GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

[Studyman]

Studyman,

"Post's question was just like the question "did you ever stop beating your wife".
No matter what the answer, it would support the premise, which in our case would be a lie."


if you honestly thought that, why not simply state that up front the first time the question is asked?

(Perhaps you did and I missed it?)

When you use a question to deflect or trap, like this question was designed to do, nothing is the right response. I chose to try and expose the premise in my answer and maybe someone might see, and understand the difference between what "Many" who come in Christ's name teach about the Pharisees and what God teaches about the Pharisees.

Maybe I was wasting my time, but I don't believe God's Word's return void.

 

[Studyman]

Scribes and Pharasees were Isrealites and Jews that were well learned in the Law of Moses.

So was Zechariahs. How is it he knew Jesus when He came, and the Pharisees, Scribes, and Many Jews didn't?

I believe Jesus gave me the answer to this question.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I can find no other reason why Zechariahs knew Jesus and Saul didn't.

 

[Studyman]

=PS;3584710]

Saul worshipped the God of the Jews, right?

He persecuted Christians, right?

This is not right. Saul didn't know the God of Abraham. He rejected the God of Abraham. They ultimately killed the God of the Abraham. No PS, they had created a god in their own mind and called it the God of Abraham.

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

When Saul met with Jesus in a vision on the Damascus Road, he became a Christian.

Later as Paul, and beginning with the Jews he travelled the known world, a different man with a different message and a different God.

God didn't change, Paul did.

 

[Dan_473]

There were lots of false teachers in Christ's day and those cults have continued into the present and been discussed endlessly on the forums. Still people hold to their false beliefs as we can see currently. Put it this way it is far easier to drag someone down that it is to lift them up, and so it is with the truth. I have come to think that maybe the devil loves this bickering as it allows him to get a foothold. Satan is very subtle and I feel we need to build each other up, looking to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith rather that scrambling around in the muck heaps of the cults.

yes there were lots of false teachers in Jesus' day.

So, like we were talking about in the Old Testament, how in your view there was both a true God and a false god both with the same name and described the same way such that it's up to the reader to decide which is which,

Does that situation carryover into the New Testament? A true God and a false god with the same name?

 

[posthuman]

Paul certainly knows the Greek words for 'traditions and commandments of men'
-- he's the very one who gave us the phrase
so when he writes "the Law" it is completely indefensible to suggest that what he really means is 'traditions and commandments of men'

"the Law" means "the Law" no matter how much anyone's personal doctrine is offended by it being found written, "the Law"
our opinions were not considered when the scripture was given. only the truth.

the premise of the question, "is Paul giving a list of damnable offenses or a list of things that justify confidence in the flesh?" is that Paul literally tells us in the text what kind of list he is giving. in order to disagree with him, you must call scripture a lie.

i'll walk through this briefly ((again)) so that the one who thinks himself my enemy can't muddle your minds about what i say with his slander.

For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh — though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more
(Philippians 3:3-4)​

there's the answer, written twice. what prevents anyone from responding?
Paul has reason for confidence in the flesh. in fact, he has more reason for confidence in the flesh than the people he's warning the Philippians about, who are coming to them with a false doctrine, to lead them away from the gospel.

what follows is a list of things Paul says are not only justifiable reasons to have confidence in the flesh ((if such confidence were not negated already by the gospel, see Romans 1-5)). in fact, it's more than a list of what would be justifiable reasons for confidence in the flesh: it's reasons that go above and beyond the things that the Judaizing wolves boast of. these are superlatives, not just commending attributes. so if we want to call them condemning attributes? we're not just wrong, we're doubly wrong.

are they 'saving' attributes? do they justify Paul before God? not at all. we ought all to know by now that by works of the Law no flesh will be justified ((and yes, "Law" means "Law" here, too. if he meant 'mere human traditions' he would have written 'mere human traditions')). in case we forgot, check vv. 8-9

