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

[James Forthwright]

Well Hello, James! Thanks for responding, I was wondering if you'd lost interest in this thread of debate. As I was reading through it all to see if I had anything to add that had not already been covered, I was encouraged by your comments to step into the fray, so to speak and point out/share some things I believe the Holy Spirit has been showing me for well over a decade. It is a rare thing to find folks who can discuss these discrepancies without rancor, hateful strife or simply limited small-mindedness.

Hello Michael. No, I haven’t lost interest in this informative thread. It’s just that every once in a while I like to pause, step back from the fray and collect my thoughts a bit. Too many times these scriptural debates revert into petty tit-for-tat spats between two individuals. Sometimes, I’ll take days to compose a thread, revise the grammar structure of certain phrases to clarify my position. Study, review my notes, reflect on an issue and pray for further enlightenment on a topic. Then do a final spell-check and post it to the forum only to see ten minutes after posting, someone offer an off the cuff, disjointed, misspelled opposing opinion that addresses none of the main points of my argument. It can get frustrating, so I’ll deliberately take a breather for a week or two.

I must say, that I was pleasantly surprised to see your posts when I returned to this thread.

Please, I do not know what IMO means, will you explain this for me? Anti-nomianist is a new word for me as well, is that spelling right, my pc does not recognize it. I appreciate the definition via parentheses.

A search engine is your friend, Michael. I happen to like ixquick.com because it is more privacy orientated that the ever-popular google search engine.

But to answer your questions:

IMO = (In My Opinion)

Antinomianism is the belief that under the gospel dispensation of grace, moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation, or the rejection of a socially established morality.[1] … The actual term "antinomianism" emerged soon after the Protestant Reformation (c.1517) and has historically been used mainly as a pejorative against Christian thinkers or sects who carried their belief in justification by faith further than was customary.[2] Examples are Martin Luther's critic of antinomianism and the Antinomian Controversy of the 17th century Massachusetts Bay Colony. Although the term is 16th century, the topic has its roots in Christian views on the old covenant extending back to the 1st century. It can also be extended to any religious group believing they are not bound to obey the laws of their own religious tradition. –Wikipedia

Or, in other words, the complete rejection or the diminishing of God’s Law (which is my personal biggest criticism of the Apostle Paul’s writings).

What do you think about the passage describing Paul's movements in Jerusalem in Acts ch 21:17-31?

Paul was certainly a controversial incendiary character. In the chapter you mentioned Paul returns to Jerusalem and meets with James, the Lord’s brother, and several other elders of the Christian Church. It has been widely rumored that Paul is teaching things contrary to the Law of God and he is encouraged to dispel those rumors by aligning himself with others who have made a vow unto God in some sort of purification ritual in the temple. Paul willfully goes along with this suggestion of the elders but it does not appease many of the more zealous Jews in attendance in the temple who eventually recognize him.

Interesting that 4 men plus Paul =5 take part in this ritual farce, I could not help but see it as a possible symbolic prophetic foreshadowing of a subtle backsliding towards religiosity for the entire 5 fold ministry. When the manipulative plan to distract and appease those likely to persecute Paul, and by association some of the local brethren, backfires, it seems as though Paul unable to face his own likely crucifixion then appeals to Caesar as a Roman citizen vs a citizen of heaven as he preaches.

Paul also could be a bit of a chameleon and mold his persona to suit a particular audience (1Cor. 9:19-23) and even tell a few lies if he perceived the ends justified the means. (Rom. 3:7) When it was to his advantage he proudly touted his Israelite heritage (Phi. 3:5) and at other times he spoke up for his rights as Roman citizen (Acts 22:25).
Paul often preached against the practice of circumcision. He balks at Titus’ circumcision (Gal. 2:3) but later assists in Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 16:3)

The main point I try to emphasize in this thread is that there were two different branches of Christianity emerging. One Church in Jerusalem, composed largely of converted Jews that continued to esteem and revere God’s Law as practiced by Jesus and led by James, John and Peter. And another Christian Church comprised mostly of Gentile believers founded by Paul who practiced a much more lenient standards regarding the Law of God.

