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

[James Forthwright]

(In an attempt to bring this discussion back ON TOPIC . . .)

Is EVERYTHING the Apostle Paul wrote the incontrovertible Word of God?

Are women not to teach in the Church? (1Tim. 2:11-12)

Should women be silent in the Church? (1Cor. 14:34)

Should women pray with their heads covered? (1Cor. 11:5-6) (1Cor. 11:10)

Is long hair shameful for a man? (1Cor. 11:14)

Should we, emulate Paul and preach against the dictates of the Law and then claim to follow it in its entirety? (Acts 24:14)

Is it OK to occasionally use lies and guile as tools of the Gospel? (Rom. 3:7) (2Cor. 12:16)

Did Paul 'speak in tongues more than anyone else' in Corinth? The entire Christian Church? (1Cor. 14:18)

Should we follow Paul? (Phil. 3:17) (1Cor. 11:1-2) Or Jesus? (1John 2:6) (1Pet. 2:21)

 

[epostle1]

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]

Jesus was referring to the lost sheep of Israel. Paul, being sent to the Gentiles, was referring to Gentiles who call themselves believers.

Shalom!!!

The topic has been well answered by Angelina in the second quote......

next topic?

 

[James Forthwright]

The topic has been well answered by Angelina in the second quote......

next topic?

Your 'atta girl' comments added nothing relevant whatsoever to the discussion at hand. The post you responded to is over five months old while completely ignoring my latest post. Are you just trolling here Kepha31 or do you just enjoy seeing your icon head-lining as many threads as possible?

 

[veteran]

And this is an empty accusation that avoids my arguments and just blankely says I'm wrong and you are right. Can't we discuss this or must we accept you as God's angel on this topic? My inclination is to ignore the rest of the post after it starts off with such disrespect. But I'm hard headed so....



I can't wait to see that proof. It will be life changing.

WHERE?



Please show the way you deduct those conclusions from those scriptures. Gal 5:16-18 contradicts your claims directly.




(KJV)

Romans 8:9 would show us that if you are INDWELLED BY THE SPIRIT you are no longer in the flesh, thus you are walking by the Spirit, thus you aren't giving into temptation. UNTIL that occurs you have a battle with the flesh, where the Spirit is outside fighting to get in. Romans 8:9 shows you are EITHER flesh, or Spirit. Not choosing between the two forever.



People of Israel are not gentiles. PROPHECY says Christ will establish a Church and will be a priest forever in the order of melchizedek. I'm sorry that you don't accept prophecy as prophecy when it's not convenient to your views.

The Levitical laws were NEVER EVER EVER upheld for Gentiles. That is PART of the law that they didn't keep all the laws.

Also the council of Jerusalem, James decreed to Barnabas, Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the Church, that the gentiles wouldn't keep all the law, or be under them. So the History of the Church as well as the scriptures disagree with your position. OR SO IT SEEMS. I'm willing to be wrong, but you have to explain and show how your claims are supported with the scripture you referenced. I can't manage to squeeze it into the box you got it in.

But, the three comments you quoted and practically ridiculed me for saying, are biblical. If you don't want to address those facts, then we have nothing to discuss.... We just put credit in the bible differently. You ignore parts I acknowledge. Thus we'd have as fundamental a difference as me and an LDS church member would have.

At the time of MELCHIZEDEK, there was no jew, no gentile and no law. Levi wasn't born yet, or at least CERTAINLY wasn't a High Priest yet. MEL was High Priest.

This is the priesthood that Christ's Church is founded after.

Thus there is no "jew or gentile" has some meaning when you consider it with this priesthood.

There still is law among God's people. But for the rebellious and sinful, the wicked, they like to think they are a law unto themselves.

Christ did NOT nail all of God's laws to His cross. Ony the handwriting of ordinances in the law was done away with on His cross.

Apostle Paul's own words about that...

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
(KJV)

Paul did not say that in an old covenant perspective. He said that under The New Covenant perspective, "the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed" to his trust!


So EITHER you are WILLINGLY IGNORANT of Paul's Epistles per The New Covenant, or... you willingly seek to be a lawless one.

The doctrine of lawlessness is NOT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. For one to say that all of God's law is now dead to the Christian believer IS the doctrine of lawlessness.

The idea Paul DID teach concerning God's laws vs the Christian believer, is that THE CHRISTIAN is DEAD TO THE LAW... BY... walking IN THE SPIRIT (Galatians 5). It's because like Paul said in Gal.5, there IS NO LAW against doing the good works of walking by The Spirit.

Thus, all those who today falsely teach believers on Christ Jesus that they are not subject to any law, for the law is dead, WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL THE WICKEDNESS THAT FALSE TEACHING CREATES.

 

[Sabitarian]

vereran,
Boy are you mixed up in your doctrine and have no idea of what you do believe. you sound like a politition who is making a speech that changes with the audience. The hand writting of ordinances was the sacrifical law, which was fulfilled at the death of Christ when the veil was torn, by the Spirit of God. Your Catholic doctrine does not allow you to see this. It is all traditions of man and not of God. There were sacrifices in the law from the beginning of time and were fulfilled also. Plus the Sabbath's were from the beginning and will be after the end, at least according to my Bible. Paul had no different doctrine than Christ as Christ was his teacher.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[epostle1]

Your 'atta girl' comments added nothing relevant whatsoever to the discussion at hand. The post you responded to is over five months old while completely ignoring my latest post. Are you just trolling here Kepha31 or do you just enjoy seeing your icon head-lining as many threads as possible?