I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.
​

"Law" means "Law" here, too. it doesn't mean 'traditions of men' -- if that's what the Holy Spirit wanted to be written, He would have had it written. God knows Greek; He didn't suffer from a lack of vocabulary.
As we find throughout Romans, Galatians, and all the NT, there is a great contrast drawn between being justified by faith through the Spirit vs. being justified by works through the flesh. that's repeated here, and it's the central controversy by which the Judaizing influence ((which isn't limited to Pharisees but is exemplified by them, because of their particular devotion to 'the outside of the cup')) would lead people away from the pure gospel. per the epistle to the Galatians: we began in the Spirit, and we are certainly not perfected by the flesh.

so these are not 'saving' attributes; that's not at all the point Paul is making. vv. 7-9 and v. 3 prevent any such misinterpretation. but neither are they condemning attributes; they are commending. they are what would justify confidence in the flesh if such confidence were not utterly negated by the truth of the gospel: all have sinned, no flesh is justified by works, and salvation is by faith through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who gave Himself, alone.

moreover, again, Paul presents what he writes in vv. 5-6 as superlative justification for confidence in the flesh. more than what the deceivers he warns about are able to boast of in themselves. it's garbage, in the light of the truth of Christ, but Paul has more of it than they do. and these things are all similar, all attributes presented together as one group, all things that man could boast of, if such boasting was worth anything. it is not a mixed list, some condemning, some commending: all commend the flesh. 'good' things, not evil, if our eyes were on earthly things. let's look now:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
(Philippians 3:4-6)​

very first line -- can't emphasize this enough, given how a person desires to delete it from the scripture: Paul does not boast in the flesh, but these are reasons to commend Paul's flesh even more than those who do boast in the flesh. superlative commendations.

• circumcised in obedience to the commandment
• an Israelite
• not just an Israelite, a Benjamite
• an Hebrew
• not just an Hebrew, an 'Hebrew of Hebrews'
• law abiding
• not just law abiding, a Pharisee
• zealous
• not just zealous, so zealous he persecuted the church
• faultless/blameless with regard to the righteousness based on the Law

this is one group of attributes presented together as superlative justifications for confidence in the flesh. 'good' things in the eyes of those who boast in the flesh. you want to call one evil? you must call them all evil, or call Paul a liar. with regard to the Law, is Phariseeism in and of itself, evil? then so is circumcision, so is being an Israelite, so is being a Benjamite, so is zeal, so is righteousness based on the Law. either that, or we find ourselves rejecting what's written, changing Paul's mind for him, ignoring the context and the plain language, replacing the scripture with our own opinions.

now, that may blow up our minds a little bit. we're used to equating the Pharisees with evil. but our reaction shouldn't be to edit, delete and replace/redefine the words in the scripture to make it fit our preconception. then we're writing our own scripture, and that's evil. we need to fear God, and believe that what's written here is what's supposed to be written here. throw our opinions away, and try to understand this based on what it actually says, rather than what we figure it ought to say.

i'm not going into detail about the items in the list and why they are superlatives right now. this post is already in the "TLDR" category, and to go through all of that will take more than twice what i've already written. what i've been trying to get a straight answer about is to make us confess that the scripture is true: these are a list of things that would commend, not condemn the flesh, if such commendation wasn't worthless on first principles. if we find that list shocking in this regard, then we've got some 'study' to do. deleting the words in the scripture and replacing them with our own isn't the right way to go about that.

fundamental rule: when you read something in the Bible that doesn't make sense to you, it's you're understanding that needs to be changed, not the scripture. the Bible will humble you, when you think you're wise. we need to submit to that, or we head straight for a theological ditch.
that's the "premise" of my question to Studydude, which he still refuses to answer, because ((i guess)) the answer is obvious and the answer obviously doesn't suit him. the premise is: the Bible is correct, and anyone who feels the need to edit it in order to keep their private interpretation, has a private interpretation that is wrong.

 

[Dan_473]

When you use a question to deflect or trap, like this question was designed to do, nothing is the right response. I chose to try and expose the premise in my answer and maybe someone might see, and understand the difference between what "Many" who come in Christ's name teach about the Pharisees and what God teaches about the Pharisees.

Maybe I was wasting my time, but I don't believe God's Word's return void.

"When you use a question to deflect or trap, like this question was designed to do..."

in a discussion, every question is designed to trap, although we usually put it in more polite terms, such as every question is designed to lead the answerer to a place where they come to agree with the questioner.



posthuman's question was designed to do just that.

it used solid logic and biblical terms.
it was basically what Paul just stated, reworded into a question.

but if you honestly believed that the question contained a faulty premise, why not simply state that up front? why not simply say that the question contains a faulty premise, and is therefore unanswerable?

