Ephesians 3. Paul vs The Other Apostles & Prophets

[Grailhunter]

Hmmm... I would disagree with you here, but I know you can be as quick-tempered as I am sometimes, so I think I'll wait to see of you want my response before giving it. Not a big deal, but I think ancient Judaism was of much greater worth than simply to show us the sins of man.

Romanizing the scriptures...the feel of that exhilaration of defending the Bible or God! It is all par for the course. But it does not bear close scrutiny. I am going to assume you know more about the Mosaic Law than most. So if you want to write a post about all the things that you think Christianity should adopt from the Jews or the Mosaic Laws....we can discuss it. But most don't know enough to point out what they think is good or bad. They get on their soap boxes and shake their Bibles and yell, I believe God! And they have no idea what they are talking about.

The Apostle Paul and his Jewish heritage. This is just me of course....just me....I can envision Paul in Romans sitting around a campfire at night with a cup of wine and reflecting and reminiscing about his brothers....the Jews. Their past, their present, and did he know what the future held for them? When Paul was in Heaven did He see they would become the outcasts of the world? Of course He knew their history....he was educated....He knew that in the NT they had done just about everything they could to damn themselves. Then they denied the Messiah and cried Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Let His blood be on us and our children! And history made it so!

Did Paul know that tens of thousands of Jews would be crucified during the Roman siege of Jerusalem? The horror of the Jews as they watched their temple being destroyed again. Did he see their cruel enslavement by the Romans? Did he see that the Christians would treat them like witches in the Middle Ages....in the dungeons of the Witch-hunts and inquisitions? They were kicked out of one Christian country after another....some living on boats off the coast. Some going to Africa. For more than a millennium they had no home. The story of the Jewish ghettos and the millions that would die horrible deaths during the holocaust at the hands of the Germans.

I think if you read closely you can see the sadness of Paul, not wishing he had to stand against them. Wishing and hoping and praying for their salvation instead!

And Hey!!! I only get rough when I am facing off against evil.

 

[Curtis]

Are you thinking then no return of the Israelites to their promised land when Jesus returns?

Much love!

They’re already there in their first gathering - there’s two gatherings of Israel prophesied, the one that was fulfilled in 1948, and one yet to come. First gathering is with Israel in unbelief.

The eternal reign of Jesus on earth starts when he returns to Mount Olive with all the saints in Zechariah 14, saves the city, and stays in Jerusalem, on the throne of David.

It’s not limited to the thousand years that Satan is bound for.

 

[marks]

But the revelations being foreshadowed in the old and realized in the new are certainly worth meditating on, and this is clear from the New Testament writings.

Well of course!!

The old would have burst if they had tried to contain new. But new wineskins can fully contain the old.

Let me see how you deal with that answer.

With chuckle!

Do you first empty it of the new wine? And then where will you put the new?

Jesus said new wine is put into new wine skins . . . and the thing about the patches . . . who patches a new shirt? I think His point was that old and new are incompatible in the sense of trying to join one to the other.

Much love!

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

By the time of the Council at Jerusalem, where the apostles were to determine what to do about the Gentiles being saved, should they observe the Law as the Jews or not, Paul had already been on his first missionary journey to the Gentiles. He was already preaching the meaning of the New Covenant, the Mystery. Paul was light-years ahead of the apostles at Jerusalem in this knowledge.

This is a wholesale lie for at least 3 reasons:

1. Acts 15:1-2 shows Paul had no prior knowledge of this as you claim:

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question."

2. The issue was not about whether or not Gentiles should keep the Law as you claim. The issue was about whether or not Gentiles had to be physically circumcised in order to be eligible for salvation as Acts 15:1 clearly points out. There is a huge difference.

3. Paul would not have been "light years" ahead of the chief apostles who served in the headquarters church, particularly because a)there is no passage that even implies such a thing was true and b) Acts 10 and Acts 15 clearly shows such revelation would've been given to Peter first since he was the lead apostle. There is a reason why Christ told Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom. The "keys" represent spiritual revelation, therefore, such knowledge would've logically been given to him first. That's how God's government always worked. One man is given the revelation, and that man is in turn responsible for informing the people under him about that revelation.