The discussion at hand is an absurd contradiction, which is over 5 months old. I ignored your post because it is not worth replying to. I made the mistake of getting tangled up in too many threads and I try to avoid "hit-and-run" the way some posters do. I like to stay with threads I participate in. Since being here I have started 2 threads. I pose no threat to anyone but I will resist bigotry and ignorance. I have 2 on my ignore list. I am not in the habit of resurrecting dead threads. I avoid debating. Instead, I present. TRUTH will stand on its own merits or it's not TRUTH. TRUTH doesn't need a defense. If "all fall silent" (Acts 15:12) after I speak, it's not my fault. Everyone has the freedom cover up my avatar with a reply. I have no need to get in the last word.

You listed 13 scripture citations, headed with the term incontrovertable. You have a near sighted view of scripture verses. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are trying to prove that Paul is not incontrovertable. Had you not walked away from Jesus in the Eucharist (John 6:66) and remained in the Church Jesus founded, you may have learned how to read the Bible properly. When I present an opinion, I say, "In my opinion..." I do not pretend that my opinions are objective truth. And it isn't wise to make long disparaged lists of scriptures to bolster an opinion. That proves nothing, except that your opinion of the selection bears subjective truth. This might help you to read the Bible properly:

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.​

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)​

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)​

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.​

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION​

 

[veteran]

vereran,
Boy are you mixed up in your doctrine and have no idea of what you do believe. you sound like a politition who is making a speech that changes with the audience. The hand writting of ordinances was the sacrifical law, which was fulfilled at the death of Christ when the veil was torn, by the Spirit of God. Your Catholic doctrine does not allow you to see this. It is all traditions of man and not of God. There were sacrifices in the law from the beginning of time and were fulfilled also. Plus the Sabbath's were from the beginning and will be after the end, at least according to my Bible. Paul had no different doctrine than Christ as Christ was his teacher.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

While you admit the ordinances in the law were done away with, as I stated, you appear to DENY what was NOT done away with.

Notice you're still not willing to address what Apostle Paul actually DID teach as New Testament doctrine concerning the law, that 1 Timothy 1 Scripture being one of those places.

Per Colossians 2, it was the handwritings of ordinances that Christ nailed to His cross, not all... of God's laws.

Many of society's laws come directly from God's laws in His Word, and they are STILL in effect today for anyone... who breaks them. They are laws against murder, thefts, false witness (perjury), incest, adultery... well, the very things Paul mentioned in both 1 Timothy 1:8-10 and Galatians 5:16-21.


Gal 5:16-21
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(KJV)


The idea that the law is dead to the Christian is NOT what Paul taught, as revealed by those Scriptures in 1 Timothy 1 and Galatians 5. The difference is that WE as Christians WHEN we walk by The Spirit are 'dead' to the law. It is CONDITIONAL according to our walk in The Spirit as Christ's servants. Leave that and we put ourselves back under the law, but not the old law of sacrificial ordinances, but the under the laws which Christ did NOT do away with, like the ones Paul was pointing to.

And the condition of being under those laws applies to both Gentiles and Jews alike, REGARDLESS of religious affiliation, for even God's laws against murder, adultery, thefts, etc. apply to the unbeliever the same.

 

[James Forthwright]

You listed 13 scripture citations, headed with the term incontrovertable. You have a near sighted view of scripture verses. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are trying to prove that Paul is not incontrovertable. Had you not walked away from Jesus in the Eucharist (John 6:66) and remained in the Church Jesus founded, you may have learned how to read the Bible properly. When I present an opinion, I say, "In my opinion..." I do not pretend that my opinions are objective truth. And it isn't wise to make long disparaged lists of scriptures to bolster an opinion. That proves nothing, except that your opinion of the selection bears subjective truth.

Thanks for responding in a more substantive manner, Kepha31. This scriptural forum is designed as a medium of exchange of each member’s opinions on biblical matters. I see no need to preface every post with the phrase “In my opinion” as that should be implied for every post in this forum . No one can rightly claim that they are the incontrovertible oracle of God’s wisdom (including the Apostle Paul). Each opinion expressed has varying degrees of objective and subjective elements and likewise various degrees of divine truth in their interpretations of the sacred texts.

This might help you to read the Bible properly:
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)​

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)​

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION​

​

Those are some excellent guidelines for proper scriptural exegesis. My only point of disagreement is solely relying on “judgments of the Church” and “divine commissions” to properly interpret the Word of God. What should one do if what one’s conscience is saying concerning a particular scriptural passage differs substantially from the esteemed Church council’s catechism? Which takes preference, listening to what the Holy Spirit directs the Bible reader to believe is being said or acceptance of traditional ecclesiastical interpretations? I choose the former. ​

Each of us will one day stand before Our Maker and give account for our lives and beliefs. Though several of my personal doctrinal beliefs and scriptural interpretations are at variance with both Roman Catholic as well as mainstream Protestant professions, in my own eternal best interest it behooves me to continue to follow the dictates of my heart in these sensitive areas of doctrinal dispute.​

Concerning the nine questions I earlier posted on some of the Apostle Paul’s more controversial statements. Yes, at first glance they conclusions you may think I’m making may seem “narrow-minded” or unfairly judgmental but they were intended to spark some resurgence of thought in a thread that was straying off course. I’ll now elaborate (yes, with my subjective opinions) on each of the questions:​

Is EVERYTHING the Apostle Paul wrote the incontrovertible Word of God?