 

[Dan_473]

When you use a question to deflect or trap, like this question was designed to do, nothing is the right response. I chose to try and expose the premise in my answer and maybe someone might see, and understand the difference between what "Many" who come in Christ's name teach about the Pharisees and what God teaches about the Pharisees.

Maybe I was wasting my time, but I don't believe God's Word's return void.

and yes, amen, God's word does not return to him void.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets.

 

[posthuman]

When you use a question to deflect or trap, like this question was designed to do, nothing is the right response.

yeah maybe if you were correct, and not slanderous, that'd be the case.

but this is the actual case:

the scripture in no uncertain terms tells us whether or not Philippians 3:5-6 is a list of things that would commend confidence in the flesh. twice in a row, in verse 4.

i suspect you reject that verse & wish it weren't in the Bible, just like you wish vv. 5-6 said 'traditions and commandments of purely human origin completely antithetical to the Law'
but it doesn't; scripture says, "the Law"

so i asked you, repeatedly, whether verse 4 says what verse 4 says.

you refuse to answer what is essentially "do you agree with the Bible?"
i'm not asking if the Pharisees were evil. i'm not asking because i don't know. i'm asking because want to know if you'll confess that the Word is true or not. i'm asking because i want to see if you'll go on record rejecting the Bible, if you'll allow yourself to be taught by it, or if you'll go on a venomous tirade of deflection and diversion.

well we've all now seen which option you opted for. & i'm sad, because i still have hope for you, that you'll grow in the knowledge of God & His great grace.

what's the takeaway when someone refuses to assent that the Bible says what the Bible says?

 

[Dan_473]

posthuman,

well put.

if I may, for those who prefer the King James,

Philippians 3: 4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh.

question: might Paul have confidence in the flesh?


If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

question: hath Paul whereof he might trust in the flesh?

 

[Magenta]

 

[PS]

=PS;3584710] He persecuted Christians, right?

This is not right.

Saul persecuted the Christian church.
As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. (Act 8:3 KJV)

Saul didn't know the God of Abraham. He rejected the God of Abraham. They ultimately killed the God of the Abraham. No PS, they had created a god in their own mind and called it the God of Abraham.

He worshipped Yahweh.

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.42 Jesus said unto them,If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Jesus told the Jews they are not the children of God and went on to say their father was the devil.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Joh 8:44 KJV)

God didn't change, Paul did.

Do you think Israel needs to follow Paul's example?

 

[Endoscopy]

total diversion & non-answer, plus, dude it's already been thoroughly discredited many times.

from line one:



that's patently false. "the Law" means "the Law"
it doesn't mean 'man-made traditions'
so nothing else you say based on this lie matters. i read it, sure, but it's based on a lie, and you're deflecting from my point-blank, simple question about Philippians 3, which answer is plainly written right in front of you in that very chapter, in those very verses.

why are you trying to change the scripture?

you and PS both, do you just not like what the Bible says? or just really not understand it? so when y'all read your Bibles, PS thinks the LORD is Satan, and you think the Law is evil human traditions? like some kind of coping mechanism so you can tell yourself you're still a believer?

A point of clarification.
Jesus at one point accused the religious leaders of creating rules on top of the law. These rules these leaders thought would help them and others keep the law. Jesus said they were actually bad rules constricting people erroneously. These are the traditions or commandments of men he was talking about.

 

[Studyman]

=lightbearer;3584866]

No. They Sought it not by the Faith but by works of the Law. The Faith of Christ is the Love for and Faith in and of GOD, and the Love of our Fellow man. Without this we can keep all the Book of the Law and the Decalogue and not be saved because our hearts are not right.

Paul is talking about the Law, given through Moses for the justification of sins. What "LAW" was required through Moses for the atonement of sins? Was it not the Levitical Priesthood with it's sacrificial "Deeds" and "Works of the Law" for the atonement of sins?

But now Jesus was their High Priest, He shed His own Blood for their sins. Therefore it is no more of "works" of the Law, but of faith in the Blood of Christ.