Now, history shows us that after the Roman invasion by Emperor Titus in 69AD, the Jerusalem Church was widely dispersed and in exile and the Pauline Churches began to dominate the doctrinal scene throughout Christendom. Many Christians are now beginning to recognize their true Israelite heritage and relation to the “Lost Tribes of Israel” (1Pet. 1:1). As a result they are embracing many of the eternal tenets of God’s Law, e.g., circumcision, honoring the Sabbath as an integral part of the Ten Commandments, observing traditional feast and holy days as well as recognizing the health benefits of adhering to the scripturally defined food cleanliness statutes as practiced by Jesus and His disciples in the earliest Christian Church at Jerusalem.

 

[Rex]

James that's all very interesting, by that I mean your opinion.

The funny fact is, God poured His Spirit out on the Gentiles in Acts 10 in-spite of all the happy religious and or Jewish window dressings.
Paul had nothing to do with it, but latter fully explained it. Who else went to that trouble or should I dare say, was sent.

Do you consider this "Acts 10" a chameleon act by God as well. The Jews may have seen it that way.

 

[James Forthwright]

James that's all very interesting, by that I mean your opinion.

The funny fact is, God poured His Spirit out on the Gentiles in Acts 10 in-spite of all the happy religious and or Jewish window dressings.
Paul had nothing to do with it, but latter fully explained it. Who else went to that trouble or should I dare say, was sent.

Do you consider this "Acts 10" a chameleon act by God as well. The Jews may have seen it that way.

Thanks Rex, I'm pleased you enjoy reading my posts. I do try and bring a unique perspective to these debates. Though you may have gotten a false interpretation of certain aspects of my post. I did not state that Paul was not moved by the Holy Spirit to preach to the Gentiles or deny that Peter's vision was divinely inspired.

All I'm saying is that Paul's loose interpretation of the Law that he preached to his largely scripturally illiterate distant Gentile congregations does not mean that his teachings were universally accepted in the Churches in and around Jerusalem who continued to follow God's Law regarding circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, traditional feast and holy days and food cleanliness statutes.

Peace be to you & yours!

 

[Axehead]

If Paul did not teach the same Gospel that Jesus taught and demonstrated then Peter or James or John or others would have corrected him. Jesus would have made sure of that. They both taught the same Gospel. Critics of Christianity attempt to pit Jesus Christ against Paul to push their own agenda, usually tied to "Law Keeping" (Hebrew Roots Movement, Seventh Day Adventist, Sabbatarians, etc). Also, there is a campaign against Paul from many sites around the Internet. The Judaizers dogged Paul in his journeys and the same spirit that worked in the Judaizers is still working today. We all know the source of that spirit. The revelation that God gave Paul keeps the Church from falling back into the law which causes one to fall from grace which is the Enemy's motive.

Here is one of the main websites attacking Paul as an Apostle of Christ: Scott Nelson's Judaism vs Christianity

and here is a refutation of what he says. Scott Nelson's "Judaism vs. Christianity": A Critique

Weak believers who are unlearned in the scriptures have adopted many of these attacks.

If you read Scott Nelson's Statement of Faith you will realize he has absolutely no credibility and his motive for attacking Paul becomes clear.

He says that there are "many gods" and that Jesus was just one of them, albeit the most favored one of the Father God. And he talks about bloodlines, too.

Another quote from his statement of faith: "The infallible Word of God consists of the words of Yahshua as found in the Gospels, (This means only what he is quoted as having said), the book of Revelation, and all that Yahshua endorsed as the Word of God. (Moses and the prophets). All else in the Bible may legitimately be questioned. (especially Paul)".

Scott Nelson says none of the other Apostles recognized Paul. Evidently he does not know about 2 Peter.
2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I see this site holds a common belief among hose that fit the profile of "red letter Christians". You can check out jesuswordsonly which seems to fit the profile that attacks Paul as a false apostle. Once in awhile I have noticed "Red Letter Christians" frequent this site and now you know the website they work from.

So, what do you think? A mixture of Mormonism and Hebrew Roots theology and maybe other errors in Scott Nelson's toolbag?

