Christ's Christianity and Paul's Christianity are Not the Same

[williemac]

There is no conflict. The New Testament went into affect upon Jesus' death, as Hebrews explains in detail.

Under the Law, God's acceptance of us was based on our performance. Under the New Covenant,God's acceptance of us is based on Jesus' performance.

Under the Covenant of Law, God would only forgive us if we forgive others. Under the New Covenant, God forgives us in Jesus. Having been forgiven, we are instructed to forgive others, even as God has already forgiven us.

No conflict. We just need to understand the . . . dispensation.

Love in Christ,
Mark

Exactly!

 

[brightmorningstar]

In short.
Luke who wrote one of the synoptic gospels affirmed Paul, John, Peter and the apsotles in Acts. Peter who was one of the apostles affirms Paul's writing and Paul claims he received what he preached, not from man but from the risen Lord (Galatians 1)
To suggest Christ vs Paul is really fundamentally not Christian faith at all.

 

[tallycello]

Here is my problem with where we are at in this debate- the argument coming back to me is that everything Paul wrote in his letters was the Holy Spirit speaking through him and that makes everything he writes as perfect as anything Christ said or any good work that Christ has done. This is to assume that no matter what Paul wrote, it is perfect and there can be no argument whatsoever as to whether his words are perfect and whether they can be questioned. My contention with this point of view is simply that Jesus, being the Son of God, clearly could not act or speak apart from our Creator because He is perfect. How can we possibly say that Paul, who was a man , not Son of God , not Lord of Lords- just a sinner like all of us sinners who from the road to Damascus , had a change of heart and wished to serve God and our Lord as an Apostle of Christ. When we assert that the letters of Paul are perfect in every way , then he has no sinful element to his personality at all and he , in his letters at the very least, is perfect. Are we to truly assume and contend that Paul had no human-sin in him after his conversion after the Road to Damascus encounter with Jesus and if he did still have human, sinful qualities, are we to assume that , perhaps, in his writings in his letters, somehow he was able to be perfectly Holy in his writings and shed every trace of sin and fully become as Christ was, is and will always be- perfect? And naturally my philosophical mind has to ask this question- was Paul so converted on the Road to Damascus the he was able to sin no more and live perfectly in Christ's Love until his death?

 

[brightmorningstar]

QRSNER,
The problem is you haven’t accepted the NT writers affirm Paul’s writing which claims he preached what he received from Christ.
So

and that makes everything he writes as perfect as anything Christ said

What he writes is what Christ taught him. (Galatians 1) Your argument assumes it wasn’t. That is incorrect.

Are we to truly assume and contend that Paul had no human-sin in him after his conversion after the Road to Damascus encounter with Jesus

We aren’t assuming that or anything else apart from what he writes, endorsed by some of the other writers.

You are talking to yourself and not attempting to address the responses put to you.

Furthermore, the synoptic gospel writers record the disciples in very much a learning capacity in the gospel account. Acts from Pentecost onwards and the letters is the church empowered by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tallycello]

QRSNER,
The problem is you haven’t accepted the NT writers affirm Paul’s writing which claims he preached what he received from Christ.
So
What he writes is what Christ taught him. (Galatians 1) Your argument assumes it wasn’t. That is incorrect.
We aren’t assuming that or anything else apart from what he writes, endorsed by some of the other writers.

You are talking to yourself and not attempting to address the responses put to you.

Furthermore, the synoptic gospel writers record the disciples in very much a learning capacity in the gospel account. Acts from Pentecost onwards and the letters is the church empowered by the Holy Spirit.

I disagree with the statement that I am not responding to what is being argued to me. I am not one who has been born into a rigorous faith and must admit that I may be ignorant of some of God's revelations to humankind. In order for me to understand God, I question those who know about their faith- it is not enough for me to just accept what is taught to me- it has to make sense to me from every angle and that is why I offer abstract questions to the responses on here. I think it is a fair question to ask whether or not Paul was without sin after his encounter with Christ...Look at the myriad of Church councils who had to go through difficult questions and affirmations after the death of Paul concerning the Christian Creed. Right, you could say that I am not accepting that the Holy Spirit worked through Paul and that is why his letters are Sacred and in the Bible. I am giving you all the benefit of any doubt about that and thank you for your responses. I am just posing the question as to whether it is possible that Paul was so filled with Christ's Spirit after his encounter in Acts, that he was free from sin and able to preach the Gospel and Good News of Christ without blemish...

 

[Groundzero]

Here is my problem with where we are at in this debate- the argument coming back to me is that everything Paul wrote in his letters was the Holy Spirit speaking through him and that makes everything he writes as perfect as anything Christ said or any good work that Christ has done. This is to assume that no matter what Paul wrote, it is perfect and there can be no argument whatsoever as to whether his words are perfect and whether they can be questioned. My contention with this point of view is simply that Jesus, being the Son of God, clearly could not act or speak apart from our Creator because He is perfect. How can we possibly say that Paul, who was a man , not Son of God , not Lord of Lords- just a sinner like all of us sinners who from the road to Damascus , had a change of heart and wished to serve God and our Lord as an Apostle of Christ. When we assert that the letters of Paul are perfect in every way , then he has no sinful element to his personality at all and he , in his letters at the very least, is perfect. Are we to truly assume and contend that Paul had no human-sin in him after his conversion after the Road to Damascus encounter with Jesus and if he did still have human, sinful qualities, are we to assume that , perhaps, in his writings in his letters, somehow he was able to be perfectly Holy in his writings and shed every trace of sin and fully become as Christ was, is and will always be- perfect? And naturally my philosophical mind has to ask this question- was Paul so converted on the Road to Damascus the he was able to sin no more and live perfectly in Christ's Love until his death?

I see that you've conveniently sidestepped my question: How is it that Jesus threw the moneychangers, etc out his temple? According to your philosophy, he shouldn't have done that because they needed help!
What question? Paul himself answers that for you: "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death!"
But your 'argument' is sadly lacking.. Who wrote the gospels? A man! Did he sin? Definitely. And so the gospels are NOT perfect according to your reasoning, because they match the exact same criteria you use to judge Paul's epistles. How do you know that what Jesus said is ACTUALLY what he said? They were written by a sinful man!
The moment you question the authenticity of ONE book of the Bible, you will find that EVERY other book is placed in question. Yes, Paul was a sinful, yes, Matthew was sinful, but they were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, they were USED by the SPIRIT to write the HOLY SCRIPT. What they wrote was NOT of their OWN inspiration-the inspiration came from God himself. That's why all the books of the Bible are correct and trustworthy.
2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So now you have two questions:

Why did Jesus throw the moneychangers out of the temple? Shouldn't he have been 'loving' because they needed help?

If Paul wrote the epistles himself, and being a sinner made mistakes, does that apply to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well? After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners as well. (Let me correct myself, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners saved by grace). So, according to your 'logic', we can discredit the epistles of Paul, but NOT of the gospels. Why is that?

I disagree with the statement that I am not responding to what is being argued to me. I am not one who has been born into a rigorous faith and must admit that I may be ignorant of some of God's revelations to humankind. In order for me to understand God, I question those who know about their faith- it is not enough for me to just accept what is taught to me- it has to make sense to me from every angle and that is why I offer abstract questions to the responses on here. I think it is a fair question to ask whether or not Paul was without sin after his encounter with Christ...Look at the myriad of Church councils who had to go through difficult questions and affirmations after the death of Paul concerning the Christian Creed. Right, you could say that I am not accepting that the Holy Spirit worked through Paul and that is why his letters are Sacred and in the Bible. I am giving you all the benefit of any doubt about that and thank you for your responses. I am just posing the question as to whether it is possible that Paul was so filled with Christ's Spirit after his encounter in Acts, that he was free from sin and able to preach the Gospel and Good News of Christ without blemish...

Paul wasn't free from sin, and he made mistakes, but when he wrote the Epistles in the Bible, he did so under the unction of the Holy Ghost. I wouldn't even dream of challenging such authority.

 

[veteran]

Here is my problem with where we are at in this debate- the argument coming back to me is that everything Paul wrote in his letters was the Holy Spirit speaking through him and that makes everything he writes as perfect as anything Christ said or any good work that Christ has done. This is to assume that no matter what Paul wrote, it is perfect and there can be no argument whatsoever as to whether his words are perfect and whether they can be questioned. My contention with this point of view is simply that Jesus, being the Son of God, clearly could not act or speak apart from our Creator because He is perfect. How can we possibly say that Paul, who was a man , not Son of God , not Lord of Lords- just a sinner like all of us sinners who from the road to Damascus , had a change of heart and wished to serve God and our Lord as an Apostle of Christ. When we assert that the letters of Paul are perfect in every way , then he has no sinful element to his personality at all and he , in his letters at the very least, is perfect. Are we to truly assume and contend that Paul had no human-sin in him after his conversion after the Road to Damascus encounter with Jesus and if he did still have human, sinful qualities, are we to assume that , perhaps, in his writings in his letters, somehow he was able to be perfectly Holy in his writings and shed every trace of sin and fully become as Christ was, is and will always be- perfect? And naturally my philosophical mind has to ask this question- was Paul so converted on the Road to Damascus the he was able to sin no more and live perfectly in Christ's Love until his death?

That's kind of questioning is nothing more than a vain attempt to destroy God's Holy Writ.


2 Pet 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)


All you're really doing is questioning the New Testament writer's authority given by The LORD through The Holy Spirit. In essence you're questioning The Holy Spirit, for that's Who gave the Truth in their Epistles to write down for posterity. Jesus Himself never actually penned any letters of the NT writings; all four Gospel Books were written in letters by His WITNESSES of His works, His teaching, and His death and Resurrection. And Christ's Apostles then continued that writing as Witnesses to works by The Holy Spirit through Christ's servants on earth.

Thus the Authority of the writings of the NT Apostles had nothing... to do with their shortcomings of the flesh!

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

They are both the same.

One, Jesus was God speaking the word of God to people who know the word of God. Two, Jesus was speaking to Jews as a Jew explaining the Law given to the Jews as it should've been interpreted if they had faith and desired to follow God.

Paul, Was an educated man who knew the word of God as given to Jews. Paul spoke as an educated man to people who didn't know the word of God. The people Paul was speaking to had unique sets of questions and problems that were not Jewish in nature. Paul explained things to the Jews as a Jew who knew the Word of God. Paul spoke to gentiles who didn't know the word of God as a Gentile. In short, Paul was a man trying to convey the thoughts God gave him.

See, God is the only artist that can convey his work as He see's it in his mind. Man as an artist can only convey a shadow of what he sees in his mind. See the difference?

 

[tallycello]

I see that you've conveniently sidestepped my question: How is it that Jesus threw the moneychangers, etc out his temple? According to your philosophy, he shouldn't have done that because they needed help!
What question? Paul himself answers that for you: "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death!"
But your 'argument' is sadly lacking.. Who wrote the gospels? A man! Did he sin? Definitely. And so the gospels are NOT perfect according to your reasoning, because they match the exact same criteria you use to judge Paul's epistles. How do you know that what Jesus said is ACTUALLY what he said? They were written by a sinful man!
The moment you question the authenticity of ONE book of the Bible, you will find that EVERY other book is placed in question. Yes, Paul was a sinful, yes, Matthew was sinful, but they were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, they were USED by the SPIRIT to write the HOLY SCRIPT. What they wrote was NOT of their OWN inspiration-the inspiration came from God himself. That's why all the books of the Bible are correct and trustworthy.
2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So now you have two questions:

Why did Jesus throw the moneychangers out of the temple? Shouldn't he have been 'loving' because they needed help?

If Paul wrote the epistles himself, and being a sinner made mistakes, does that apply to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well? After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners as well. (Let me correct myself, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners saved by grace). So, according to your 'logic', we can discredit the epistles of Paul, but NOT of the gospels. Why is that?



Paul wasn't free from sin, and he made mistakes, but when he wrote the Epistles in the Bible, he did so under the unction of the Holy Ghost. I wouldn't even dream of challenging such authority.

Ground Zero- Yeah, I don't pine over these rebuttals 24 hours a day and the list of complaints concerning my questions keeps growing so it got lost in the deluge of messages. First off, I am open to seeing how people respond , time permitting and am welcome to the fact that I could be terribly , terribly wrong. You raise some great points about how Jesus did not write the Bible and it is possible that the writers may have made mistakes. If a sinner writes the Bible, is it still the Word of God? What I gather from this debate, as it has taken shape is that the majority of members believe that the Holy Spirit , in all its mystery and wonder , works within people, sinners and saints, and has created for us people here on earth, a book by which we know God is the true and undeniable author of. This book is a kind of blueprint in how a person should conduct their life and all the words contained within are from our Creator. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether the person writing it was sinful because, afterall, we are all sinful and in need of God's grace. What matters is where the inspiration to write in this book came from and that is the Holy Spirit. Concerning Paul being free from sin after his encounter with Jesus, I think this is a fair question to ask and I am sure within the 2,000 year history it has been debated. At one time, there was a debate in the early Church whether Jesus was God, and the Holy Spirit worked through the council and it was revealed that he was indeed. This was in 325 AD at the council of Nicaea. They went through all the scriptures and debated and the answer was clear. Jesus , the word made flesh is indeed God. We don't live in 325 AD and maybe all the important questions have been answered , but then , why have a Christian debate forum.

As for the money changers, can you explain how the money changers incident does not relate to my philosophy? You don't have to, I just didn't undertsand the question...

 

[Groundzero]

Ground Zero- Yeah, I don't pine over these rebuttals 24 hours a day and the list of complaints concerning my questions keeps growing so it got lost in the deluge of messages. First off, I am open to seeing how people respond , time permitting and am welcome to the fact that I could be terribly , terribly wrong. You raise some great points about how Jesus did not write the Bible and it is possible that the writers may have made mistakes. If a sinner writes the Bible, is it still the Word of God? What I gather from this debate, as it has taken shape is that the majority of members believe that the Holy Spirit , in all its mystery and wonder , works within people, sinners and saints, and has created for us people here on earth, a book by which we know God is the true and undeniable author of. This book is a kind of blueprint in how a person should conduct their life and all the words contained within are from our Creator. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether the person writing it was sinful because, afterall, we are all sinful and in need of God's grace. What matters is where the inspiration to write in this book came from and that is the Holy Spirit. Concerning Paul being free from sin after his encounter with Jesus, I think this is a fair question to ask and I am sure within the 2,000 year history it has been debated. At one time, there was a debate in the early Church whether Jesus was God, and the Holy Spirit worked through the council and it was revealed that he was indeed. This was in 325 AD at the council of Nicaea. They went through all the scriptures and debated and the answer was clear. Jesus , the word made flesh is indeed God. We don't live in 325 AD and maybe all the important questions have been answered , but then , why have a Christian debate forum.

Oh help me please . . . .

Answer the two questions:
[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Why did Jesus throw the moneychangers out of the temple?[/background][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)] Shouldn't he have been 'loving' because they needed help?[/background]

[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]If Paul wrote the epistles himself, and being a sinner made mistakes, does that apply to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well? After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners as well. (Let me correct myself, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners saved by grace). So, according to your 'logic', [/background][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]we can discredit the epistles of Paul, but NOT of the gospels. Why is that?[/background]

I haven't complained about your question. Because I really don't think it was an honest question. You say you don't dodge, but I think you just proved you did. I asked you to answer two questions, and so you replied to that exact post, with a lot of gibberish about Paul being a sinner, the council of Nicea, people's responses, etc. All I want to hear, is your reply to the questions. You don't have to get all defensive about it. Just answer the questions. It's sooooooo simple

As for the money changers, can you explain how the money changers incident does not relate to my philosophy? You don't have to, I just didn't undertsand the question...

Wow. I'm having difficulty getting my head around this one. . . . as I understand, your philosophy is that Jesus' Christianity is different to Paul's, based on the fact that Jesus dined with sinners, while Paul said that if a Believer was an idolater, etc, we should disfellowship.

The money changers have alot to do with your 'philosophy'. If Jesus was really the 'love' everyone type, why did he throw them all out the Temple? I'll bet that those moneychangers were religious. But they were religious hypocrites. Openly ripping people off, and defiling the very Temple they were suppose to be protecting. That's why Jesus threw them out, and that's the same thing Paul was talking about. .. .

 

[tallycello]

Oh help me please . . . .

Answer the two questions:
[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Why did Jesus throw the moneychangers out of the temple?[/background][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)] Shouldn't he have been 'loving' because they needed help[/background]

[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]Because they were using the Temple as a place of sale...That is a tough question to answer- because as I understand it, Jesus was being loving when he took this action. But YOUR link to Paul kicking out members can be considered an act of love as well, they were concerned for the souls of the people, no hate involved. I think you are getting stuck on the beginning of this debate and if you read the whole thing you will clearly see an evolution of me being ignorant of much of how Paul approached the letters and me asking questions to better my understanding of St Paul...[/background]

[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]If Paul wrote the epistles himself, and being a sinner made mistakes, does that apply to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well? After all, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners as well. (Let me correct myself, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all sinners saved by grace). So, according to your 'logic', [/background][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]we can discredit the epistles of Paul, but NOT of the gospels. Why is that?[/background]

I thought we established in this debate that a sinner can write through the gift of the Holy Spirit, an unblemished Gospel, Letter etc....Remember me- "hey, good points" ....


I haven't complained about your question. Because I really don't think it was an honest question. You say you don't dodge, but I think you just proved you did. I asked you to answer two questions, and so you replied to that exact post, with a lot of gibberish about Paul being a sinner, the council of Nicea, people's responses, etc. All I want to hear, is your reply to the questions. You don't have to get all defensive about it. Just answer the questions. It's sooooooo simple

I don't find faith easy , I commend anyone who does...



Wow. I'm having difficulty getting my head around this one. . . . as I understand, your philosophy is that Jesus' Christianity is different to Paul's, based on the fact that Jesus dined with sinners, while Paul said that if a Believer was an idolater, etc, we should disfellowship.

Again, evolution of debate

The money changers have alot to do with your 'philosophy'. If Jesus was really the 'love' everyone type, why did he throw them all out the Temple? I'll bet that those moneychangers were religious. But they were religious hypocrites. Openly ripping people off, and defiling the very Temple they were suppose to be protecting. That's why Jesus threw them out, and that's the same thing Paul was talking about. .. .I covered this earlier in this post

That looks like the end of this debate- it was fun everyone-thanks for entertaining my philosophical temperament!

 

[brightmorningstar]

QRSNER,

I disagree with the statement that I am not responding to what is being argued to me.

Ok but I disagree with your statement that you are based on the assumption you made compared with what the scripture says as explained in previous posts.

I am not one who has been born into a rigorous faith and must admit that I may be ignorant of some of God's revelations to humankind. In order for me to understand God, I question those who know about their faith- it is not enough for me to just accept what is taught to me- it has to make sense to me from every angle and that is why I offer abstract questions to the responses on here.

It is your claims such as this for which you have provided no evidence or reasoning that I am disputing.

I think it is a fair question to ask whether or not Paul was without sin after his encounter with Christ...

It is not fair or relevant, see Romans 3 and Romans 7:20. Paul says all fall short and
"Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
GroundZero also gave examples.
The difference is the believer in Christ still falls short and sins but doesn’t want to sin and repents. The non-believer doesn’t accept they sin and doesn’t see what the problem is.

That looks like the end of this debate-

It wasnt a debate at all, it was you giving your own human liberal counterfit Christian ideas to believers who rightly discerned tested and rejected them.

 

[tallycello]

QRSNER,
Ok but I disagree with your statement that you are based on the assumption you made compared with what the scripture says as explained in previous posts.
It is your claims such as this for which you have provided no evidence or reasoning that I am disputing.
It is not fair or relevant, see Romans 3 and Romans 7:20. Paul says all fall short and
"Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
GroundZero also gave examples.
The difference is the believer in Christ still falls short and sins but doesn’t want to sin and repents. The non-believer doesn’t accept they sin and doesn’t see what the problem is.

It wasnt a debate at all, it was you giving your own human liberal counterfit Christian ideas to believers who rightly discerned tested and rejected them.

QRSNER,
Ok but I disagree with your statement that you are based on the assumption you made compared with what the scripture says as explained in previous posts.
It is your claims such as this for which you have provided no evidence or reasoning that I am disputing.
It is not fair or relevant, see Romans 3 and Romans 7:20. Paul says all fall short and
"Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."
GroundZero also gave examples.
The difference is the believer in Christ still falls short and sins but doesn’t want to sin and repents. The non-believer doesn’t accept they sin and doesn’t see what the problem is.

It wasnt a debate at all, it was you giving your own human liberal counterfit Christian ideas to believers who rightly discerned tested and rejected them.

You bring up an interesting point about sin - I believe I studied these a little bit but I would like to know if you consider them to be the primary ways in which a person can fall from grace. Maybe there are many more sins as well....It seems to me that if you do not know you are sinning, it would be harder to repent...

• Lust – to have an intense desire or need: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
• Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking: “for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags” (Proverbs 23:21).
• Greed - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more” (Ephesians 4:19).
• Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous: “The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway” (Proverbs 15:19).
• Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1)
• Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage: “Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Peter 2:1-2).
• Pride - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).

GB

 

[Sabitarian]

QRSNER,
I believe that these two scriptures go together as Paul told them they were puffed up meaning they thought it good for such to happen. It was not just that he had taken his fathers wife, it was also their feelings about the act. Paul admonished them to be mournful about it and deliver him to Satin. Of course if he repented as he did they were to forgive him and not drive him away with their judgments of him. Paul was not there and could not know to what extent was the problem and if the man would repent. He gave them the best estimate that he could from where he was. You have to understand he was only hearing about it and had no first hand information. Angelina is right to tell you to look at context as that is your problem, you are not looking at it from the right perspective. Context is the problem Christians have with scripture as they are unwilling to actually read what is written and go with that which they have been taught, instead of going with the words as written. There are three things that you need to understand scripture, context, context, context. The whole Book is one as all believers are one in Christ. The theme of the whole Book carries from the first to the end, with no changes unless told before hand.

1 Cor 5:1-6

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
(KJV)

2 Cor 2:5-8
5 But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.
6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.
7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
(KJV)
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

QRSNER,
Your last statement is telling as the Sacrifical laws were for just such a purpose, if you sinned unknowingly and then realized that you had sinned, then you were to make the appropriate sacrifice to attone for that. The Sacrificial law was just for that purpose and the Jews used it as a get out of jail free card, not just for unintentional sin. That is what Christians are using Grace for now as they are fighting against the Spirit of God.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[tallycello]

QRSNER,
I believe that these two scriptures go together as Paul told them they were puffed up meaning they thought it good for such to happen. It was not just that he had taken his fathers wife, it was also their feelings about the act. Paul admonished them to be mournful about it and deliver him to Satin. Of course if he repented as he did they were to forgive him and not drive him away with their judgments of him. Paul was not there and could not know to what extent was the problem and if the man would repent. He gave them the best estimate that he could from where he was. You have to understand he was only hearing about it and had no first hand information. Angelina is right to tell you to look at context as that is your problem, you are not looking at it from the right perspective. Context is the problem Christians have with scripture as they are unwilling to actually read what is written and go with that which they have been taught, instead of going with the words as written. There are three things that you need to understand scripture, context, context, context. The whole Book is one as all believers are one in Christ. The theme of the whole Book carries from the first to the end, with no changes unless told before hand.

1 Cor 5:1-6

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
(KJV)

2 Cor 2:5-8
5 But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.
6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.
7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
(KJV)
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

QRSNER,
Your last statement is telling as the Sacrifical laws were for just such a purpose, if you sinned unknowingly and then realized that you had sinned, then you were to make the appropriate sacrifice to attone for that. The Sacrificial law was just for that purpose and the Jews used it as a get out of jail free card, not just for unintentional sin. That is what Christians are using Grace for now as they are fighting against the Spirit of God.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

Thank You for your insight on this. One thing does stand out to me in Paul's writing that you quoted here. Not to get off topic, but I really am interested in understanding this better. Paul wants to deliver their bodies to Satan so that their souls may be saved on the day Jesus returns. Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but, is it the case that all lost souls are to be saved and sent to Heaven when Jesus returns, or are there some that will remain in eternal punishment?

Thank You
God Bless
John

 

[brightmorningstar]

QRSNER,

You bring up an interesting point about sin –

No, you first mentioned that.
Sexual immorality is usually why liberals don’t like Paul, because they don’t see a lot of sexual immorality as wrong such as homosexuality. Do you? I see from your list you didn’t cite anything on sexual immorality, yet it is as frequently mentioned as some of the sins you have listed.
Why else would you, who wasn’t there at the time, decide that the testimony given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is reliable because they record what Jesus said and did, but not Paul’s testimony of what he received from the risen Lord. I mean if you believe the gospel by Luke why would you not Luke's endorsement of Paul in Acts?

mark s
This is really good!!!!!

There is no conflict. The New Testament went into affect upon Jesus' death, as Hebrews explains in detail.

Under the Law, God's acceptance of us was based on our performance. Under the New Covenant,God's acceptance of us is based on Jesus' performance.

Under the Covenant of Law, God would only forgive us if we forgive others. Under the New Covenant, God forgives us in Jesus. Having been forgiven, we are instructed to forgive others, even as God has already forgiven us.

No conflict. We just need to understand the . . . dispensation."

Amen

I would like to use this explanation in future.

 

[7angels]

i am confused on what is the question and answer we are after here. i was getting prepared to explain the misunderstanding of what was meant by the Jesus' christianity and paul's christianity. then as i was reading to catch up the subject seemed to change and now it was posted that this debate is over and another question was asked. so can someone please tell me where we are at please. well i will try and explain this while i wait for what question we are on at the moment.

When you read the Bible , it is obvious that the letters of Paul are not the same message as the message that Christ sends us, that is, if we assume that we are to emulate Christ.

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]"When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, 'Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'? [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]When Jesus heard this, he said, 'Healthy people don't need a doctor--sick people do.' (Matthew 9:11-12)[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Paul the Apostle says[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]"When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. (Cor. 5:9-11)[/background]

[background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Are we to assume that these brothers who are immoral are to be outcasts in the mind of Paul but for Jesus it is exactly these same people who NEED Christ's love. And doesn't Paul's Christianity assume a Judgemental and holier-than-thou point of view that "I, who am not [/background][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler are outcasting YOU, brother , and I shall not eat with you." ??? [/background]

i think the amplified does the best job of explaining 1 cor 5:9-11 which says I wrote you in my [previous] letter not to associate [closely and habitually] with unchaste (impure) people—
[sup]10 [/sup]Not [meaning of course that you must] altogether shun the immoral people of this world, or the greedy graspers and cheats and thieves or idolaters, since otherwise you would need to get out of the world and human society altogether!
[sup]11 [/sup]But now I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater [whose soul is devoted to any object that usurps the place of God], or is a person with a foul tongue [railing, abusing, reviling, slandering], or is a drunkard or a swindler or a robber. [No] you must not so much as eat with such a person.

looked at from this view point it helps us to understand where paul was coming from. paul was not talking about the unsaved but about christians who are living in willful sin. willful sin is a subject all its own and i can go into it further if you wish. but we are told to go preach the gospel to all the world and make disciples of all the nations. if we are to only talk to christians then there is not much chance that the unsaved will even come to know Christ. so on this point you are correct that we are here on earth to bring the sinner to God and only our relationship with God is too supersede the former command.

 

[Sabitarian]

QRSNER,
I the first place no one goes to Heaven except the one who came from there. I have no idea of where those who were take are, but it is clear they did not go to Heaven, otherwise Christ would have not said that no one has gone to Heaven except the one who came from there. There is no eternal punishment, they will be purged of their sins and just cease to exist. Our Father desires for us to know and understand Him and His ways, therefore He spends time explaining things to us so we might understand why he does the things that He does. Why is there a White Throne Judgement in the first place, God knows what is to become of all. It is for the specific purpose of allowing for us to understand why He made the judgement in the first place. It is like when He decided to allow Gentiles into the fold, it was foretold many years before or where circumcision was to be of the heart instead of the flesh, remember of the flesh only pertains to men, while of the heart pertains to women as well. All of His decisions are up for reveue by us and we are to understand why they are as they are. God does nothing in secret as scripture attests to.
we are to lovingly correct Christians who are repentant or who are willing to repent, however those who willingly break the Commandments and teach others to do the same will not see salvation. The Sign of God is the main one that will cause most Christions to face the wrath of God in the near tribulation and when it starts the time for you to change will end and you will have to face Him with all of your sins in place. In case you do not know what the Sign is it tells who He is, what His authoriety is, and why He has the right to exercise His authority and it is in the Moral Law.
brightmorningstar,
Your quote that you are willing to use in the future is wrong and if you read the epistles of James and John you will realize that your works are to be judged, because even the blood of Christ can not cover willful sin. It is counted against you in the judgement to come and can cause you to lose salvation. Remember Grace is afforded to those who are worthy as they have come as close to following the laws of God as they are able to do, however if you are doing willful sin out of ignorance of the law God might give you the benefit of the doubt, but if the truth is given you and you fight against the truth, you are fighting against God. Many on this site are doing just that and I would not want to be there when Christ tells them in Matthew 7 "I never knew you". The message in revelation is going forth right now and you are to heed it"come out of her my people"as the scarlet whore will be judged and if you are doing her will at the start of the tribulation you will face a similar fate to that she will face. I can identify all of these if you wish, just let me know if you need it.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[brightmorningstar]

Sabitarian,
I agree with you about wilful sin, but I dont think that detracts from what mark s wrote. Perhaps it should be added.

 

[7angels]

QRSNER,
I the first place no one goes to Heaven except the one who came from there. I have no idea of where those who were take are, but it is clear they did not go to Heaven, otherwise Christ would have not said that no one has gone to Heaven except the one who came from there. There is no eternal punishment, they will be purged of their sins and just cease to exist.

we are spirit beings in a flesh suit. similar to an astronaut and what he wears when he goes out in space in a spacesuit. a spirit being does not just cease to exist. where we decide to go is up to us to choose.

Our Father desires for us to know and understand Him and His ways, therefore He spends time explaining things to us so we might understand why he does the things that He does. Why is there a White Throne Judgement in the first place, God knows what is to become of all. It is for the specific purpose of allowing for us to understand why He made the judgement in the first place. It is like when He decided to allow Gentiles into the fold, it was foretold many years before or where circumcision was to be of the heart instead of the flesh, remember of the flesh only pertains to men, while of the heart pertains to women as well. All of His decisions are up for reveue by us and we are to understand why they are as they are. God does nothing in secret as scripture attests to.

you may be right about this part but there is no scripture i know of to back up or deny what you say is true to my knowledge.

we are to lovingly correct Christians who are repentant or who are willing to repent, however those who willingly break the Commandments and teach others to do the same will not see salvation.

this depends on how you look at it. we sin all the time and when others see us and if even one person copies us then this will not cause us to lose our salvation. even living in willful sin does not mean we will not go to heaven. it all depends upon our attitude, approach, and attention. i used to live in willful sin and even though i was in willful sin i knew if i died i would still go to heaven. there is nothing we can or cannot do that will make us lose our salvation except if we stop having faith in Christ. any other way is then done by works and we are not saved by works but by faith.

The Sign of God is the main one that will cause most Christions to face the wrath of God in the near tribulation and when it starts the time for you to change will end and you will have to face Him with all of your sins in place. In case you do not know what the Sign is it tells who He is, what His authoriety is, and why He has the right to exercise His authority and it is in the Moral Law.

i agree with you here.

brightmorningstar,
Your quote that you are willing to use in the future is wrong and if you read the epistles of James and John you will realize that your works are to be judged, because even the blood of Christ can not cover willful sin. It is counted against you in the judgement to come and can cause you to lose salvation.

again it is not willful sin that will cause you to lose your salvation but a hardening of our hearts which does not happen overnight but over months or years.

Remember Grace is afforded to those who are worthy as they have come as close to following the laws of God as they are able to do,

you are in error here. grace is given to the humble. it matter not whether they are in willful sin or not as long as they come before the Lord with a humble heart.

however if you are doing willful sin out of ignorance of the law God might give you the benefit of the doubt, but if the truth is given you and you fight against the truth, you are fighting against God. Many on this site are doing just that and I would not want to be there when Christ tells them in Matthew 7 "I never knew you".

this comes about from a hardened heart. if the Holy Spirit starts convicting us in a certain area and we refuse to obey then our hearts become hardened in that area and we cannot hear the Holy Spirit in that area if we keep going against what God is telling us to change. if we do it too much and keep ignoring the convictions of God then eventually we will harden our hearts so much against God that we will not be able to hear him at all. when this happens those people who have hardened their hearts against God will lose their salvation and not go to heaven.

The message in revelation is going forth right now and you are to heed it"come out of her my people"as the scarlet whore will be judged and if you are doing her will at the start of the tribulation you will face a similar fate to that she will face. I can identify all of these if you wish, just let me know if you need it.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

God bless