Paul

[marks]

well the passage is kinda sparse, seems like he was for the first three years tho

Yeah, true, just, it seems otherwise . . .

hmm. does seem like we have at least one “emulate me as i emulate Christ” passage, dunno…

Yes we do, but that doesn't mean that Christ works in one person's life the same as another . . .

i think its a great idea myself; but it might be about who we choose as “teachers?”

well, i wouldnt doubt the sincerity of a teacher, so much as their bias, and motive for teaching, maybe? And little kids teach us too, right; even with bias and motive, sometimes?

Many who set themselves up as “teachers” are i think seeking the attention and respect of others, and i say “many” when it is likely more than that imo. Personally i seek reluctant or better yet oblivious teaching, and i avoid “teachers” like i avoid gnostics, now anyway

I think of sincerity with motive. Little kids, they show the same things, just more clearly I think. One found something they want to share, and another wants to prove how smart they are, and another wants someone to do it their way. Paul said he was compelled to give the Gospel.

i would imagine yes, and i dont mean to imply that one should not avail themselves of teachers, or even gnostics for that matter, but i would separate the two since they are so often synonymous, maybe?

I currently have three teachers that come to mind, and they would all be surprised to learn that i view them that way i bet. Plus, they dont talk like most teachers, “it’s like this and like that and like this,” not saying that stuff cant be learned from gnostics too, but that…whenever i hear “the truth is…” i know im about to get smoked lol. clouded. obscured, in some regard?

There is a lot to be said about what people can infiltrate into their faith. For myself the main thing is to learn the Bible itself, knowing that I have a Creator, Who's given me His book, and eternal life is knowing Him.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

and eternal life is knowing Him

good points imo. I would maybe seek how to put on immortality rather than “become an immortal,” myself…only im not sure what that means yet!

 

[marks]

well that assumes one has been crucified with Christ, which i would not claim for myself, yet

How does it happen that one is crucified with Christ?

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

How does it happen that one is crucified with Christ?

ha good q

 

[marks]

good points imo. I would maybe seek how to put on immortality rather than “become an immortal,” myself…only im not sure what that means yet!

I find "putting on immortality" to be the way the Bible puts this. And that tells me more about it.

I'm looking at 2 Corinthians 5 that says, "we have building from God, not made by hands, eternal in the heavens", and that "we long to be clothed upon", the same words used in 1 Corinthians 15, as the mortal is clothed upon with immortality, and the corruptible with incorruptibility.

This, and other things, says to me that as we are born from God, just as we were flesh born from flesh, now we become spirit born from Spirit, and this is a real thing, a real creature.

I'm thinking that the immortal puts on immortality when we are no longer separated from God by the veil of flesh, and our flesh becomes transformed in a resurrection as we enter an new kind of existence, again, no veil between God and us.

Much love!

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

I thought about that.
Paul may not have written the Gospels but those that were with him did.
I believe all of them, Matthew, Mark whose surname is Luke, and John were all companions of Paul's at some point
No?
I could be wrong..

Companions of Paul? That seems very unlikely. For the most part, the 12 were laborers, fishermen, etc. Meanwhile, Saul was a 'more religious than thou' overly-righteous Pharisee, highly educated, and probably came 'from money' that could afford his education. So, other than perhaps passing each other in the street before Jesus began his ministry is probably the only time they may have laid eyes on each other. Once they joined with Jesus, Saul would become their avowed enemy, seeking to destroy Jesus and the 12 with Him as Jesus was 'guilty' of proclaiming falsehoods such as being the Messiah, etc.

Philippians 3:4-7 (KJV)
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

It could be that Paul/Saul had a lot of first hand accounts having been under the authority of Rome at the time of Herod.

For the most part, Saul would have avoided all contact with the Romans as they were Gentiles, as required by Mosaic law. That would be doubly true as he was a Pharisee. I conjecture that Saul/Paul couldn't have been much older or younger than Jesus to be able endure the many beatings and other punishments, as well as walking from town to town. As everyone knows, the older we get, our strength and stamina wane every year.

Colossians 11:24-33 (KJV)
24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:
33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Who beheaded John the Baptist?
I'm not saying Paul did, but he was standing in authority while Steven was getting stoned.