After careful and considerable study, the quick answer I believe is NO. As your cut and paste Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation clearly mentioned I also believe it is necessary to consider many factors before making a definite conclusion on Paul’s writings. It is wise to consider: Who was his audience? What historical and cultural aspects must we consider? What subtle meanings might be lost in translation concerning certain idioms, phrases and expressions from the original Greek text? How does the text fit in with the entire context of the Holy Bible and what the other anointed apostles and prophets spoke? Might Paul be a bit off course occasionally in some of his many epistles? Can the Holy Spirit guide the latter day believers to a deeper insight than the original Pauline interpretations? These are IMO, profound questions worthy of discussion and prayerful contemplation and questions with considerable eternal ramifications.


Are women not to teach in the Church? (1Tim. 2:11-12)

Paul might rightly be accused of being “sexist” in this area but he also recognized the prophetical anointing of Phillip’s two daughters. And he is the byproduct of years of study in a strict rabbinical male-dominated environment. So his stance should probably be tempered with this understanding. For what it's worth: I highly regard Ellen G. White's writings.


Should women be silent in the Church? (1Cor. 14:34)

Women do have a strong tendency to be loquacious. And twenty one centuries later not much has changed in this regard. Some women, don’t know when to shut up!


Should women pray with their heads covered? (1Cor. 11:5-6) (1Cor. 11:10)

On this matter I’m in full agreement with the venerable Apostle Paul. I remember from my childhood in the Catholic Church that all the women who attended mass on Sunday wore veils. I believe this is one area where both Roman Catholics and Protestants have tragically strayed from the Truth. The wearing of veils by women shows respect and IMO has a profound spiritual and angelic historical significance.


Is long hair shameful for a man? (1Cor. 11:14)

No, I think that Paul is speaking his own opinion on this matter and we are free to ignore his subjective and first century Corinthian cultural norms regarding hairstyles for men. The gifted Renaissance masters also always depicted Christ and His disciples as having long hair in their marvelous works of artistry and sculpture. Samson’s long hair was not shameful but an emblem of his righteousness with God. IMO, Paul should have stuck with preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles rather than commenting on hairstyles. . .


Should we, emulate Paul and preach against the dictates of the Law and then claim to follow it in its entirety? (Acts 24:14)

The doctrinal pendulum appears to swing back and forth from strict legal opinions of the Law to more lax interpretations throughout Church history. The Apostle Paul could be a very headstrong individual and on several occasions appears to have taken contradictory stances regarding God’s Law. Personally speaking, I tend to favor a more reverential regard for obedience to the Ten Commandments as well as Old Testament laws concerning keeping the Sabbath holy, food cleanliness laws and observing the scripturally prescribed holy day celebrations. Again, we all have to follow the dictates of our heart in these matters.


Is it OK to occasionally use lies and guile as tools of the Gospel? (Rom. 3:7) (2Cor. 12:16)

No, I think that Paul is dead wrong here or what he is saying has been somehow ‘lost in translation’. I see no need to ever prevaricate while preaching the gospel.


Did Paul 'speak in tongues more than anyone else' in Corinth? The entire Christian Church? (1Cor. 14:18)

This is clearly hyperbole. An exaggeration on his part and not to be taken literally. But it does demonstrate Paul’s tendency to occasionally over-emphasize some of his personal worship accomplishments.


Should we follow Paul? (Phil. 3:17) (1Cor. 11:1-2) Or Jesus? (1John 2:6) (1Pet. 2:21)

The Apostle Paul was certainly an inspired writer but in the long run I think it is best to follow Christ’s earthly example rather than some of Paul’s teachings. For example:

Paul states regarding God’s Law:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14)



Jesus stated:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Mat 5:18)

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:17)

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Mat 5:19)



I purposely choose to emulate Christ’s earthly example and follow His narrow prescribed path stated above, than to heed what many claim the Apostle Paul proscribes concerning the entirety of God’s Law which IMO may lead one to errantly wander down the wide road to licentiousness.

Peace be with you!

 

[epostle1]

Thanks for responding in a more substantive manner, Kepha31. This scriptural forum is designed as a medium of exchange of each member’s opinions on biblical matters. I see no need to preface every post with the phrase “In my opinion” as that should be implied for every post in this forum . No one can rightly claim that they are the incontrovertible oracle of God’s wisdom (including the Apostle Paul). Each opinion expressed has varying degrees of objective and subjective elements and likewise various degrees of divine truth in their interpretations of the sacred texts.

Yes, that's called Protestantism. TRUTH is not subjective. "Divine truth" with varying degrees of subjectivity is called RELATIVISM. Moral relativism is refuted here.

​

Those are some excellent guidelines for proper scriptural exegesis. My only point of disagreement is solely relying on “judgments of the Church” and “divine commissions” to properly interpret the Word of God.