Paul had a need to explain the Christian walk because slick Judaizers followed him quite a bit always trrying to bring the church back into bondage and Paul had to correct a lot of false teaching about the walk of faith and the Liberty of Christ (Galatians) and what justification and sanctification and grace was all about in contrast to the religious works of the flesh (Romans, Hebrews).

So, Paul had to teach many of the mechanics (theology) of walking with Christ and what salvation was all about to counter false teaching which began after Jesus died and resurrected. There was no need for Jesus to counter false teaching about the Gospel, but He did counter the false teachings of the Pharisees and how they nullified God's word. Jesus delivered Salvation, and then explained it through Paul by the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus was living during the OT times. The New Covenant went into effect with His death and resurrection so you would expect Him to observe Jewish Feasts and traditions and uphold the law.

In fact He did what no one else ever did and that was to obey ALL the commandments of His Father so that He would fulfill prophecy as the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.

But He never observed any tradition that nullified the commandments of God. Paul explains what the Life of Christ did for those that were under the law. Jesus' thrust was in a different direction and Paul's was complimentary of it. Jesus did not explain as much as Paul did since the New Covenant was not yet in effect. One of Paul's giftings and callings was as a teacher and he had every reason to explain to the Church what was won for them when Christ died and resurrected. Through Paul's ministry, we understand many things about the Gospel that Jesus did not tell us at the time of His ministry on earth. But Jesus is faithful and told us at the right time...through Paul and the other Apostles. I am blessed by the entire NT and see no contradictions.

Paul's only focus in life was Jesus Christ and Paul said "follow me as I follow the Messiah".

Axehead

 

[Rex]

Thanks Rex, I'm pleased you enjoy reading my posts. I do try and bring a unique perspective to these debates. Though you may have gotten a false interpretation of certain aspects of my post. I did not state that Paul was not moved by the Holy Spirit to preach to the Gentiles or deny that Peter's vision was divinely inspired.

All I'm saying is that Paul's loose interpretation of the Law that he preached to his largely scripturally illiterate distant Gentile congregations does not mean that his teachings were universally accepted in the Churches in and around Jerusalem who continued to follow God's Law regarding circumcision, honoring the Sabbath, traditional feast and holy days and food cleanliness statutes.

Peace be to you & yours!

Thank you I have read a bit but perhaps you missed my point. God called the Gentiles with visions, Angels and the voice of the risen Lord as testimony, and confirmed with the evidence of the Holy Spirit, with zero Jewish laws or prerequisites required, only that they believed in what they had heard.

Now that was the testimony in Acts 10 to the Gentiles, that is what Paul taught, and that is what put Paul at odds with Jews even christian Jews.
Now to go off and say that Paul was extreme and liberal in his message of salvation as compared to the old covenant system, I say take your case to Acts 10 and work it out with the Lord, his visions, Angels and the testimony of Peter and Cornelius and the Jews that witnessed it as well. Paul was sent to teach this message after the fact. Peter had trouble getting his head around the concept even after the Lord showed him, then simply ordered him to do as Cornelius men instructed him.

People fail to put the picture together in context of the moving from the Old covenant to the new. This involves more than most realize, I firmly believe this marks the end of the 70th week "Acts 10". The old system of sacrifice ended at the cross, the Jews had from the cross to the bringing in of the Gentiles or nations Acts 10 to be seated at the wedding feast, some came some didn't. But the Jews and the Jews alone had 3,5 years to wash themselves in the fulness of the promise God had made known to the world through them. The Gentiles in Israel heard and believed as well; but the time, The 70 week had not been fulfilled to the Jews, they had to wait several years to receive the promise made to Abraham and all the nations will be blessed. The was the promise to Abraham and his seed first then it went to the nations of the world. Until you get your head around that truth your going to be like Peter in ch 10 and say, never Lord it shall not be. Your never going to fully understand the gospel or the book of Acts. The fullness of the Mosaic law was in effect until Jesus died and veil was torn. Jesus closed the old and sent Paul to teach the new "after the time to the Jews was fulfilled" . Even though Jesus taught the new the disciples themselves, all but maybe John never really understood the full extent of what was demonstrated in Acts 10. Jesus had prepared most of them and Johns baptism also washed and readied most to receive the promise of the HS.