It would be unlikely that Saul the Pharisee would ever be in the palace, or jail, or any similar place. The Pharisees were the 'over the top' law keepers, so there's no way they would kill someone without due process. Then, if guilty, they'd be stoned to death per the law, not beheaded.

Matthew 14:6-12 (KJV)
6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask.
8 And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.
9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.
11 And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother.
12 And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus.

The introduction of Saul comes at the stoning of Stephen. He was obviously someone in authority at that point, so it's possible he was some kind of 'court officer' when Stephen gave his speech.

Acts 7:58-8:1 (KJV)
7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Note that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, following Jesus' command to avoid the Gentiles and Samaritans (per Mosaic law)

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (KJV)

But then they delayed - by YEARS - Jesus' command to venture out from Jerusalem, as there's little biblical evidence they did so, and confirmed they were there at the Jerusalem council with Paul.

Mathew 28:19-20 (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Part 2 follows -

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

Why do the 4 Gospels correlate so well?
It could be that all 4 writers got the same narrative from Paul himself.

All four Gospels were written by 4 of the 12 that were with Jesus during His earthly ministry. Paul definitely would not have been with them in the years following in which they wrote the Gospels. He was still 'out to destroy' all followers of Jesus per Acts 8:1 above. Nor did Paul consult with the 11 to develop the 'his' Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul wrote that sometime after Jesus met him on the road to Damascus, he went to Arabia (some conjecture it might be Mt Sinai, which would make sense) and he spent 3 years being instructed by Jesus Himself

Galatians 1:11-18 (KJV)
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Note that verse 18 does not refer to the Jerusalem council...that was sometime later. Did Peter go to Cornelius' house before or after verse 18? I don't know. But it DID happen before the Jerusalem council as Peter defended Paul's assertion that Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. He was a personal witness to the fact at Cornelius' house. Perhaps THAT was why God led Peter there in the first place...his later testimony at the Jerusalem council.

Doesn't make it any less true or verifiable. It's just the translation or interpretation of what was transpiring at the time.
I believe the Gospel, but whose Gospel is it?
...
Paul wasn't trying to create a new religion. He was turning the OT inside out so we could see the deeper meaning hidden like treasure.
There were some things that Paul hadn't fully grasped yet, like looking through a glass darkly. There is still much more learning to do.

Paul wasn't turning the Old Testament inside out. He was presenting that which was hidden from the beginning of time by God ('mysteries' in Pauls writings) until given to him by Jesus while in Arabia -

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Romans 16:25 (KJV)
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen (underlining mine)

The Gospel given to Paul, which he referred to as 'my gospel', was directly from Jesus. Yes, it is a different Gospel (the coming kingdom) that Jesus spoke of several times: (all KJV)

Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

I'll throw in Pauls statement about Jesus going to Jews only -

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (KJV)

Compare that to Pauls' Gospel -

1Co 15:1-4 (KJV)
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

All of OT prophecy talked about the coming kingdom with the Messiah as its king. Jesus was that promised Messiah. He preached the Gospel of the kingdom to Israel and that He was the Messiah/king. That's why the Pharisees hated him so much...a carpenters' son, king? Israel knew there'd be a kingdom, but that the 7 years tribulation would be first. That's why, even today, Israel is still awaiting the Messiah after the tribulation. Even moments before His ascension, the disciples were expecting the kingdom any day now:

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (KJV)

Many consider, as do I, that the stoning of Stephen was the ultimate and final denial of Jesus by Israel. The Gospel of the Kingdom has became officially 'delayed' or 'set aside' for a while....almost 2000 years and counting. God allowed that Gospel to continue and the 12 still preaching it and that Jesus was the promised Messiah. But at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD occurred, it was all of Israel that was set aside until the 1948 re-creation, just like Ezekiel prophesied about the dried bones.

So, at the stoning of Stephen, God turned to the Gentiles and brought in Saul. Saul went on his way persecuting all that believed in Jesus as the Messiah wherever he could find them. It was only a couple years later that Jesus met him on the road to Damascus, and he changed from persecution to proclaiming that Jesus IS the Messiah in synagogues wherever he went. Those that knew of him were completely afraid because they knew of his persecuting believers. It was only some years later that he was led by the spirit into Arabia and taught by Jesus. As noted in Galatians 1 above, Paul did NOT go confer with the apostles to get the 'scoop' on how to go to the Gentiles. Paul was Gods' chosen apostle to the Gentiles. The disciples remained apostles to Jews only, and confirmed at the Jerusalem council likely about 55 AD.