2 Peter 1:20 2 Peter 3:16​

What should one do if what one’s conscience is saying concerning a particular scriptural passage differs substantially from the esteemed Church council’s catechism? Which takes preference, listening to what the Holy Spirit directs the Bible reader to believe is being said or acceptance of traditional ecclesiastical interpretations? I choose the former.

Show me in scripture where the individual is led by the Holy Spirit apart from the Church to interpret scripture, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal disputes. Include in your scriptures, the context of who is being addressed.​

What you really mean is that every individual bible reader is its own church. ​

Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"[sup]9[/sup] as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.[sup]10[/sup] Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.
Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Each of us will one day stand before Our Maker and give account for our lives and beliefs. Though several of my personal doctrinal beliefs and scriptural interpretations are at variance with both Roman Catholic as well as mainstream Protestant professions, in my own eternal best interest it behooves me to continue to follow the dictates of my heart in these sensitive areas of doctrinal dispute.

Just whom has influenced the dictates of your heart?​

Concerning the nine questions I earlier posted on some of the Apostle Paul’s more controversial statements. Yes, at first glance they conclusions you may think I’m making may seem “narrow-minded” or unfairly judgmental but they were intended to spark some resurgence of thought in a thread that was straying off course. I’ll now elaborate (yes, with my subjective opinions) on each of the questions:​

Is EVERYTHING the Apostle Paul wrote the incontrovertible Word of God?

After careful and considerable study, the quick answer I believe is NO. As your cut and paste Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation clearly mentioned I also believe it is necessary to consider many factors before making a definite conclusion on Paul’s writings. It is wise to consider: Who was his audience? What historical and cultural aspects must we consider? What subtle meanings might be lost in translation concerning certain idioms, phrases and expressions from the original Greek text? How does the text fit in with the entire context of the Holy Bible and what the other anointed apostles and prophets spoke? Might Paul be a bit off course occasionally in some of his many epistles? Can the Holy Spirit guide the latter day believers to a deeper insight than the original Pauline interpretations? These are IMO, profound questions worthy of discussion and prayerful contemplation and questions with considerable eternal ramifications.

Are women not to teach in the Church?

(1Tim. 2:11-12)

It means women cannot be ordained. There were no women at The Last Supper.

Paul might rightly be accused of being “sexist” in this area but he also recognized the prophetical anointing of Phillip’s two daughters. And he is the byproduct of years of study in a strict rabbinical male-dominated environment. So his stance should probably be tempered with this understanding. For what it's worth: I highly regard Ellen G. White's writings.

An occultist who wrote by channeling. Yes, that would explain everything.

Should women be silent in the Church? (1Cor. 14:34)

Women do have a strong tendency to be loquacious. And twenty one centuries later not much has changed in this regard. Some women, don’t know when to shut up!

lol! yes, but it says women are to be submissive.

The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family). source

Should women pray with their heads covered? (1Cor. 11:5-6) (1Cor. 11:10)

On this matter I’m in full agreement with the venerable Apostle Paul. I remember from my childhood in the Catholic Church that all the women who attended mass on Sunday wore veils. I believe this is one area where both Roman Catholics and Protestants have tragically strayed from the Truth. The wearing of veils by women shows respect and IMO has a profound spiritual and angelic historical significance.

I agree. I find women's hair to be a very beautiful feature about them and it is quite distracting. But Paul is not writing on a doctrinal issue here, but a disciplinary one. He is also talking about the virtue of humility. I don't see anything humble about a woman sporting a $300 hat that looks like a glorified lamp shade, do you?

Should we, emulate Paul and preach against the dictates of the Law and then claim to follow it in its entirety? (Acts 24:14)

The doctrinal pendulum appears to swing back and forth from strict legal opinions of the Law to more lax interpretations throughout Church history. The Apostle Paul could be a very headstrong individual and on several occasions appears to have taken contradictory stances regarding God’s Law.

That is not what Paul means. He says, "...the Way in which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, "The Way: is prophesied in Isaiah 35:8; Isaiah 54:13-17

This prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!) source

Personally speaking, I tend to favor a more reverential regard for obedience to the Ten Commandments as well as Old Testament laws concerning keeping the Sabbath holy, food cleanliness laws and observing the scripturally prescribed holy day celebrations. Again, we all have to follow the dictates of our heart in these matters.

Those matters are common sense. Any disregard of God's moral laws has consequences regardless of what a person believes.

Is it OK to occasionally use lies and guile as tools of the Gospel? (Rom. 3:7) (2Cor. 12:16)

No, I think that Paul is dead wrong here or what he is saying has been somehow ‘lost in translation’. I see no need to ever prevaricate while preaching the gospel.

I cannot sit for this length of time. It's 4:AM. Please shorten your posts. I'll respond further tomorrow.