I'll go as far to say the 12 apostles learned most of the meaning of the New Covenant from Paul. Through listening to him in personal conversation and reading his epistles.

Words can't describe how ridiculous this claim is, considering the original 12 apostles were taught by Christ Himself for 3 1/2 years. Considering Paul mentioned in Gal. 1 that Christ instructed him for the same amount of time while he stayed in Arabia, the truth is that Christ had to catch Paul up on what the original apostles already knew. Just because Paul was inspired to write about the mystery, it doesn't mean the apostles who traveled with Christ weren't already aware of it.

Actually, God offered a kingdom to Israel that He did not offer to the Gentiles. And according to the prophecies, that kingdom for Israel will yet happen, and will be for Israel, and not the Gentiles.

Much love!

You are very confused. Christ reuniting all of the ethnic Israelites in the land God promised to them is part of that 1 gospel that was proclaimed by the prophets. It is not a separate gospel. The disciples all thought it was supposed to happen after Christ appeared to them after His resurrection, which is why they asked Him if He was going to restore the kingdom of Israel at that moment. They knew it wasn't a separate gospel.

In a good way or a bad way? The early church discarded its Jewish roots, yet quickly adopted all the pagan festivals instead. I added to my post that we too would rather celebrate Halloween nowadays than be caught dead observing anything Jewish. No need to be viewed as maybe starting some sort of "cult," Lol.

That is literally not true, considering Rev. 12 and 14 literally describes true Christians in the end-time as people who keep God's commandments. The "Christianity" mentioned in Rev. 17 would have people believe that the 1st century Church abandoned its Jewish roots, but the Bible clearly tells a different story. There is also the matter that Paul clearly teaches in Eph. 2:19-20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' writings. He also wrote in 2 Tim. 3 that all scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness when the only set of scriptures that existed was the OT writings. No honest person can read what Paul says in those passages and logically believe the Church ever abandoned its Jewish roots.

 

[Charlie24]

This is a wholesale lie for a at least 3 reasons:

1. Acts 15:1-2 shows Paul had no prior knowledge of this as you claim:

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question."

2. The issue was not about whether or not Gentiles should keep the Law as you claim. The issue was about whether or not Gentiles had to be physically circumcised in order to be eligible for salvation as Acts 15:1 clearly points out. There is a huge difference.

3. Paul would not have been "light years" ahead of the chief apostles who served in the headquarters church, particularly because a)there is no passage that even implies such a thing was true and b) Acts 10 and Acts 15 clearly shows such revelation would've been given to Peter first since he was the lead apostle. There is a reason why Christ told Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom. The "keys" represent spiritual revelation, therefore, such knowledge would've logically been given to him first. That's how God's government always worked. One man is given the revelation, and that man is in turn responsible for informing the people under him about that revelation.
Words can't describe how ridiculous this claim is, considering the original 12 apostles were taught by Christ Himself for 3 1/2 years. Considering Paul mentioned in Gal. 1 that Christ instructed him for the same amount of time while he stayed in Arabia, the truth is that Christ had to catch Paul up on what the original apostles already knew. Just because Paul was inspired to write about the mystery, it doesn't mean the apostles who traveled with Christ weren't already aware of it.
You are very confused. Christ reuniting all of the ethnic Israelites in the land God promised to them is part of that 1 gospel that was proclaimed by the prophets. It is not a separate gospel. The disciples all thought it was supposed happen after Christ appeared to them after His resurrection, which is why they asked Him if He was going to restore the kingdom of Israel at that moment. They knew it wasn't a separate gospel.
That is literally not true, considering Rev. 12 and 14 literally describes true Christians in the end-time as people who keep God's commandments. The "Christianity" mentioned in Rev. 17 would have people believe that the 1st century Church abandoned its Jewish roots, but the Bible clearly tells a different story. There is also the matter that Paul clearly teaches in Eph. 2:19-20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' writings. He also wrote in 2 Tim. 3 that all scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness when the only set of scriptures that existed was the OT writings. No honest person can read what Paul says in those passages and logically believe the Church ever abandoned its Jewish roots.

Paul had recently been stoned for preaching against the law of Moses (circumcision) for salvation. Now in Acts 15:1-2 he is facing the same people at the church in Antioch. These people had ties with the church at Jerusalem and Paul wanted to settle it by going to James, the head pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and Peter.