Pauls' Gospel, aka, 'my Gospel' is the Gospel of Grace (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). It was to Paul alone that God presented salvation by grace through faith alone. Paul emphasized that over and over throughout his letters, even his letter to the Hebrews. There isn't a HINT in any of the 4 Gospels about Jesus' death for their sins. Like Peter, Israel needed only to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Period. Nothing about Jesus' death for their sins.

Matthew 16:13-16(KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Paul also had to defend 'his' Gospel against those that would add to it, such as the Judaisers that came after he had left the churches of Gentile believers in the Gospel of Grace. Most notably as noted in his letter to Galatia some years after he left there -

Galatians 1:6-10 (KJV)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

The Judaisers were telling the Galatians that they had to become Jews to fully accept Jesus, ie, putting them under the law including Kosher food, and, of course, male circumcision. Work, work, work, keep the law, and on and on. The Judaisers were ADDING to the simplicity that is the Gospel of Grace.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to believing the Gospel of Grace in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is how simple it is. No extra 'do this, do that, eat this, eat that, believe this too', etc. Simply believe the Gospel in your heart. Period. aka, KISS.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[Ziggy]

2Ti 4:9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:
2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

Act 12:25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

Matthew, Mark Luke, and John.

Act 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
Act 22:26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.
Act 22:27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

I don't know when the Gospel's were written.
But it is written that 4 out of 4 of the Names of the Gospels were Paul's companions.
And Paul himself claimed to be a Roman.

I'm not arguing about Paul, I been there already.
All I'm saying is I believe that the Gospel (s) was written by Paul and his companions.

Hugs

 

[amadeus]

This is the difference between us, in that you look to our successful performance, while I do not, only looking to Christ's performance, for my justification. And the other difference, being justified when we believe, or when we've died in a state of personal righteousness, having overcome sin in the flesh.

I can only look to Jesus, without any confidence in myself. And I believe this is the teaching of the Bible.

Much love!

Indeed, alone we cannot perform properly. It is ultimately our trusting in the Lord due to our love for Him that makes the difference. We do what we can and trust God to take any necessary slack. What He apparently does not? What if we need to lay down our physical life as Jesus did? What if we need to let them stone us to death as Stephen did when if we just agreed with the crowd our flesh could be saved from pain and anguish?

A real love for God is Not looking for our rewards and our own salvation, but for pleasing the One that we love.

Too many people are more concerned about their personal salvation and rewards of a place called 'heaven' they want to go to...than they are about pleasing the One they are supposed to love. Do we love Him only when we able to see and count blessings? What does it mean to love God as He loves us? What does our Lover want from us... rather than what are we expecting from our Lover? Too much 'gimme, gimmee, gimme' and not enough of, 'What do you want from me Lord?'

 

[amadeus]

been thinking about that passage, funny to me that “salt” is used differently everywhere else but here? What is pillar of salt i wonder

Salt can be good thing for flavoring or for healing or for preserving but can a person get or eat too much of a good thing? Remember the old saying, "we are what we eat!"? Or better remember the words of Jesus here:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matt 5:13

I remember once when I was in the army learning to like coffee when one of my buddies poured half a shaker of salt into my cup.

 

[marks]

Too many people are more concerned about their personal salvation and rewards of a place called 'heaven' they want to go to...than they are about pleasing the One they are supposed to love.

That may be so.

Are we trying to buy His love with our performance? I don't see how I would have the same open and loving relationship with God if I thought that He was going to accept me or reject me based on how well I do.

Because I've got a pretty good idea about me. If I have to hang onto that life line, well, my grip is not sure.

And perhaps if we started preaching forgiveness and reconciliation as accomplished facts in the redeemed, people might move away a little from their obsession with sin and law, and find that holiness is actually something that can be lived? But telling people that they have to perform well enough to be accepted by God is to put them under a burden of law, which will empower sin, increasing their struggle, and that struggle will be in flesh, because in the Spirit we are free.