 

[Sabitarian]

veteran,
You really need to read post 226 by kepha31 as it will give you some of the basics of scriptural interpretation. The hand writting of ordnances that you are speaking of is the sacrifical law which has never been done away with, just fulfilled by Christ, all other laws are still in effect. The Moral Law or Ten Commandments are all still in effect today as they were then. No part of them can be taken away without being guilty of breaking all per Christ. The first 4 are your relationship with God and the last 6 are for your relationship with man. Revelation 22:18-19 tells the tale if you decide to add to or take away from the basic 10. Add to and receive the plagues and take away from and lose your place in the resurection. You have taken away form the 10 Commandments, as the 4th Commandment, not suggestion, is the main one that you obect to and have done away with and added in its place the venerable day of the sun as the day of worship. And Christians wonder why God is not favoring this nation, but they have turned their backs on Him, by not keeping His Sacred Commandments. Wonder no more for you have done as the Jews did, placing traditions above the laws of God. Sunday is a tridition instituted by the Papacy[Catholic Church] and is their power of authority over you Christians. Worst of all most of your founders have recognized this fact and ignored it, now tell me why God has forsaken this country.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[rand]

Hi Sabitarian,

What verses do you use to show that the 10 Commandments are not nailed to the cross and are not fulfilled in Christ? Col 2:13-14 He has forgiven all our tresspasses (sin--transgression of the 10 commandments) by 14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us. We are under a new and better covenant which is a covenant of grace. The covenant of the law is a completely different covenant. Mixing the law and grace is like mixing new wine and old wineskin. Mixing the law and grace will lead to confusion. Mixing the two will also make you luke warm. We should learn to divide the words of truth--divide the old covenant and the new. In Corinthians Paul called the 10 commandments the ministry of death and condemnation. I think what Paul is trying to tell us is to get away from law (all of it). it's not going to help you--it wasn't designed for that. It was designed to lead us to Christ. If you are in Christ, get away from the law. Seek Christ, His kingdom, and His righteousness and you'll do great. Under the law you can only seek your own righteousness. Romans 10:1-4 God is complaining that we are seeking our own righteousness instead of seeking His. Our righteousness is by the law and is as filthy rags to Him, His righteousness is in Christ only. Trying to earn what He already gave you is like Moses striking the rock the second time instead of just speaking (praying) to it.

The law will not pass away. You can still chose that covenant, but don't. Don't even mix it in with grace. Instead just be thankful that His grace is enough. But if it's not enough for you, the law is still there if you think it will help your case. It won't.

Don't believe me? take a look at the post of those people on this site. Take a look at how they speak to other Christians--thier brothers and sisters in Christ. Look at how they speak to them. Then names they call each other, the tones they use, speaking down as if they are so righteous because of their knowledge and then read Col 2:13-18. The law will make you self-righteous Phil 3:9 and you can see that everywhere on this site. Almost everyone on this site says the same thing: I'm right you're wrong because the way I believe the Bible is the only right way to believe it, because the early church believed the same thing. Everybody thinks that about their theology, but everybody can't be right.

God has not forsaken this country, we as a country have forsaken Him.

 

[veteran]

veteran,
You really need to read post 226 by kepha31 as it will give you some of the basics of scriptural interpretation. The hand writting of ordnances that you are speaking of is the sacrifical law which has never been done away with, just fulfilled by Christ, all other laws are still in effect. The Moral Law or Ten Commandments are all still in effect today as they were then. No part of them can be taken away without being guilty of breaking all per Christ. The first 4 are your relationship with God and the last 6 are for your relationship with man. Revelation 22:18-19 tells the tale if you decide to add to or take away from the basic 10. Add to and receive the plagues and take away from and lose your place in the resurection. You have taken away form the 10 Commandments, as the 4th Commandment, not suggestion, is the main one that you obect to and have done away with and added in its place the venerable day of the sun as the day of worship. And Christians wonder why God is not favoring this nation, but they have turned their backs on Him, by not keeping His Sacred Commandments. Wonder no more for you have done as the Jews did, placing traditions above the laws of God. Sunday is a tridition instituted by the Papacy[Catholic Church] and is their power of authority over you Christians. Worst of all most of your founders have recognized this fact and ignored it, now tell me why God has forsaken this country.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

The old ordinances in the law dealt primarily with religoius ritual worship, period. Christ became the perfect sacrifice for one and all time, thus ending the need for any further sacrifice. He was sacrificed per the OT passover requirements, thus He became our Passover Lamb sacrificed for us like Apostle Paul said.

In Colossians 2, Paul taught to not allow anyone to judge according to holding to the sabbath. And Christ said the sabbath was made 'for'... man, not man for the sabbath.

What the Pharisees did was to treat the mere act of keeping the sabbath as a religious ritual by rote instead of understanding why God made the sabbath as period of rest, and not a Salvation issue. The Pharisee hyprocrites did not keep it according to their own tradtioins they created for it, just as they didn't keep the rest of the law either.

The many laws which God gave Israel in OT times, which they could not remain faithful in keeping, was to point... the way to Christ Jesus Who would come. Still today, every orthodox Jew breaks God's laws, because like Paul said break just one little commandment, and one has offended in all.

When Christ returns, only then will God's people be able to be perfect in keeping all of God's laws, including His Sabbath.

So practice sabbath keeping if you want, but don't judge others who do not. And when you find you yourself not able to be perfect in keeping all of God's laws, then remember that Jesus Christ died on the cross so those who believe on Him may be counted... perfect here and now, even though we will always fall short in this life.