The Jews today, all Israel of the flesh, can enjoy the fullness of salvation just as it was given in Acts 10, all they have to do is believe what they hear.
That promise was present IMO to them alone immediately after Christ rose. But I don't believe even the Apostles realized completely what Jesus had said was literal, believe unto me and you shall be saved. Screw all the happy window dressings, He putting and end to it, He purchased it with his body and blood He brought you a new covenant. But men just can't keep there fingers out of a perfect pie can they.

 

[IAmAWitness]

Thank you I have read a bit but perhaps you missed my point. God called the Gentiles with visions, Angels and the voice of the risen Lord as testimony, and confirmed with the evidence of the Holy Spirit, with zero Jewish laws or prerequisites required, only that they believed in what they had heard.

Now that was the testimony in Acts 10 to the Gentiles, that is what Paul taught, and that is what put Paul at odds with Jews even christian Jews.
Now to go off and say that Paul was extreme and liberal in his message of salvation as compared to the old covenant system, I say take your case to Acts 10 and work it out with the Lord, his visions, Angels and the testimony of Peter and Cornelius and the Jews that witnessed it as well. Paul was sent to teach this message after the fact. Peter had trouble getting his head around the concept even after the Lord showed him, then simply ordered him to do as Cornelius men instructed him.

I don't have to stop killing, raping, cursing, stabbing, lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, slandering, because you say the Law is all done away with. I know what you will say, "I did not say that." Let me preempt you by saying that you say it right where it is underlined. Adultery, murder, those are only Jewish commandments that only Jews follow?

And to everyone passing by here witnessing this exchange, See what Paul has done to this church? See this lie of lawlessness that he has preached to us, that James the brother of Christ fought so hard against, but the Christians followed after Marcion?

Look, you are all Marcionites and schismatics who hold to Paul over Christ.

 

[Rex]

I don't have to stop killing, raping, cursing, stabbing, lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, slandering, because you say the Law is all done away with. I know what you will say, "I did not say that." Let me preempt you by saying that you say it right where it is underlined. Adultery, murder, those are only Jewish commandments that only Jews follow?

And to everyone passing by here witnessing this exchange, See what Paul has done to this church? See this lie of lawlessness that he has preached to us, that James the brother of Christ fought so hard against, but the Christians followed after Marcion?

Look, you are all Marcionites and schismatics who hold to Paul over Christ.

I find it amusing that on a Christian forum my feet are held to the fire of the obvious and you presume to imply God so did bless and grace the Gentiles that practiced "raping, cursing, stabbing, lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, slandering," with the Holy Spirit.

Are so much unaware of the God that reads the hearts of men that you need to be reminded that He to this very day searches the whole world over looking for those who's hearts are on him? 2 Chr 16:19 Pr 15:3 Zech 4:10

Romans 2:12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[IAmAWitness]

I find it amusing that on a Christian forum my feet are held to the fire of the obvious and you presume to imply God so did bless and grace the Gentiles that practiced "raping, cursing, stabbing, lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, slandering," with the Holy Spirit.

Are so much unaware of the God that reads the hearts of men that you need to be reminded that He to this very day searches the whole world over looking for those who's hearts are on him? 2 Chr 16:19 Pr 15:3 Zech 4:10

Romans 2:12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Great, it's good that you were amused. Obviously you weren't approving of any of those things, but you very clearly are a pork eater and probably of other unclean things and are therefore odious before the Lord. No one who gives up unclean meats according to God's Word would ever say what you just said. You eat pork and are a foul stench in the Lord's nostrils.

 

[Rex]

Great, it's good that you were amused. Obviously you weren't approving of any of those things, but you very clearly are a pork eater and probably of other unclean things and are therefore odious before the Lord. No one who gives up unclean meats according to God's Word would ever say what you just said. You eat pork and are a foul stench in the Lord's nostrils.

