows sin.

Did no fish eat another fish before Adam sinned?

Those steeped in Paul will say that lions lay down with lambs before Adam (who cares about Eve?) sinned.

 

Guys - wake up and smell the coffee.

Paul chooses complicated analogies and tries to make many comparisons in that analogy fit the facts.  If necessary, Paul will "modify" the facts to fit the analogy.  Admit this and we can all stop making crazy doctrines using Paul alone.

 

 

 

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I have no argument with you about how "the law" was used in the Old Testament.  It wasn't until after the Old Testament was written that the Jewish oral law became prominent.

In modern times Jews often do not distinguish between the Torah that God gave to Moses and the Oral Law that eventually was written into the Talmud, Mishna and other traditional writings. .....I think that covers the instances where "the law" includes (or possibly includes) the traditional Oral Law of the Jews.  There are other passages where "lawful" and "unlawful" definitely refer to Oral Law.

Good points.

This whole definition of what constitutes "the law" becomes very important when deciding which law is "holy and just and good" Rom 7:12.

Here in Romans it calls the commandment(s) "holy, and just, and good" referring back to the 10C command "thou shalt not covet".

The law is called "holy" here.  From the context it is hard to tell which specific law, since Paul speaks of a law binding a husband to his wife, which they are released from when one party dies.  This is an analogy for some law.  Is it the 10C, the Pentateuch or the whole OT is hard to tell.

Either way, each Christian has to decide which OT laws they will take seriously.

My system is to see if it is ALSO commanded in the NT, and then I ALSO obey that law.

I am sure others have their own ways of deciding.

 

Romans 7:12

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

 

[Robert]

11 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Also, Peter said that whatever the believing Pharisees were trying to impose on the Gentile believers was "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear".  

Let's look at the context:

Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

What was the yoke?  Answer: Salvation by the law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which included the Moral law.. 

Now go to Gal 5:1 

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised (as a means of salvation), Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 

4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Notice Paul didn't say one is obligated to obey the oral traditions, as you put it.  

You stated that "Moses taught that it was not too hard to keep the Law."  Really?

You see there's huge problem.  We were born bent-to-self.  We were born with self-love.  Self-love can't keep the law.  All self-love can do is keep the law outwardly, but always for selfish motive or purpose. Hence the legalist pays tithe in order to get something back.  The legalist attempt to outwardly keep the law so that he can have a mansion in heaven.  In other words everything fallen man does is polluted with selfishness.

In truth mankind does not have the ingredient that makes law keeping possible.  That ingredient is "agape".  Agape, says Paul, is the fulfillment of the law.  It takes agape to keep the law.  What is agape?  Agape is  a love that is not self-seeking.  It is a selfless love that is not polluted with selfishness. Agape has no self it in. 

Attempting to keep the law with our self-love makes true law keeping an impossibility. It is a yoke of slavery. Keeping the law with our self-love is not keeping the law...it's keeping the law of sin.

[Robert]

7 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Guys - wake up and smell the coffee.

Paul chooses complicated analogies and tries to make many comparisons in that analogy fit the facts.  If necessary, Paul will "modify" the facts to fit the analogy.  Admit this and we can all stop making crazy doctrines using Paul alone.

So, Paul is dishonest?  He's a liar?

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

So, Paul is dishonest?  He's a liar?

You read the facts he changed.  What do you think?

[Robert]

11 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

You read the facts he changed.  What do you think?

The facts? First I question your so called facts!  Secondly, anyone who charges Paul with deceit is on a very dangerous road.  Be warned!

 

 

[Wingnut]

4 minutes ago, Robert said:

The facts? First I question your so called facts!  Secondly, anyone who charges Paul with deceit is on a very dangerous road.  Be warned!

 

 

Which so called facts do you question?

He plain tells another story to the Genesis one.

He ignores Eve.  You will love tomorrow's post on Paul.

[Wingnut]

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Wingnut,

Perhaps you can understand the gospel  without  studying  sanctuary service symbols/ imagery, but the failure  by many to understand it has led to all manner of erroneous doctrines being accepted.

Here are some of the erroneous doctrinal beliefs  that would have no appeal if one studied the sanctuary service proceedings  as explained in the books of Leviticus and Hebrews:

There is no heavenly Sanctuary

 

The earthly sanctuary is modelled on a heavenly one.  Like Rachel, I do not believe Christ moved there.  We are told that Christ sits at the right hand of the Father till his enemies are made His footstool.  That is still now.  Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, not in the sanctuary.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

 Final Atonement at the cross.