 

[Sabitarian]

Jiggyfly,
Christ became the perfect Sacrifice to fulfill the sacrifices in the law of God, now show where any other of the laws have been circumvented by using scripture in context. Mark 1:21 states And they went into Capernaum; and straight away on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. Christ taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath day and kept the laws of His Father. Paul also taught for three straight Sabbath's Gentiles in the Synagogue, thus he also kept the laws of the Father, just as Christ did. So how do the the ways of Paul differ from those of Christ. Remember Paul was taught by Christ and can only teach what he was taught by the Master.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[williemac]

Jiggyfly,
Christ became the perfect Sacrifice to fulfill the sacrifices in the law of God, now show where any other of the laws have been circumvented by using scripture in context. Mark 1:21 states And they went into Capernaum; and straight away on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. Christ taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath day and kept the laws of His Father. Paul also taught for three straight Sabbath's Gentiles in the Synagogue, thus he also kept the laws of the Father, just as Christ did. So how do the the ways of Paul differ from those of Christ. Remember Paul was taught by Christ and can only teach what he was taught by the Master.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

Being back from a long work stint in an isolated location, I find it no surprise to see this post. I will reply to it though it was sent to another. Thank you for the acknowledgment that Paul was taught by Jesus. This should validate his position on this very subject.

Rom.10:4 states that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe. Just one example of many, that no matter how much one insists that we keep any or all the ot. law, doing so will never accomplish righteousness or justification for life.

As for Paul teaching in the Synagogue, I will repeat myself. That was a place of teaching and worship that was used by the Jews. It was not used by the early church (they did not meet with the Jews as a rule). So of course they met on Saturday if they met in the Synagogue. Go there any other day of the week and it will be empty. But where did the Corinthian church meet on a regular basis? In the Synagogue? Not a chance. So how does your reference prove that Paul endorsed the keeping of the fourth commandment? How do we know where and when the Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, etc. met? The book of Acts does not say. But in modern termonology, Paul was a missionary, preaching the gospel to those who would hear him. And where? A missionary goes to where his audience resides or can be found. But one does not go there to take on their practices, but rather to bring them that which they do not have...Jesus.

Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, taught Paul the workings of the new covenant and how it differs from the old. Jesus did not teach these things nor practice them while on earth. He visited them while still in the old covenant and that covenant did not end until His death and resurrection. His ministry was to use the law for its purpose, to lead them to the knowledge of their sin and their need for a Savior. Therefore the law is good, if used for it's given purpose. But it ends there, when the subject realizes his deficiency and relies upon the Sacrifice of Jesus for right standing with God.

Ever really study the letter to the Galatians? With an open heart? In no uncertrain terms, Paul refers to the old covenant of law as being the moral law given on Mount Sinai. But an obteuse heart will deny this. Just connect Gal.4:22-26 with Gal.5:1-4. One and the same law, from which Christ has made us free (5:1).

 

[James Forthwright]

Being back from a long work stint in an isolated location, I find it no surprise to see this post. I will reply to it though it was sent to another. Thank you for the acknowledgment that Paul was taught by Jesus. This should validate his position on this very subject.

Welcome back, Williemac. Hope your journey was both profitable and pleasant.

Though Paul received much of his teachings from revelatory knowledge, this does not mean that EVERYTHING he wrote nor every solitary interpretation of his writings will be flawless. Nor does it preclude the fact that the same revelatory knowledge is available for us Christians in the twenty-first century.

Rom.10:4 states that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe. Just one example of many, that no matter how much one insists that we keep any or all the ot. law, doing so will never accomplish righteousness or justification for life.

The key phrase on Rom. 10:4 is “the end of the law for righteousness”. No one has claimed that we should continue to follow certain eternal moral Laws of God to attain or merit righteous. We simply recognize the perpetual natural of the Ten Commandments, e.g., or the obvious health benefits of the OT food cleanliness laws and lovingly obey them because the Law of God is now written upon our hearts.

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Heb 10:16)

Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, taught Paul the workings of the new covenant and how it differs from the old. Jesus did not teach these things nor practice them while on earth. He visited them while still in the old covenant and that covenant did not end until His death and resurrection. His ministry was to use the law for its purpose, to lead them to the knowledge of their sin and their need for a Savior. Therefore the law is good, if used for it's given purpose. But it ends there, when the subject realizes his deficiency and relies upon the Sacrifice of Jesus for right standing with God.

In principle you are correct, but your argument falsely implies that ALL of God’s Laws have been superseded. You honestly, admit that Christ did not teach the same message as Paul. Do we follow Christ’s example or Paul’s teachings? What you’re failing to mention is that Christ gave no hint whatsoever in any of His teachings to His disciples that the entirety of God’s Law would be supplanted after His resurrection. In fact, Jesus stated just the opposite:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Mat 5:18)

Ever really study the letter to the Galatians? With an open heart? In no uncertrain (sic) terms, Paul refers to the old covenant of law as being the moral law given on Mount Sinai. But an obteuse (sic) heart will deny this. Just connect Gal.4:22-26 with Gal.5:1-4. One and the same law, from which Christ has made us free (5:1).

So, using your logic, are we now free to ignore the entirety of God’s Laws including the Ten Commandments? Are we free to blaspheme the name of the LORD? Worship false gods and idols? Dishonor our parents? Commit adultery? Steal? Lie under oath? Covet? Forget the Sabbath?

No, my friend, those eternal, perpetual laws are just as tangible and viable today for us believing Christians because they are written upon the tables of our heart as they were in Moses’ day etched in stone by the finger of the Living God.