If the truth is that God has forgiven our sin and reconciled us to Himself, and we will never be lost from that, and we, in turn, continue to try to prove our sincerity to God by our performance, or we try to conquer those final fleshy temptations, or however we want to word it, then that's not what the Spirit is doing. Though I believe God will still empower even misguided efforts as He knows we can be silly people sometimes. I mean me, and maybe others!

When the sin issue is addressed and over, we can get to the love. I believe that in receiving the reconciliation we by faith overcome sin.

Much love!

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yes, I have heard it said that priests substituted their own words for God's words in the Old Testament. In effect, this would mean the Bible is lying. The Bible doesn't lie.

The Dead Sea scrolls proves that theory wrong.

 

[Bruce Atkinson]

I don't know when the Gospel's were written.
But it is written that 4 out of 4 of the Names of the Gospels were Paul's companions.
And Paul himself claimed to be a Roman.

I'm not arguing about Paul, I been there already.
All I'm saying is I believe that the Gospel (s) was written by Paul and his companions.

Your memory of who went where and when far exceeds mine. Don't get old. My mother told me 25 years ago that she gives a good imitation of having a memory. I've reached that point myself.

Like you, I'm unaware of when the Gospels were written. But if Paul was with them at the time, perhaps it was while he was still going to Jew only preaching that Jesus IS the Messiah, before he was led by the Spirit to Arabia. That's pure speculation on my part. If Paul was with them when each wrote their Gospel sometime after returning from Arabia, wouldn't there be some of Pauls' Gentile teachings, at least just a little bit, in the 4 Gospels?

What it comes down to is: does it really matter? We have the 4 Gospels and their 5 epistles written to Jews, and Pauls' letters to us Gentiles. We need only separate law and grace to treat them appropriately and learn from them.

 

[amadeus]

That may be so.

Are we trying to buy His love with our performance?

I certainly hope not. That might be worse than sitting back and doing nothing presuming that all of the rewards are already ours.

If we really love God, will we not want to do whatever He wants us to do above all other things?

Consider the pain and suffering that Jesus, the man of flesh, knew lay ahead of him when he prayed these word to His Father:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matt 26:39

You really need me to suffer and die on the cross...? Then I will lay down and not even resist although I certainly could!

"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down,.." John 10:18

I don't see how I would have the same open and loving relationship with God if I thought that He was going to accept me or reject me based on how well I do.

Not how well you do, but how much you love Him! You do all you can because you love Him. It is because of Him, not because of you! No selfishness on our part. Is that not how Jesus was... unselfish? What are we? God knows! Do we?

Because I've got a pretty good idea about me. If I have to hang onto that life line, well, my grip is not sure.

And perhaps if we started preaching forgiveness and reconciliation as accomplished facts in the redeemed, people might move away a little from their obsession with sin and law, and find that holiness is actually something that can be lived? But telling people that they have to perform well enough to be accepted by God is to put them under a burden of law, which will empower sin, increasing their struggle, and that struggle will be in flesh, because in the Spirit we are free.

Tell people? This is between each person and God. If they really are interested in hearing, I will tell them what I believe.

If the truth is that God has forgiven our sin and reconciled us to Himself, and we will never be lost from that, and we, in turn, continue to try to prove our sincerity to God by our performance, or we try to conquer those final fleshy temptations, or however we want to word it, then that's not what the Spirit is doing. Though I believe God will still empower even misguided efforts as He knows we can be silly people sometimes. I mean me, and maybe others!

We will never be lost if we never stop trusting God. If we really love Him we will not.

I believe this is all our testing time, the time allotted to each of us. What we do with what we have been given? The sacrifice of Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, the gifts of the Spirit, the armor of God, etc. What test lies in what we do with what we have been given. I believe that people who think they have a free ride to the end of their allotted time here are badly mistaken. They want to disagree with me? They are allowed to do that.

When the sin issue is addressed and over, we can get to the love. I believe that in receiving the reconciliation we by faith overcome sin.

Much love!

I say put love first always above any sin issue. Sin will not be an unsolvable problem if we really love God as He loves us.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

I think few disagree that Paul's writings are scripture. I think the area of disagreement would be how one views scripture.