This is what led to the Council of Jerusalem, what do we do with the Jews being saved? Paul was preaching the New Covenant, grace by faith for salvation but was running into the Law at every turn.

At this point Paul had received the revelation from Christ but the rest of the apostles were still in the dark only seeing the gentiles saved but did not know what Paul already knew.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Romanizing the scriptures...the feel of that exhilaration of defending the Bible or God! It is all par for the course. But it does not bear close scrutiny. I am going to assume you know more about the Mosaic Law than most. So if you want to write a post about all the things that you think Christianity should adopt from the Jews or the Mosaic Laws....we can discuss it. But most don't know enough to point out what they think is good or bad. They get on their soap boxes and shake their Bibles and yell, I believe God! And they have no idea what they are talking about.

The Apostle Paul and his Jewish heritage. This is just me of course....just me....I can envision Paul in Romans sitting around a campfire at night with a cup of wine and reflecting and reminiscing about his brothers....the Jews. Their past, their present, and did he know what the future held for them? When Paul was in Heaven did He see they would become the outcasts of the world? Of course He knew their history....he was educated....He knew that in the NT they had done just about everything they could to damn themselves. Then they denied the Messiah and cried Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Let His blood be on us and our children! And history made it so!

Did Paul know that tens of thousands of Jews would be crucified during the Roman siege of Jerusalem? The horror of the Jews as they watched their temple being destroyed again. Did he see their cruel enslavement by the Romans? Did he see that the Christians would treat them like witches in the Middle Ages....in the dungeons of the Witch-hunts and inquisitions? They were kicked out of one Christian country after another....some living on boats off the coast. Some going to Africa. For more than a millennium they had no home. The story of the Jewish ghettos and the millions that would die horrible deaths during the holocaust at the hands of the Germans.

I think if you read closely you can see the sadness of Paul, not wishing he had to stand against them. Wishing and hoping and praying for their salvation instead!

And Hey!!! I only get rough when I am facing off against evil.

Well, yes. Many if not most of the Jews were a mess by Paul's time, and I think he mourned for them just as Christ before him did.

I was referring more to Judaim than to the Jews, but maybe I will get more into what I meant in one of my later posts.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Do you first empty it of the new wine? And then where will you put the new?

Of necessity, LoL.

Jesus said new wine is put into new wine skins .

And it had to be. An entirely new religion had to be formed. I'm just telling you that true spiritual Judaism, for those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it, became even more manifest through devout Christianity, not less. I'll write something up on it tomorrow.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That is literally not true, considering Rev. 12 and 14 literally describes true Christians in the end-time as people who keep God's commandments. The "Christianity" mentioned in Rev. 17 would have people believe that the 1st century Church abandoned its Jewish roots, but the Bible clearly tells a different story. There is also the matter that Paul clearly teaches in Eph. 2:19-20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' writings. He also wrote in 2 Tim. 3 that all scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness when the only set of scriptures that existed was the OT writings. No honest person can read what Paul says in those passages and logically believe the Church ever abandoned its Jewish roots.

I was speaking of the early church by around 200 AD, not the 1st century church.

 

[Grailhunter]

Well, yes. Many if not most of the Jews were a mess by Paul's time, and I think he mourned for them just as Christ before him did.

I was referring more to Judaim than to the Jews, but maybe I will get more into what I meant in one of my later posts.

Whatever that is fine. It is all a discussion.

 

[Enoch111]

They get on their soap boxes and shake their Bibles and yell...

And Grailhunter is no exception!

 

[marks]

An entirely new religion had to be formed.

That's just it. Not a new religion. An entirely new way.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Of necessity, LoL.

So then this analogy is your's based on Jesus' parable, but not Jesus' parable. Parables should be maintained for the meaning imbued them by the Teller. I would think.

Much love!

 

[marks]

for those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it,

That's pretty much always a red flag for me. "Something is coming that you won't find written in the Bible." Am I wrong?

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

That's just it. Not a new religion. An entirely new way.

Much love!