 

[Sabitarian]

.
Hi forthwright, genesis 3:16 answers your first 3 questions as there has been no Word of God recending this scripture. If this offends women then they need to take it up with God as He said it. Acts 24: 14 is taken out of context with the Word of God by your estimation, which it is not by the Word of God. Paul speaking tongues is just his speaking many different languages as Gentiles in all of the different Churches that he started spoke many different languages and speaking in tongues has never been speaking in some unknow language, as that is forbiden unless there is a translator present and the translator knowing how to translate would make it not an unknown language. You it seems want to provoke a disidence amoung the brethern and get them to argue about your beliefs. Your beliefs are just your beliefs and not Biblical. post # 221
williemac, Post #234 Please show me where Paul ever taught in scripture anywhere but the Synagogue, I have reread scripture many times without finding any reference to Paul conducting services on the first day of the week. He taught the elders of the Church after services, but never conducted services on any other day. All of your words do not make it so. More than one of God's laws were given from Mt Sinai, so your argument still holds no water. If you actually study words you will find that there are three different words that are translated law and all have different spelling and punctuation, it is like to, two and too all are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. The ancient languages were much more complicated and to translate them becomes a rigerous problem as how do you give three different words the same meaning? These languages had masculin and femine modifiers and neutered modifiers as well and taht needs to be taken into account when translating them, but it would have taken twice as much time as the translation that we presentlu have, which was mostly translated by the Catholic Church to their specifications in order to allow them power over men, in the place of GOD.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

 

[williemac]

Welcome back, Williemac. Hope your journey was both profitable and pleasant.

Though Paul received much of his teachings from revelatory knowledge, this does not mean that EVERYTHING he wrote nor every solitary interpretation of his writings will be flawless. Nor does it preclude the fact that the same revelatory knowledge is available for us Christians in the twenty-first century.



The key phrase on Rom. 10:4 is “the end of the law for righteousness”. No one has claimed that we should continue to follow certain eternal moral Laws of God to attain or merit righteous. We simply recognize the perpetual natural of the Ten Commandments, e.g., or the obvious health benefits of the OT food cleanliness laws and lovingly obey them because the Law of God is now written upon our hearts.

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Heb 10:16)




In principle you are correct, but your argument falsely implies that ALL of God’s Laws have been superseded. You honestly, admit that Christ did not teach the same message as Paul. Do we follow Christ’s example or Paul’s teachings? What you’re failing to mention is that Christ gave no hint whatsoever in any of His teachings to His disciples that the entirety of God’s Law would be supplanted after His resurrection. In fact, Jesus stated just the opposite:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(Mat 5:18)




So, using your logic, are we now free to ignore the entirety of God’s Laws including the Ten Commandments? Are we free to blaspheme the name of the LORD? Worship false gods and idols? Dishonor our parents? Commit adultery? Steal? Lie under oath? Covet? Forget the Sabbath?

No, my friend, those eternal, perpetual laws are just as tangible and viable today for us believing Christians because they are written upon the tables of our heart as they were in Moses’ day etched in stone by the finger of the Living God.

Thank you for your reply. However, my logic, as you call it, was simply a position from scripture. However, I see your logic as well. It goes like this: Since we all agree that moral behavior is important, and that the ten commandments were given as a moral law, then if we are to be moral then we should still be keeping the ten commandments, including the 4th one.

I don't know if you have followed any of my previous posts on the sabbath, but you might be surprised to hear that I do not feel I am in violation of the 4th commandment. I suggest you go through Heb.4 with an open heart and mind, and see if you get the point in it concerning the sabbath rest. You will find that it is not a law that is obeyed, but in reality is something that is entered into. And furthermore, God has control of whom is allowed into this rest and whom isn't (4:3). The author of Hebrews is clarifying the actual purpose of that command. It was as all the law was, a picture of a future reality. The same 3rd verse reveals that we who have believed do enter that rest. As well, it is noted that we have ceased from our works, as God did from His (4:10). This is speaking of a permanent state of rest rather than a weekly ritual. God did not go back to creating after the seventh day. He finished His work permanently. Now He is in the business of working with His creation in love. This is our reality as well. All the law is fulfilled in one command. LOVE! (Gal.5:14) The old covenant of (dead) works has been replaced by a new one of fruit...."against such there is no law". The laws that you say we still are to keep are simply the outworking of our new nature..called fruit. God's children are no longer sinners trying to behave righteously as before. We are a new creation. Fruit happens!!

As well, the verse you quoted is all fine and dandy (Math.5:18) if one acknowledges the purpose for the law. It is still relevant as long as there are sinners in the world who require the conviction of their sin and the need for a Savior. Thus the law is used righteously, to tutor a person about his condition in order to lead him to Christ. But once one has found Christ as Savior, he is no longer under this tutor. (Gal3:5) It has served its purpose for that individual. (Gal.3:19)

Also, I want to point out that whatever motive one has to keep the law, one must keep in mind just what makes a law, a law. It is in the enforcement. Without enforcement, a law is powerless.