The bolded is why unauthorized denominations exist and don't understand the Bible: people are trying to view the Bible their own way instead of simply accepting it for what it says. It was the biggest reason why the OT religion was corrupted by the Pharisees and other groups, and it's why Christianity continues to be corrupted by Catholics and Protestants today. A person would be mind blown by the amount of things revealed in the Bible if they simply unlearn whatever dogma they were told to believe and look at what the Bible clearly teaches.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭3:16-17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Its still important to consider content and context when it comes to reading the Bible though @marks.

Many people just skip past most of the introductory parts of the letters, and they can make the Bible as it was written for the nation of America or something (consider Christian cults ).

The bolded is a prime example of why a lot of "Christians" just don't get it, which is not surprise because they're practicing false religion. I simply don't understand how anyone can look at the fact that America is simultaneously experiencing curses God said would happen specifically to the the end-time descendants of Israel, and American "Christians" say absurd things like "the Bible doesn't talk directly about America" because of what deceived scholars say.

Wake up and get a clue! If America is experiencing the curses God said would specifically happen to the house of Israel in the last days, what else could it possibly mean other than the fact that the Bible has a lot to say about America's present and ? Are adherents of Orthodox Christianity really so clueless about bible prophecy that they believe God wouldn't have anything at all to say about the most powerful nation to have ever existed in human history? It's no wonder why Christ called people who don't believe the prophets' writings fools.

The Judaisers were telling the Galatians that they had to become Jews to fully accept Jesus, ie, putting them under the law including Kosher food, and, of course, male circumcision. Work, work, work, keep the law, and on and on. The Judaisers were ADDING to the simplicity that is the Gospel of Grace.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to believing the Gospel of Grace in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is how simple it is. No extra 'do this, do that, eat this, eat that, believe this too', etc. Simply believe the Gospel in your heart. Period. aka, KISS.

Aside from the fact that you're preaching a false gospel, you're telling a bold-faced lie. Judaizers were people who were trying to convince converts that they had to be physically circumcised in order to be saved. Paul said nothing about the other things you claim Paul taught against, and his own words prove it:

"As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." - Gal. 6:12

That is what Paul mainly addressed throughout Galatians. At no point in Galatians or any other letter authored by Paul did he ever tell people they could eat unclean meat, considering all of Acts and the Pauline letters show he still believed in the authority of the Law enough to practice what was in it. Not only are you preaching another Christ, you're preaching another Paul.

 

[Ziggy]

Your memory of who went where and when far exceeds mine. Don't get old. My mother told me 25 years ago that she gives a good imitation of having a memory. I've reached that point myself.

Like you, I'm unaware of when the Gospels were written. But if Paul was with them at the time, perhaps it was while he was still going to Jew only preaching that Jesus IS the Messiah, before he was led by the Spirit to Arabia. That's pure speculation on my part. If Paul was with them when each wrote their Gospel sometime after returning from Arabia, wouldn't there be some of Pauls' Gentile teachings, at least just a little bit, in the 4 Gospels?

What it comes down to is: does it really matter? We have the 4 Gospels and their 5 epistles written to Jews, and Pauls' letters to us Gentiles. We need only separate law and grace to treat them appropriately and learn from them.

I believe Jesus showed Paul the "hidden manna" in the Old Testament. By "hidden manna" I mean the spiritual meaning and intention meant in the Law that God gave to Moses.
For instance when Jesus says, Ye have heard it said... and comes back with, And I say... he is showing us the spiritual intention in the law.
The entire Old Testament is ( I said turned inside out) meaning that spiritual interpetation was revealed.
Like when Paul is talking about Sarah and Hagar, he brings a spiritual meaning to it, the one in bondage and the one that is free.
The law is spiritual but I am carnal, meaning there is a deeper spiritual meaning that what we see written in stone, for hearts of stone.

I believe Paul was accompnied by those that walked and talked and lived with Jesus. And beginning from his conversion on the road to Damascus, these men told Paul what they had witnessed and the Gospels were written at the same time the books of Acts is being lived.

I believe Paul is in prison at the time he wrote this:
2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
2Ti 4:12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus.
2Ti 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

What are these parchments? I believe they are the scrolls of the OT, that Paul is translating from carnal to spiritual knowledge.

I don't know the words I'm looking for and writing is hard right now. Sorry.