Rom. 3:27 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 (the law of) faith without the deeds of the law. (of works)

Did I bring my prize goat to the Levite Priest to pay for my sins? No, there is no more boasting. But there is still a Law.

A Law of faith. "Thou shall Love the Lord your God with all your might and All your Soul, and Thou shall love thy Neighbor as thyself. And the Law and the Prophets teach us how to properly follow this "Law of Faith".

This is what is required for the remission of sins, not the "deeds" of the Old Priesthood.

As Paul explains;

Acts 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

We still have to do something as Paul says, it's just not the "Deeds" of Priesthood Laws given by Moses for the remission of sins.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of (Mans) works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Without Faith, there is no Grace. Without works, there is no Faith. Since "mans" Work means nothing, that leaves God's Work. Since we know He no longer requires the Levitical Priesthood "works of the Law" to cover our transgressions, rather, Faith in His Blood, what "Good Works" are left that He "before ordained" for us to walk in?

The Law of Faith. But how do we Love God? and How do we Love our Neighbor? That is where the Law and Prophets come in that Jesus said would be as long as heaven and earth are here.

It's really simple, it's just that the serpent has disguised itself as ministers of righteousness and muddied the water, as we were warned it would do.

No they were following the letter of the Law and not the heart of it; LOVE. GOD is LOVE and through Christ as HE is so are we in this Word. This is the foundation of our Faith. The Faith of Christ. Through this we establish the Law. For the LAW depends on LOVE.

I'm sorry my friend, but how can this be true if the Bible is our source?

I understand that this is a popular teaching, but the Pharisees Didn't Love God with all their Heart, they didn't Love their Neighbor as themselves. They didn't use just measures, I mean the list goes on and on. they didn't follow the Letter of the Law or they would have done these things like Jesus said.

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, (Law of) judgment, (Law of) mercy, and (Law of ) faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Had they followed "the letter of the Law" they would have known this, but they didn't.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not the letter of God's Laws)

Rom. 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

No my friend, I could post scripture after scripture from the Old Testament Prophesies regard the Priests, to Jesus who actually said their father was the devil, to Paul who never said he was following God's Laws as a Pharisee, rather their laws.

The Pharisees were not trying to follow the "Letter of God's Law". Zechariahs followed God's Laws as it is written, and I might note that he knew Jesus when He came, but the Pharisees didn't.

I truly hope you haven't been infected by this "Leaven of the Mainstream religion". A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law (the Letter). For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (Having no Faith; no heart transformation)
(Rom 9:31-32 KJV)

I don't think this is what Paul implied here. What were the "works of the Law" necessary for a man to be made righteous?

This is missing in your post LB. The Pharisees had created a religion centered around the "Priesthood" and the "works of the Law" necessary for the atonement of sins. Not all, but most refused to accept what the "works" foreshadowed. Which was the sacrifice of the Christ. Had they followed the "Letter of the Law" they would have known about God's Love, and how to Love your brother, and how to love your neighbor.

But they rejected the Word. Changed His Glory into an image made like unto man. They changed the Truth of God into a lie, according to Paul.

They worshipped their "Priesthood" more than the Creator of the Priesthood. Read Romans chapter 1 and tell me how this translates into the Pharisees following the "Letter of the Law". Post EVERY WORD Jesus ever said about the Pharisees and tell me how this translates into they were following the "The Letter of the Law".

The Jews had corrupted God's Word, including the Priesthood Laws, they sought righteousness by these "works of the Law" as Paul says.

Zechariahs didn't do this. And He knew Jesus when He came because Jesus is the same always. He was faithful in His Promise to open the eyes of those who Follow God's Commandments, as the story of Zechariahs proves.


John 14: 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

and again;

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

No LB my friend. The Pharisees that murdered and prosecuted the Prophets, that killed the Messiah and Stephen, that placed Heavy burdens on the backs of the people, were not following the Letter of God's Laws, they weren't trying to "follow the Letter" of God's Laws. They didn't Love God with all their heart.

Caleb, Abel, Rehab, all the examples of Faith in Hebrews 11, Zechariahs, the Wise Men, these all strived to obey their God. But the Pharisees did not.