The wages of sin is death. The enforcement of the law is clear. However, this wage has been taken into the body of Christ on our behalf. So what motive are you pawning on us, to keep the weekly observance of the sabbath rest? Before you reply, just remember, we who believe are alredy in fulfillment of this rest, whether you believe it or not. Why should we go back to an old law with an old and irrelevant point to it? Why would we take the life that we have and trade it for something that cannot give life? (Gal.3:21).

I have His Spirit in me, have His righteousness and holiness in my new man (Eph.4:24), and thus I am in His rest at all times. Is it not your lack of understanding that is afoot to take these away from me....? I certainly think so. in His love, Howie

 

[Rex]

AMen to that williemac
You have truly entered in-to the LORDS rest

Romans 14

New King James Version (NKJV)
The Law of Liberty

14 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. [sup]2 [/sup]For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. [sup]3 [/sup]Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. [sup]4 [/sup]Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
[sup]5 [/sup]One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. [sup]6 [/sup]He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[sup][a][/sup] and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. [sup]7 [/sup]For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. [sup]8 [/sup]For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. [sup]9 [/sup]For to this end Christ died and rose[sup][b][/sup] and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. [sup]10 [/sup]But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.[sup][c][/sup] [sup]11 [/sup]For it is written:

“As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”[sup][d][/sup]
[sup]12 [/sup]So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. [sup]13 [/sup]Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.
The Law of Love

 

[James Forthwright]

.

Hi forthwright, genesis 3:16 answers your first 3 questions as there has been no Word of God recending (sic) this scripture. If this offends women then they need to take it up with God as He said it.

Hello Sabitarian, I merely posted a few questions regarding several of the Apostle Paul’s doctrinal positions to liven this discussion. Some I heartily agree with, some I take issue with. . .

Acts 24: 14 is taken out of context with the Word of God by your estimation, which it is not by the Word of God.

I merely stated that Paul claims to “believe all things which are written in the law” but spends much of his time nullifying the Law of God. And my personal theology wholeheartedly agrees with the first half of that verse, i.e.,

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, (Acts 24:14)

Paul speaking tongues is just his speaking many different languages as Gentiles in all of the different Churches that he started spoke many different languages and speaking in tongues has never been speaking in some unknow (sic) language, as that is forbidden (sic) unless there is a translator present and the translator knowing how to translate would make it not an unknown language.

I would truly welcome an in-depth doctrinal discussion with you regarding ‘speaking in tongues’ but this thread is NOT the time or place. There have already been numerous rabbit trails diverting our attention from the topic at hand. If you start a thread on tongues I'll see you there.

You it seems want to provoke a disidence (sic) amoung (sic) the brethern (sic) and get them to argue about your beliefs. Your beliefs are just your beliefs and not Biblical. post # 221

Don’t pretend you can discern the motives or intent of anyone posting on this forum. Any position I posit here I defend using multiple scriptures and sound exegesis and logical trains of thought. We also share the same (albeit minority opinion) beliefs regarding honoring the Sabbath. Seeing that that is one of your primary interests, let’s work together, my friend, instead of wasting precious time criticizing one another’s minor doctrinal differences. Peace!

 

[williemac]

.

williemac, Post #234 Please show me where Paul ever taught in scripture anywhere but the Synagogue, I have reread scripture many times without finding any reference to Paul conducting services on the first day of the week. He taught the elders of the Church after services, but never conducted services on any other day.

And where can we find him conducting any services, period? Or for that matter, where do we find him teaching elders after services? What we do find, as in Acts 18, that Paul went into the synagogues to reason with those who were there, sharing the gospel with them. These were missionary visits. His purpose was not to sit with them in worship, but rather to change their mind concerning Jesus. These visits do not confirm your position on this subject nor mine. They are not proof of either.

All of your words do not make it so. More than one of God's laws were given from Mt Sinai, so your argument still holds no water. If you actually study words you will find that there are three different words that are translated law and all have different spelling and punctuation, it is like to, two and too all are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. The ancient languages were much more complicated and to translate them becomes a rigerous problem as how do you give three different words the same meaning? These languages had masculin and femine modifiers and neutered modifiers as well and taht needs to be taken into account when translating them, but it would have taken twice as much time as the translation that we presentlu have, which was mostly translated by the Catholic Church to their specifications in order to allow them power over men, in the place of GOD.
humble servant of the Lord God Most High

By this account, you would almost persuade us that the RC's sucessfully handcuffed the Holy Spirit from revealing the truth to His servants through the word of God. I beg to differ. Doctrine is revealed and understood by more than the translation of a few words here and there. Back to Galatians, for example: In chapter 3, Paul gives acount of such things as the promise made to Abraham, insisting that if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise. This point does not change no matter what law he is reffering to. As well, he later in vs.21 tells us that there was in fact no law given that could give life. This pretty much covers all the so called different laws you refer to, doesn't it!

But it doesn't end there. in ch.4, Paul tells of the two sons of Abraham, teaching that they were symbolic of THE two covenants, one of which is from Mnt. Sinai. This, he calls the covenant of the flesh (vs.29), and which he says gives birth to bondage (vs.24). So rather than our being dependant upon knowing which law is used in translation, we can use the context to understand that it is the law that came from MNt. Sinai; namely the ten commandments. The context is the key. Context will ultimately reveal which law that is being spoken of, especially when it is important for us to know. You think that God in His foresight couldn't put failsafes in place in His word to hinder the interference of men?