And you are clearly a Paul hater and I suppose you also insist on other Jewish customs to be pleasing to the Lord. Let me just say If you keep them as an offering to the Lord, all good an well, If you insist that it is necessary for salvation and demand that all keep the Levitical law of Moses you are mistaken. Tell me what do you offer as sacrifices to the Lord? Doves, lambs, rams? Are you a vegetarian? If not do you follow and make your purchases from a Jewish kosher market?

Jesus said
Matthew 15
10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

And in Mark 7
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”

Now for things sacrificed to Idols that is another story, accepting things offered to other gods.

And back to Acts 10 again we see what Peter called unclean animals and refused them and the Lord said, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

Acts 10
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

Pork eater LOL I may and do swallow a gnat, but you my friend are feasting on camels.

 

[IAmAWitness]

And you are clearly a Paul hater and I suppose you also insist on other Jewish customs to be pleasing to the Lord. Let me just say If you keep them as an offering to the Lord, all good an well, If you insist that it is necessary for salvation and demand that all keep the Levitical law of Moses you are mistaken. Tell me what do you offer as sacrifices to the Lord? Doves, lambs, rams? Are you a vegetarian? If not do you follow and make your purchases from a Jewish kosher market?

Jesus said
Matthew 15
10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

And in Mark 7
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”

Now for things sacrificed to Idols that is another story, accepting things offered to other gods.

And back to Acts 10 again we see what Peter called unclean animals and refused them and the Lord said, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

Acts 10
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

Pork eater LOL I may and do swallow a gnat, but you my friend are feasting on camels.

You can't use the Bible to disprove the Bible. Then you woudl hold to a view fo Scripture that sees contradictions not as one would see it classically but rather as an evidence of progressive revelation and dispensationalism. Dispensationalism however is false and the New Testament expounds on the ideas contained in the Old Testament and nowhere does it contradict. Nowhere, except for in Paul's writings is this rule broken.

The Bible does not disprove the Bible period, and so the dietary laws stand. I can't be bothered to tell you why those verses do not mean what you are claiming they do because I'm not here to fight a battle for you, to fight against you, to take your beliefs away from you, or tell you something I'm inclined to think you're not interested in being familiarised with anyway. And you've probably heard it all anyway, maybe even from people on this site, maybe even argued by people more qualified than I to handle this particular issue.

 

[Rex]

You can't use the Bible to disprove the Bible. Then you woudl hold to a view fo Scripture that sees contradictions not as one would see it classically but rather as an evidence of progressive revelation and dispensationalism. Dispensationalism however is false and the New Testament expounds on the ideas contained in the Old Testament and nowhere does it contradict. Nowhere, except for in Paul's writings is this rule broken.

The Bible does not disprove the Bible period, and so the dietary laws stand. I can't be bothered to tell you why those verses do not mean what you are claiming they do because I'm not here to fight a battle for you, to fight against you, to take your beliefs away from you, or tell you something I'm inclined to think you're not interested in being familiarised with anyway. And you've probably heard it all anyway, maybe even from people on this site, maybe even argued by people more qualified than I to handle this particular issue.

I'm really not following your point and I'm not a "dispensationaist" I've search diligently looking at apparent contradictions it was some of the first things I learned when God began using the word in my life. I see no other foundation for your claim against me other than I don't agree with your opinion of Paul. But I noticed the last few days you have been involved in "indifferences" with others on this site that I respect and agree with. I understand things happen and the Spirit moves,after some time attributes are reveled and a greater understanding of one another acures even on this site.

I would just remind you that Paul was called in-spite of opinion and just as we do here, by expressing ourselves, we know a great deal about Paul simple because of the large portion of written evidence he left.

I'll leave by commenting to your quote below.
If you can't or won't make a case and stand your ground, you come to confront me in a "battle" as you said, with out a sword. I say again the outcome is to not to see who can cause the most harm to one another but rather to discover what the truth is. But If you choose to disprove my faith, know that it is not me in whom your struggle will be against.