I know that this untruth, started by the master deceiver, has influenced "many" people who come in His name.

I truly respect your opinion, and I mean no disrespect. But I don't see how the Bible confirms the preaching that the Pharisees were trying to follow "the Letter of God's Laws". I don't believe it is there.

 

[Endoscopy]

Stupid 5 minute rule again.

One rule was setting aside their money for religious purposes and thereby not taking care of their parents.

 

[posthuman]

. . about the Pharisees.

Paul said of them.

Rom. 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

let's not misrepresent scripture.

context, which has been excluded:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
(Romans 1:18-25)
​

Q. where does it say "Pharisees" in here?

A. nowhere.


Q. who is Paul writing about?

A. "people" ((vv. 18, 20))


are the Pharisees, being themselves people, included in this? sure.
is this singularly about Pharisees? nope. it's about people - and that includes me, and you, and everyone.

 

[Endoscopy]

=lightbearer;3584866]


Paul is talking about the Law, given through Moses for the justification of sins. What "LAW" was required through Moses for the atonement of sins? Was it not the Levitical Priesthood with it's sacrificial "Deeds" and "Works of the Law" for the atonement of sins?

But now Jesus was their High Priest, He shed His own Blood for their sins. Therefore it is no more of "works" of the Law, but of faith in the Blood of Christ.

Rom. 3:27 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 (the law of) faith without the deeds of the law. (of works)

Did I bring my prize goat to the Levite Priest to pay for my sins? No, there is no more boasting. But there is still a Law.

A Law of faith. "Thou shall Love the Lord your God with all your might and All your Soul, and Thou shall love thy Neighbor as thyself. And the Law and the Prophets teach us how to properly follow this "Law of Faith".

This is what is required for the remission of sins, not the "deeds" of the Old Priesthood.

As Paul explains;

Acts 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

We still have to do something as Paul says, it's just not the "Deeds" of Priesthood Laws given by Moses for the remission of sins.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of (Mans) works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Without Faith, there is no Grace. Without works, there is no Faith. Since "mans" Work means nothing, that leaves God's Work. Since we know He no longer requires the Levitical Priesthood "works of the Law" to cover our transgressions, rather, Faith in His Blood, what "Good Works" are left that He "before ordained" for us to walk in?

The Law of Faith. But how do we Love God? and How do we Love our Neighbor? That is where the Law and Prophets come in that Jesus said would be as long as heaven and earth are here.

It's really simple, it's just that the serpent has disguised itself as ministers of righteousness and muddied the water, as we were warned it would do.





I'm sorry my friend, but how can this be true if the Bible is our source?

I understand that this is a popular teaching, but the Pharisees Didn't Love God with all their Heart, they didn't Love their Neighbor as themselves. They didn't use just measures, I mean the list goes on and on. they didn't follow the Letter of the Law or they would have done these things like Jesus said.

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, (Law of) judgment, (Law of) mercy, and (Law of ) faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Had they followed "the letter of the Law" they would have known this, but they didn't.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not the letter of God's Laws)

Rom. 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

No my friend, I could post scripture after scripture from the Old Testament Prophesies regard the Priests, to Jesus who actually said their father was the devil, to Paul who never said he was following God's Laws as a Pharisee, rather their laws.

The Pharisees were not trying to follow the "Letter of God's Law". Zechariahs followed God's Laws as it is written, and I might note that he knew Jesus when He came, but the Pharisees didn't.

I truly hope you haven't been infected by this "Leaven of the Mainstream religion". A little leaven leavens the whole lump.




I don't think this is what Paul implied here. What were the "works of the Law" necessary for a man to be made righteous?

This is missing in your post LB. The Pharisees had created a religion centered around the "Priesthood" and the "works of the Law" necessary for the atonement of sins. Not all, but most refused to accept what the "works" foreshadowed. Which was the sacrifice of the Christ. Had they followed the "Letter of the Law" they would have known about God's Love, and how to Love your brother, and how to love your neighbor.

But they rejected the Word. Changed His Glory into an image made like unto man. They changed the Truth of God into a lie, according to Paul.

They worshipped their "Priesthood" more than the Creator of the Priesthood. Read Romans chapter 1 and tell me how this translates into the Pharisees following the "Letter of the Law". Post EVERY WORD Jesus ever said about the Pharisees and tell me how this translates into they were following the "The Letter of the Law".