Mark, if Christianity is not a religion, what was James communicating by saying "pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: To visit orphans and widows in their oppression, and keep oneself unspotted from the world"? I'm familiar with the argument that "Christianity is a relationship," but while that is indeed true, anyone who thinks Christianity is not also accurately defined as a religion is not only at odds with scripture but with common sense. Generally speaking, a religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." We believe in and worship both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, whom we take to be our personal God. It is also defined as "a system of beliefs," and the Christian system of beliefs is different from Judaism, but both are religions. I wish you wouldn't make people have to go through exercises like that, LoL. It slows the discussion.

So then this analogy is your's based on Jesus' parable, but not Jesus' parable. Parables should be maintained for the meaning imbued them by the Teller. I would think.

Much love!

I was luring you in a little, LoL. Relax. No one takes the parables more strictly than I do, but in this particular instance I was extending the analogy. It was for the sake of a little fun because I find the discussion very interesting, but if you don't want to discuss it we don't have to. You're getting all critical when I was really just going to experiment with it a little. Just a friendly theological discussion. Maybe you're not in a good mood or something. I'm fine with that. Not a big deal to me.

That's pretty much always a red flag for me. "Something is coming that you won't find written in the Bible." Am I wrong?

Much love!

Ugh. That may be a white flag for me. We'll discuss it some other time maybe. I've got plenty going on right now anyway.

To be continued maybe.
- H

 

[Davy]

In Ephesians 3 Paul tells us that Jesus reveled the mystery to himself and the Holy Spirit reveled it to the Apostles and Prophets. Was that revelation made by Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the same exact time? Many believe that Paul was first in knowing of the mystery but is that validated in scripture? Did Jesus give Paul a head-start in that knowledge?

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; 3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. 4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7 of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. 8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

That Scripture quote pretty much reveals that Paul was not the only Apostle who was given to understand about the Gentiles as fellow-heirs in The Gospel. Actually per Acts, Apostle Peter was first given the example of The Gospel going to the Gentiles, when God caused Peter to preach to Cornelius and Gentiles. Peter explained this to his Jewish brethren in Jerusalem too, so they knew also (Acts 11).

 

[marks]

Mark, if Christianity is not a religion, what was James communicating by saying "pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: To visit orphans and widows in their oppression, and keep oneself unspotted from the world"? I'm familiar with the argument that "Christianity is a relationship," but while that is indeed true, anyone who thinks Christianity is not also accurately defined as a religion is not only at odds with scripture but with common sense. Gene

Yeah, let's not overcomplicate this. My point is, Christianity is nothing like anything else.

OK . . . True religion is to visit the fatherless and the widow. So do that, and you're good, right? But that's not what you are saying either.

No one takes the parables more strictly than I do,

I don't now about that one . . .

It was for the sake of a little fun because I find the discussion very interesting, but if you don't want to discuss it we don't have to. You're getting all critical when I was really just going to experiment with it a little. Just a friendly theological discussion. Maybe you're not in a good mood or something. I'm fine with that. Not a big deal to me.

I'm not sure what I said that offended you, but don't take it personally. I like you.

To be continued maybe.

As you wish.

Much love!

 

[TEXBOW]

This is a wholesale lie for a at least 3 reasons:

1. Acts 15:1-2 shows Paul had no prior knowledge of this as you claim:

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question."

2. The issue was not about whether or not Gentiles should keep the Law as you claim. The issue was about whether or not Gentiles had to be physically circumcised in order to be eligible for salvation as Acts 15:1 clearly points out. There is a huge difference.

3. Paul would not have been "light years" ahead of the chief apostles who served in the headquarters church, particularly because a)there is no passage that even implies such a thing was true and b) Acts 10 and Acts 15 clearly shows such revelation would've been given to Peter first since he was the lead apostle. There is a reason why Christ told Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom. The "keys" represent spiritual revelation, therefore, such knowledge would've logically been given to him first. That's how God's government always worked. One man is given the revelation, and that man is in turn responsible for informing the people under him about that revelation.
Words can't describe how ridiculous this claim is, considering the original 12 apostles were taught by Christ Himself for 3 1/2 years. Considering Paul mentioned in Gal. 1 that Christ instructed him for the same amount of time while he stayed in Arabia, the truth is that Christ had to catch Paul up on what the original apostles already knew. Just because Paul was inspired to write about the mystery, it doesn't mean the apostles who traveled with Christ weren't already aware of it.
You are very confused. Christ reuniting all of the ethnic Israelites in the land God promised to them is part of that 1 gospel that was proclaimed by the prophets. It is not a separate gospel. The disciples all thought it was supposed happen after Christ appeared to them after His resurrection, which is why they asked Him if He was going to restore the kingdom of Israel at that moment. They knew it wasn't a separate gospel.
That is literally not true, considering Rev. 12 and 14 literally describes true Christians in the end-time as people who keep God's commandments. The "Christianity" mentioned in Rev. 17 would have people believe that the 1st century Church abandoned its Jewish roots, but the Bible clearly tells a different story. There is also the matter that Paul clearly teaches in Eph. 2:19-20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' writings. He also wrote in 2 Tim. 3 that all scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness when the only set of scriptures that existed was the OT writings. No honest person can read what Paul says in those passages and logically believe the Church ever abandoned its Jewish roots.

Paul mentions three times "my gospel". He could have said our gospel or the gospel. Makes one think Paul's gospel was different. I think it was at first. I think the Holy Spirit dragged the 12 into accepting the mystery revealed to them via Cornelius and with the discussion with Paul.

 

[Curtis]

Christianity is not a new religion, that’s why it’s called Judeo-Christian.

Christianity is nor in any way a new religion - it’s the fulfillment of the Jewish religion- the Jewish Messiah Jesus fulfilled the Jewish messianic prophecies that He would atone for our sins, and give a new covenant to the house of Israel (that gentiles are grafted into) and that He would also be a light to the gentiles.

Many messianic Jews call themselves fulfilled Jews for that reason, and eschew the term Christian.

Maranatha

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Tong2020]

Mark, if Christianity is not a religion, what was James communicating by saying "pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: To visit orphans and widows in their oppression, and keep oneself unspotted from the world"? I'm familiar with the argument that "Christianity is a relationship," but while that is indeed true, anyone who thinks Christianity is not also accurately defined as a religion is not only at odds with scripture but with common sense. Generally speaking, a religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." We believe in and worship both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, whom we take to be our personal God. It is also defined as "a system of beliefs," and the Christian system of beliefs is different from Judaism, but both are religions. I wish you wouldn't make people have to go through exercises like that, LoL. It slows the discussion.

James 1:26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

<<<Generally speaking, a religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."……………………..It is also defined as "a system of beliefs,">>>

According to the passage, speaking of religion, pure and undefiled religion is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

James speaks of religion there as
refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply. The Jews, were James' original readers, who typically regarded alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts as signs of true spirituality. He seems tell them that such is not what pure and undefiled religion is.

Tong
R4831

 

[TEXBOW]

James 1:26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

<<<Generally speaking, a religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."……………………..It is also defined as "a system of beliefs,">>>

According to the passage, speaking of religion, pure and undefiled religion is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

James speaks of religion there as
refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply. The Jews, were James' original readers, who typically regarded alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts as signs of true spirituality. He seems tell them that such is not what pure and undefiled religion is.

Tong
R4831

The book of James is reported to be written between 44 and 49 AD. One of the earliest books of the Bible. I think this is relevant. The difficult transition from the law to faith was clearly difficult for those who had been deep in Jewish religious traditions for generations. Put yourself in the shoes of an Apostle who had walked with Jesus in his earthly ministry who clung to the words Jesus taught them. Not knowing that Jesus while in his earthly ministry was not given the knowledge of the Gentiles being made heirs as the scriptures tell us that God kept it a mystery from EVERYONE. I can see how those Apostles struggled with the realization that Jesus didn't tell them this news. The news came from Paul and the Holy Spirit. The Gospel was given to them via the Holy Spirit of faith alone, the message that Paul adamantly taught throughout his epistles. The change the cross brought to the world was and is the most significant event in the history of mankind. It took a great deal of faith for the 12 to accept this new message. Early in that period the more difficult it was for them. James' epistle was very early in that transition. I do not discount that the evidence of faith is works and that upon salvation we do not hide in a cave, that we go about God's commands. I do not think those commands include Mosiac law rituals for the Gentiles.