The Bible does not disprove the Bible period, and so the dietary laws stand. I can't be bothered to tell you why those verses do not mean what you are claiming they do because I'm not here to fight a battle for you, to fight against you, to take your beliefs away from you,

I'm going to add that I consider it a useless effort for someone like yourself to claim biblical support for your case, while at the same time you discount Paul and in doing so most of the NT. Your argument is based on the premise that the bible is not the final word, only the books or parts you believe are relevant. With that as your foundation no one has a baseline to measure from, except there own opinion. When your ready to discuss doctrine from all 66 books, then maybe we can have a real christian conversation.

You should consider your own advice, by tossing out Paul that is just what you have done.

You can't use the Bible to disprove the Bible.

 

[IAmAWitness]

"I'm really not following your point and I'm not a "dispensationaist""

The basic underlying assumption regarding why dietary laws do not apply is that that was a different era and we are not under this same rule today, e.g. dispensationism.

"I see no other foundation for your claim against me other than I don't agree with your opinion of Paul."

Your quotes, not mine, that Mark 7 and Acts 11:9 repeal or overturn the dietary laws. This thinking is a product of the progressiv revelation and dispensaionist systems of thought. That is using the Bible to disprove the Bible, e.g. a contradiction. Your words, not mine. It's incnsistent with a sound hermeneutic.

"you come to confront me in a "battle" as you said"

That is not what I said. I said just the opposite, I won't fight you, or argue you, or try to get you to change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion and God is entitled to His facts. When we can get a better picture of what His facts are, we will understand then, but that is not yet.

"But If you choose to disprove my faith, know that it is not me in whom your struggle will be against."

On the contrary, eat what you want. I am not here to tell you why you shouldn't eat it. Every man has to decide for himself, between him and God what is right for him.

"Your argument is based on the premise that the bible is not the final word, only the books or parts you believe are relevant. With that as your foundation no one has a baseline to measure from, except there own opinion. When your ready to discuss doctrine from all 66 books, then maybe we can have a real christian conversation."

I sympathize with what you're saying because I know this is the untrained and unexamined way of looking at it. It's not what I believe is relevant or the parts I personally like or dislike. For the Bible to live up to orthodox expectations it must be without error. If I find that Paul is in opposition to what the prophets or apostles or Christ taught, then I am using an objective rule, not my own baseless opinion or personal preferences to deduce that Paul is not inspired in the way that the prophets were.

Therefore, if the direct word of God contradicts Paul's testimony, then I must side with the word of God.

Case in point, Paul teaches that we are entitled to eat meats sacrificed to idols. Jesus refutes this in Revelation 2. Who do you believe? Look into it for yourself. That is a direct contradiction. I have no authority to reject Paul but I'm not bound to believe in his fallible man-made opinions when the Lord in this same Bible tells something diferently.

 

[Rex]

I understand your point now so it's an issue you aparently have with the Paul being contrary to the word not me. Or more to the point you believe there is still resurvetion about eating things un-kosher. I hope you find a way to ether resolve your issue with Paul's statement, or you become comfortable with your dietary practice. In ether case this is a forum and I do live under grace and don't condemn someone in there own concise for eating freely. Nor do I see a need to sway your feelings about what you see fit for yourself. Such things have stretched far and wide including coffee caffeine in soda ect, Beers or Liquors it all depends on where you go and observe what people practice and teach its quite a smorgasbord and men have provided a seat for every butt. All I can say follow your personal conviction as the Spirit leads you.

http://www.gotquestions.org/food-sacrificed-idols.html

 

[IAmAWitness]

I understand your point now so it's an issue you aparently have with the Paul being contrary to the word not me. Or more to the point you believe there is still resurvetion about eating things un-kosher. I hope you find a way to ether resolve your issue with Paul's statement, or you become comfortable with your dietary practice. In ether case this is a forum and I do live under grace and don't condemn someone in there own concise for eating freely. Nor do I see a need to sway your feelings about what you see fit for yourself. Such things have stretched far and wide including coffee caffeine in soda ect, Beers or Liquors it all depends on where you go and observe what people practice and teach its quite a smorgasbord and men have provided a seat for every butt. All I can say follow your personal conviction as the Spirit leads you.

http://www.gotquestions.org/food-sacrificed-idols.html

Paul didn't teach one could eat pork. I don't see why you think that. Peter didn't teach that either. Peter had his own personal dilemma about the Gentiles receiving the Spirit and Paul refers to this in Galatians 2. What God was saying was that He had cleansed the Gentiles. That they were now integrated into the fold, fulfilling Christ's words in John 10:16:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

Peter did not take this for its literal value, the exoteric. In response to the command, Go forth and eat, Peter said, "Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth."