The Jews had corrupted God's Word, including the Priesthood Laws, they sought righteousness by these "works of the Law" as Paul says.

Zechariahs didn't do this. And He knew Jesus when He came because Jesus is the same always. He was faithful in His Promise to open the eyes of those who Follow God's Commandments, as the story of Zechariahs proves.


John 14: 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

and again;

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

No LB my friend. The Pharisees that murdered and prosecuted the Prophets, that killed the Messiah and Stephen, that placed Heavy burdens on the backs of the people, were not following the Letter of God's Laws, they weren't trying to "follow the Letter" of God's Laws. They didn't Love God with all their heart.

Caleb, Abel, Rehab, all the examples of Faith in Hebrews 11, Zechariahs, the Wise Men, these all strived to obey their God. But the Pharisees did not.

I know that this untruth, started by the master deceiver, has influenced "many" people who come in His name.

I truly respect your opinion, and I mean no disrespect. But I don't see how the Bible confirms the preaching that the Pharisees were trying to follow "the Letter of God's Laws". I don't believe it is there.

He loves its gentle warble,
He loves its gentle flow,
He loves to wind his tongue up,
He loves to let it go.

I just wish it was factual.

 

[Studyman]

He is determined to label genuine believers (who disagree with him) as Pharisees, who have created our own Laws, our own righteousness and he places us all in the same boat of unbelief.

Yet he considers himself a believer, whose righteousness has exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, which is his own righteousness of following God's Commandments, blamelessly. How many times have we heard that from LGF?

The righteousness that Jesus was talking about is the same righteousness that the apostle Paul was talking about in Philippians 3:9 - and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.

The Bible continues to be under attack by SDA's, Hebrew roots and spin off groups who play the same game in salvation as other false movements of Christendom. They profess to teach that salvation is by grace through faith, but then redefine this in a way that is contrary to the Gospel. Even though they deny this, they teach that salvation is by "grace plus law, faith plus works." Their doctrine of salvation is a subtle mixture of law and grace that is a perversion of the Gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9)

And yet you know your religious traditions cause all those who follow them to "transgress the Commandments of God". You know you have created images of God in the likeness of man. You know you have Rejected God's Sabbaths and Holy Days and have created your own Sabbath and High Days. How are you exempt from the same Judgments Jesus made on ALL OTHERS who did the same exact things?

Don't you believe the Warning of the Christ?

I didn't place you in the same boat as the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time, the Pharisees.

You did.

 

[Endoscopy]

And yet you know your religious traditions cause all those who follow them to "transgress the Commandments of God". You know you have created images of God in the likeness of man. You know you have Rejected God's Sabbaths and Holy Days and have created your own Sabbath and High Days. How are you exempt from the same Judgments Jesus made on ALL OTHERS who did the same exact things?

Don't you believe the Warning of the Christ?

I didn't place you in the same boat as the Mainstream Preachers of Christ's time, the Pharisees.

You did.

You disregard the Apostles Creed was created by the early elders as a doctrinal statement defining the beliefs that a person must believe to be a Christian. At the time there were heresies and legitimate differences of opinion. The creed was an attack on the heresies and ignored the differences of opinion. Therefore relegating these differences of opinion to agree to disagree. We can discuss these differences with polite discussion but you go over that line with your disgusting accusations. You believe the full pretorist view of eschatology that I totally disagree with. When I discuss that with you I don't make the kind of accusations you make here. Please tone down your rhetoric as becoming of a Christian.

 

[posthuman]

A point of clarification.
Jesus at one point accused the religious leaders of creating rules on top of the law. These rules these leaders thought would help them and others keep the law. Jesus said they were actually bad rules constricting people erroneously. These are the traditions or commandments of men he was talking about.

yes. but that's not the whole story.

in Philippians 3 Paul clearly brings up his association with Phariseeism as a superlative justification for confidence in the flesh. he mentions it in the specific context of "with regard to the Law"
now, Paul sure knows Greek. he is fully capable of writing "with regard to the traditions and commandments of men" if that's what he wants to say. that's not what he says; that's not what he means to say.