Everyone knows from Christ's own words that He came to die for all.  All have to eat and drink of Him.  All have to trust and follow Him.  I don't think Paul adds anything.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Confessed sins are blotted out

Again, that was Christ's message.  Nothing new.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Christ's death justifies alll

All who believe in Him.  Not ALL ALL.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Only the wicked face the judgment

Christ pronounced woes on the Pharisees who rejected Him.  I think they got the message that the wicked face judgment.  And John the Baptist told them in no uncertain terms also.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Nothing in Heaven needs to be cleansed

What is that supposed to mean.  Heaven was cleansed the day Satan and his cohorts were thrown out.  That is why we pray, "Thy will be done on earth AS IT IS DONE IN HEAVEN".

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Christ finished his work at the cross

But Adventists seem to doubt this saying He is still working in the sanctuary.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

Jesus is the scapegoat

Christ was called by John the Lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world.

43 minutes ago, jackson said:

 

Sorry Jackson, I don't feel these doctrines you mentioned add much that we did not already know.

What Paul does is show how connected to the OT is the NT message.

But Paul can be misunderstood, and for everything he clears up, he creates opportunity for others to create weird new doctrines.

Hence this thread pointing out some of the pitfalls of Paul  

[Wingnut]

PAUL'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS WOMEN

How to understand Paul

#1 Read Paul in context

#2 Don't create doctrines on Paul alone

#3 Paul likes complicated analogies

#4 To make his analogies work, Paul invents/bends the facts

In accordance with #2 above, let's start with Jesus' attitude towards women.  Jesus was the only perfectly balanced human to ever live.  All the rest of us, Paul included, bring a bit of crazy to the table.

Jesus' first miracle was at the behest of His mother Mary.
Jesus stopped to help women such as her with an issue of blood, and her caught in adultery.

Christ flew in the face of custom by engaging the Samaritan woman at the well, allowing prostitutes to handle his feet, standing up for the woman who anointed His feet, having close woman friends like Mary and Martha.  Some of Christ's last words were to John to look after Mary.

It would have been unacceptable for women to be groupies on the road with Jesus, but in every town, women supported Jesus.

We get a very positive feeling from Christ, that Christianity is woman friendly.

We should always approach our pet doctrines starting with Jesus, to get balance.  I want to tell you up front that Paul had a little bit of crazy going on regarding women.  I must ask you to open your mind a crack to let the light shine in, because what I am about to say is not for the immature.

1) Read Rom 5:12-19 and Paul ignores Eve like she was not there at the fall.  Ignoring people like they are invisible is sexist.

2) Read the following and see if you can see what is wrong here.

1 Cor 15:3...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:  5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Cannot see it?  Who were the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection?
WOMEN.  Where are they mentioned above?  Nowhere.  They are invisible.

3) Look what God says about women...
Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Look what Paul says on this exact same subject...
1 Cor 7:1 ... It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
In vs 38 and 40 Paul reiterates that being unmarried is better.
It would definitely have been better for any woman not to have married someone with an attitude like this towards them.

This shows Paul's slight craziness towards women.

4) Paul tells the church not to financially support young widows.  Listen to his reasons. 1 tim 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.  13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

This is crazy talk.  It is not "wanton" of young women to want to remarry.  They are not "against Christ" for doing so.  They do not have "damnation" for remarrying.  And women everywhere and in all ages have liked to get together and gossip chat.  They like to know everyone's business.  I do too to a limited extent

This is a typically Pauline rant against women.

Here is another...

5) 1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Is a mother telling her teenage son to clean up his room "usurping authority over the man"?
And Paul tells women to be invisible, or silent in public.
Compare this with Christ who encouraged the Samaritan woman to call the whole city to hear Him.

Paul is unbalanced.  I do not know to what extent women should be "subject to men" meaning their husbands, but it is a lot less than Paul says.  I go for the wisest man who ever lived, his attitude towards women, found in Pr 31.  This woman is liberated.  She is modern.  She works outside the home.  Thank you God that I live in a time and society where women are free to be all they can be, including rulers.

And listen to the weak argument which Paul gives saying "For Adam was first formed, then Eve".

I could turn that around and say, the very last thing God created was the crowning glory of His creation.

And in vs. 14 look how quick Paul is to blame Eve, when in Rom 5 Paul completely leaves Eve out, saying by one MAN sin entered the world.

I expect a blizzard of protests from all of you indoctrinated Paul worshippers.  In reply I say look to Jesus first, and then look at Paul.  Paul has a lot to teach us but let's not take his craziness and amplify it, but rather dampen it.

In conclusion, I do believe Paul was a bit of a misogynist, whereas Christ was not.

[Robert]

Rom 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God

2 Cor 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)

Eph 11:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Phil 1:1 Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus

Col 1:1  Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God

1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope

 2 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus

Titus 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ... even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior

2 Peter 3:15  Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him— 16 speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction.