Can Jesus and Paul be reconciled on the LAW?
- Thread starter Danube
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You have already judged me stranger.
According to you my soul is damned because in the grace of spirit through your righteousness you allude me to be.
I just do not think that you (like all the others) feel I should "know" before I read.
You allude to the meal before you have even tasted it.
Disprove what position? Am I seriously the only person who has doubts about Paul and has the honesty to stick my beliefs out there for reprove? I doubt it.
This is why you hang the whole of Pauls acceptance as scripture on the one Apostle that Jesus had to rebuke for his "wordly view"...what about the other 11 Apostles? What do they say about Paul? Let's use the same argument for all 11 and see if they endorse Paul with as much gusto...lets use the witness testimony of 2 or more?
Last edited:
Funny to watch people attack the Christian faith but then are unable and unwilling to answer the questions put to them.
I pointed out that your position was exactly as that addressed in the Scriptures. And it isn't good. So, don't blame me for your unbelief.
As to the meal you are presenting, it has a repugnant odor. No way will it be any good to the taste. Even a dog smells his food prior to eating.
Stranger
I asked are you sure....
that Paul actually SAW JESUS risen.
You said he did.
I thought Paul alludes to a bright light and only heard a voice?
Paul taught that the reason for not eating unclean foods in scripture is love for their Jewish neighbor.
Some of us have trouble with that...we struggle with not being able to eat pork or shellfish (they are quite tasty compared to other foods). Personally, I am getting better at abstaining from these types of foods. But I don't do it over condemnation but out of love for my Jewish brother or sister. 1 Timothy 4:1-6 shows that the Gentile believer is not condemned over something that he isn't aware of...and that once he becomes aware of it, he is still not condemned if he continues to behave in the same manner...for we are not justified by the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.
Faith in Jesus Christ leads me, as one who was raised in a Gentile home, to obey the law to the best of my ability, as I mature in that faith. The Bible tells me, "Awake to righteousness, and sin not" (1 Corinthians 15:34) and "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).
However, my salvation, redemption, and justification does not rely on how well I perform in the way of not sinning. I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.
Because I am forgiven much, I love much (Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19, Romans 5:5); and this love is not in word or in tongue only but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:17-18); it is also the fulfilling of the law according to Paul (Romans 5:5, Romans 8:4, Romans 13:8-10) and Jesus (Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:29-31).
Also, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6 tell me that this love will result in an obedience to the actual commandments of the Old and New Testaments...they tell me that the commandments of the Lord are the specifics of God's love. So I do my best to keep all of them as a born again Christian.
Of course, I do not own tzitzit (see Numbers 15:37-41) and so I fall short in the area of keeping the whole law. But that is good; because if I ever thought that I was justified through keeping the law, I might forsake the justification that comes through faith in the Lord and Saviour (Jesus Christ of Nazareth).
Law-keeping and faith in Jesus Christ are competing elements when it comes to what saves us.
People think that, since those who are born again/saved become law-abiding citizens over time, that the way to salvation must be through becoming a law-abiding citizen. They have stumbled on a stumbling stone in scripture...for the only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
I pray that my words will strike home to your heart, @Danube. The word of the Lord is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, dividing asunder between joints and marrow, soul and spirit, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Last edited:
Jesus is not repugnant. I would take that back quick.
Again you alluded to a meal you havent tasted. Once more...
Nope.
You now have to twist scripture...
You said "he saw"
Now you are saying he heard a voice "say"
Show me Paul describe Jesus in the flesh if he did as you say...see him.
Better still quote the event (all of it).
Thanks
I didn't say Jesus is repugnant. I said what you are presenting is repugnant and not worth tasting. Funny how you want to twist my words yet won't answer to my questions. What about Peter's remarks about Paul's writings being Scripture? Is Peter's writings Scripture?
Stranger
Paul didn't see Jesus in the flesh. He saw the resurrected Jesus. (Acts 26:13) "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven,..."
Stranger
Jesus warned in his talk to the apostles at the Mount of Olives that after He ascends to heaven, many imposters will come in his name saying they are Himself, but do not believe them if someone claims to have seen Him return from heaven just in a wilderness place or in a private room. Jesus says the distinction of how He will reappear on earth is that when it's truly him every eye will see Him from every point East and West.
So why did you tell me he did? #297
You also have not attempted to give Paul the witness testimony of 2 or more regarding acceptance from the other 11 (which you used his own single witness testimony so that according to Jesus instructions falls short...).
Last edited:
Because He did see the risen Christ. I just showed you in the 2 references in (Acts).
Stranger
Jesus appeared to Paul in the form of a light that was brighter than the sun. This light identified Himself as Jesus Christ whom Paul was persecuting.
Now you can accuse Paul of lying in giving this testimony; but I would have to ask why you want to believe that Paul is a liar?
I think it must have to do with something he said. Perhaps you don't like the fact that Gentiles are freer than their Jewish brethren according to Paul's teaching.
@Danube.
Now you can accuse Paul of lying in giving this testimony; but I would have to ask why you want to believe that Paul is a liar?
I think it must have to do with something he said. Perhaps you don't like the fact that Gentiles are freer than their Jewish brethren according to Paul's teaching.
@Danube.
Last edited:
Again I answer your questions yet you don't answer mine. I have already told you that Paul is not one of the 12 and does not need the approval of the 12. He does have the approval of Peter as to his writings being Scripture, and thus the Word of God. So, again, what about Peter's remarks. Are Peter's writings Scripture?
Stranger
No.
What you have offered is Paul using his own witness testimony of 1 to somehow "prove" it was Jesus, that is called faith, proof is based on "evidence" yet Jesus clearly states you need the witness testimony of 2 or more AND you ignore Jesus own words in Matthew to warn you of who would come imposing as he...after he ascended.
Yes. Peter has stated plainly that Paul's writings are Scripture, the Word of God. So, are Peter's writings Scripture? If so, why don't you believe Paul?
Stranger
You did clearly say " he saw the risen christ" but he (Paul):
A: describes light as the physical manifestation of what he saw.
B: hears a voice that "say's" it is Jesus which is not the same as "looking directly at Jesus" hence he heard not saw.
C: It fits the descriptive warning perfectly that Jesus "himself" gave of false Christs and how they appear.
I do not believe Paul because he does not check out as genuine. I use Jesus' instructions and teaching of how he tells us he will be seen (as I posted ref for you to be polite) and Paul even admits being a liar. Paul even slates Jesus' own brother James as knowing less about his own brother (Christ) than Paul(?) Which reeks....
There is more but I still seek answers to my original few questions so I am not in a hurry to just brush over them, mainly because I need to be sure in my own mind (and heart) that I fully understand Paul' strange Damascus event first and it's significance to my own learning and recent insights into the biblical narrative.
Last edited:
There is indeed the record of Acts and his Damascus Road experience.
But I won't argue with your arguing with Scripture; it won't be profitable.
Similar threads