Phariseeism, in and of itself, then, must have a positive association with law-keeping, especially in contrast with the Judaizers that he is comparing himself with in Philippians 3. are they Pharisees? the context here says no, they're not. at least, not all of them, and logically, not even most of them. why? because Paul is saying he has more reason to put confidence in the flesh than they do, and he points at being a Pharisee as a specific example of it. are these people pushing Moses' Law on Gentile believers? yeah, clearly. are they pushing extra-scriptural traditions somehow derived from the Law? maybe, even probably. are they pushing traditions, but not the Law? absolutely not -- Paul says "the Law" and if he meant 'traditions' he would not have said "the Law." would Paul be using his own Phariseeism as an example here if what he meant by it was keeping human commandments antithetical to the Law? absolutely not: he says, with regard to "the Law."
therefore what he means is that his Phariseeism is an example of law-keeping that is greater than the boasting of whoever it is that is trying to Judaize the believers in Philippi. not 'tradition-keeping' but 'law-keeping' -- if he wanted to write 'mere human traditions' he would have written that. he does not. he writes, "the Law"

there is no way to come to a different conclusion here without resorting to deleting/editing/revising/ignoring the text.

obvious question:
so what in the world does Paul mean by saying being a Pharisee is justification for more confidence in the flesh than a 'regular' Mosaic/Sinaitic Law keeper?

obvious answer:
Pharisees were more scrupulous in adhering to the Law than your average orthodox Jew. given that Philippi is located in Macedonia, it's pretty likely that a sizable portion of the people he wrote this letter to are not Israelites. given also that he doesn't spell out for them what he means by bringing up being a Pharisee in the context of having more reason to boast in the flesh than the people trying to coerce them to become circumcised, it's logical that he must assume that the association would be obvious to them, even themselves not being Jews. in other words, Pharisees were well known even among Greeks for being meticulous about the Law. the Law says no Ammonite or Moabite may enter the congregation of the LORD ((re: Deuteronomy 23:3, Nehemiah 13:1, etc))? well, a 'normal' law-abiding Jew isn't going to marry one. but a Pharisee, well, they'll go above and beyond - won't even enter their house, and maybe they'll take 7 baths if they get near one, for good measure.

now, they added to the Law. yes. with their additions they countermanded the Law. for sure. in particular -- the ones who came to tempt and test and eventually to try and kill Jesus Christ did. does that mean all of them did this? that all of them were constantly tying to trap & kill Christ? that none of them respected the Law? not necessarily, and given what Paul is writing here to the church in Philippi, probably not. see John 7:13, 9:22, 12:42. see Nicodemus. when you read in the gospels of Jesus confronting a group of them, is He talking to that specific group, or to "all Jews" or even "all Pharisees?"
we can get away with equating "Pharisee" with "lawless" in our hearts for a little while, but we run into Philippians 3:5-6, and BAM we either have to re-evaluate what we've been thinking, or we've got to try to change what the Bible says to adapt to our private interpretation. delete "the Law" and pencil in 'man-made traditions' cuz hating Pharisees is more important than believing the Bible? hmm... bad idea.

this isn't, 'Phariseeism is the way to go' -- certainly not.
this is, 'oh, you think you guys keep the Law? dude, i am a Pharisee, so..'
Paul is saying by this, these people are amateurs, he was a pro. but the whole game is junk: have no confidence in the flesh. was Paul a sinner? absolutely, he's the first to confess it. but that ((see Romans 1)) was because he's a "people" not solely because he was a "Pharisee"

i think y'all know whether post prefers to change the Bible or to be amazed by it, and change what he personally thinks when the Bible blows it up.
((despite a particular individual's baseless & malicious slander))

 

[Studyman]

"When you use a question to deflect or trap, like this question was designed to do..."

in a discussion, every question is designed to trap, although we usually put it in more polite terms, such as every question is designed to lead the answerer to a place where they come to agree with the questioner.



posthuman's question was designed to do just that.

it used solid logic and biblical terms.
it was basically what Paul just stated, reworded into a question.

but if you honestly believed that the question contained a faulty premise, why not simply state that up front? why not simply say that the question contains a faulty premise, and is therefore unanswerable?

I thought I answered this question in the post you replied to.