It was clear to Peter that God was not demanding him eat pork, et al., but in disbelief confirms that he had not eaten such things as they were contrary to the law.

"And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me."

These thre men were of the company of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert.

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

So the Spirit fell on Cornelius and all of his house, and then remembered Peter "the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

This was the final revelation of the vision's meaning. Not that Peter was told to go out and find some bacon to eat, but that now the Gentiles had been brought into the fold and not to resist it. Forasmuch as God had given them this gift, how could he withstand it?

So it has nothing to do with pork.

 

[Axehead]

I think Jesus set things straight regarding what we put into our mouth.

Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Again, Paul was in agreement with Jesus.
Rom 14:14-17 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom_14:13-23 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


These scriptures should put an end to the matter. Nothing is unclean of itself except if a person esteems something to be unclean. All things are pure unless a man is eating or drinking something that he is condemning himself about.

Good to exercise discernment and not to parade publicly your freedom in Christ to eat pork, drink wine or have a beer.

Yet once again, Christ and Paul are on the same page of music.

 

[veteran]

What an ignorant paradox this thread creates. Paul taught the same thing which Christ taught, same Gospel Message too. Christ Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass until all is fulfilled (Matt.5:17-20). Quite a bit of the law and the prophets is still yet to be fulfilled today.

So what was it that Christ Jesus came to fulfill at His first coming? This...

Rom 3:21-28
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
(KJV)

That specifically is about the difference between God's Covenants, not His laws. Too many confuse the difference. This is also why Apostle Paul himself taught in 1 Timothy 1 that the law was made for the unrighteous, for the law breakers, the sinner, the profane and ungodly. It's why Paul taught that IF... we walk by The Spirit, then we will not... be doing anything against God's laws, because there is no law against doing the good deeds by The Holy Spirit (Gal.5). In contrast, Paul ALSO gave a list of sins from walking by the flesh that he said those who do such shall NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. So how does that contrast with what Christ taught in Matt.5? It is the SAME teaching.

By Paul's examples in 1 Timothy 1, Galatians 5, and 1 Corinthians 6, he was teachings the very same thing Christ taught in Matthew 5.

 

[Axehead]

Very well, said Veteran. Some points I tried to make in the Sabbath thread. I think you did a better job.

 

[IAmAWitness]

Paul's message is one of a non-obligatory faith. I asked someone from church why we do not observe some aspects of the Law and he said that he feared that it would become an obligation. He is afraid of obligation because to him that means legalism and Law, that we would make it an obligation. I told him we didn't make it that way, God already made it an obligation.

This shows Paul's gospel clearly, he tries to paint everything as being an obligation and a hassle and we should not be bothered with such things since we are under grace.

 

[Rex]

Paul's message is one of a non-obligatory faith. I asked someone from church why we do not observe some aspects of the Law and he said that he feared that it would become an obligation. He is afraid of obligation because to him that means legalism and Law, that we would make it an obligation. I told him we didn't make it that way, God already made it an obligation.

This shows Paul's gospel clearly, he tries to paint everything as being an obligation and a hassle and we should not be bothered with such things since we are under grace.

So Romans 14 doesn't bring any clarity to you at all?
I would rather not involve myself in disagreement about what Paul did in Jerusalem but some would use examples to promote their own brand of foods as well as religious customs. In the end only to infringe upon the truth of salvation by grace.

Romans 14


14 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 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. 4 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.
5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord;[a] 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. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 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. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose[b] and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 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.[c] 11 For it is written:

“As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”[d]

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 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.

 

[I am Second]

The passion of the christ was a humansitic play on emotions...in this entertainmernt crazy society we trivialize everything and reduce it to some form of entertainment or amusement that we can grab a bag of chips and a cold beer

I got saved during that movie. I cried for three days straight, devoted my life to Jesus and have never been the same.