As far as seperating the law from grace... depends on ones interpretation of the word law.
God's law says we should love our neighbor as ourselves and to love him with all our heart and mind and soul.
God's law says not to steal or lie or commit adultery, respect your parents and don't commit murder, which includes hating someone without a cause.
I have no issues with these laws.
When it comes to the Levitical laws of animal sacrifices and the ceremonial laws, these I beleve have all been filled by Christ himself.

Without law there is only lawlessness. And we see where that's heading.
I believe Paul is the sword (vessel) by which the Word is divided from carnal knowledge to spiritual understanding.

I have no issues with Paul. Where would christianity be without his Epistles?
God Bless
Hugs

 

[BloodBought 1953]

At no point in Galatians or any other letter authored by Paul did he ever tell people they could eat unclean meat



For Paul, there was no such thing as “ unclean meat”......” I am convinced that NOTHING IS UNCLEAN in itself” ......” All food is CLEAN”.......

Please Read Romans 14.....

 

[Bob Estey]

The Dead Sea scrolls proves that theory wrong.

In what respect?

 

[Bob Estey]

The bolded is why unauthorized denominations exist and don't understand the Bible: people are trying to view the Bible their own way instead of simply accepting it for what it says. It was the biggest reason why the OT religion was corrupted by the Pharisees and other groups, and it's why Christianity continues to be corrupted by Catholics and Protestants today. A person would be mind blown by the amount of things revealed in the Bible if they simply unlearn whatever dogma they were told to believe and look at what the Bible clearly teaches.
The bolded is a prime example of why a lot of "Christians" just don't get it, which is not surprise because they're practicing false religion. I simply don't understand how anyone can look at the fact that America is simultaneously experiencing curses God said would happen specifically to the the end-time descendants of Israel, and American "Christians" say absurd things like "the Bible doesn't talk directly about America" because of what deceived scholars say.

The bolded is why unauthorized denominations exist and don't understand the Bible: people are trying to view the Bible their own way instead of simply accepting it for what it says. It was the biggest reason why the OT religion was corrupted by the Pharisees and other groups, and it's why Christianity continues to be corrupted by Catholics and Protestants today. A person would be mind blown by the amount of things revealed in the Bible if they simply unlearn whatever dogma they were told to believe and look at what the Bible clearly teaches.
The bolded is a prime example of why a lot of "Christians" just don't get it, which is not surprise because they're practicing false religion. I simply don't understand how anyone can look at the fact that America is simultaneously experiencing curses God said would happen specifically to the the end-time descendants of Israel, and American "Christians" say absurd things like "the Bible doesn't talk directly about America" because of what deceived scholars say.

Wake up and get a clue! If America is experiencing the curses God said would specifically happen to the house of Israel in the last days, what else could it possibly mean other than the fact that the Bible has a lot to say about America's present and ? Are adherents of Orthodox Christianity really so clueless about bible prophecy that they believe God wouldn't have anything at all to say about the most powerful nation to have ever existed in human history? It's no wonder why Christ called people who don't believe the prophets' writings fools.
Aside from the fact that you're preaching a false gospel, you're telling a bold-faced lie. Judaizers were people who were trying to convince converts that they had to be physically circumcised in order to be saved. Paul said nothing about the other things you claim Paul taught against, and his own words prove it:

"As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." - Gal. 6:12

That is what Paul mainly addressed throughout Galatians. At no point in Galatians or any other letter authored by Paul did he ever tell people they could eat unclean meat, considering all of Acts and the Pauline letters show he still believed in the authority of the Law enough to practice what was in it. Not only are you preaching another Christ, you're preaching another Paul.

Is there some reason to blindly believe that Paul was always right?

 

[Nancy]

Is there some reason to blindly believe that Paul was always right?

Hello Bob,
Answer to your question?
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

How do you pick and choose what is NOT inspired of God when the word itself says the opposite?
Just curious. Would be pretty confusing to many if they cherry picked. I could also make that bible say what I want it to but, that's not how it goes. God is NOT a God of confusion! If it is in the bible, God wanted it there, if it is not then, was not meant to be there.
I'm afraid you are delving into dangerous area here as Paul was given to preach to the Gentiles, I hope you are not among this newer group of "anti-Pauline's"
God bless and give you peace.