Jesus did not say follow preachers, He said follow Me.

[p_rehbein]

So let me see, if I dismiss one of Paul's commandments, God kills me.
If that is not true then what's the point.

How did you get that out of my comment? IF you mean obedience, then, pray tell, do YOU believe you can live in disobedience to God and still reap eternal life?

You know, God had a reason for Grace............AND Jesus had a reason for the 1st Sermon He preached was "Repent." Check Matthew, Chapter 4.

You guys that don't thing you have to walk in obedience to God just make me wonder why you don't seek the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit?

BTW: They are not Pauls Commandments, they are Gods...........and, did He NOT SAY the wages of sin is death? Is disobedience to God a sin?

 

[p_rehbein]

If we don't believe the Gospels, then we can't believe anything at all...It is ludicrous to
compare Paul to the Son of god. I love Paul, he is a great help to my Christian faith
but his letters are not law and they never will be, it's absurd that Jesus would abolish
the old covenant as written in Hebrews and replace it with a new list of laws when
He died on the cross so people could be free and now the third millennium Pharisees want to
bring back laws. Jesus called them fools and hypocrites then and He would call them that now.
As I say I follow Paul in his help for my beginning in Christianity. But it is not a sin for me to
disagree with Paul.

As I read your other comments, I'm left wondering if your just kicking over.......



your playing word games to dismiss the comments of others while trying to appear insightful yourself... IMO

Paul preached the Gospel of Christ!

Learn the meaning of this: 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7 vs. 12) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

I'm not into word games, so enjoy yoursellf

 

[tantalon]

When we are not "under Law" as Christians, the MEANING is: we are not under the PENALTY for breaking it. Such verses as "the law KILLETH, but the Spirit gives life, is referring to the PENALTY which is death. Romans 7: 12, tells us: "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good". Regarding any thought that the Law itself is abolished, (except in the conversion of the sinner) Romans 3:31, says: "Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid, yea we ESTABLISH the Law". Or Romans 10:4. "For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness." Jesus summed up All the Law and commandments, when he said Love is the fulfilling of the Law. Herein is where most people think that "love" is how we "feel" towards one another. But, love has two parts to it's fulfillment to be complete: the RIGHT feelings, (compassion, tenderness etc.) coupled with the RIGHT actions, or DOINGS. In a word, to "love, is to FEEL and DO, RIGHTLY. For example, Jesus said to the religious rulers of his day, that they APPEARED righteous on the outside, but within, we full of hypocrisy and dead means bones.

 

[Blue_Of_Lake]

Matthew 5

17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…

29If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

 

[posthuman]

Jesus called them fools and hypocrites

He called them hypocrites because they did not keep the laws.
the laws that He gave.

 

[posthuman]

But it is not a sin for me to
disagree with Paul.

is it a sin for you to disagree with God?

do you believe God inspired all the scripture - that it was breathed by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, and do you believe the letters to the Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians etc are scripture?

 

[Blain]

i am not completely clear on what he's saying so i'm asking questions

i don't think the passage means the epistles are "optional" -- both Saul and Apollos spoke of Christ, and IMO, if you love Christ, you want to read and keep everything in scripture about Him. that's what makes scripture, "scripture" -- the fact that it is about Him. that's what He says in John 5:39 ((bonus points! i cited something from the gospels instead of any other part of scripture!)) -- He says these are they which testify of Him, and says we're supposed to search them for Him.
what Paul writes is about, is Christ. what Matthew writes about, is Christ. what John writes about. what Moses writes about. what the prophets write about, what Luke writes about, what Solomon & David write about, is Christ.

IMO the passage you put for us to remember, says Apollos and and Paul are servants of Christ, assigned by Him to be -- and what their assignment is, is to teach us about Christ. we have writings from Paul; God determined that we should. so what sense is it to set that aside like it's different from what the same LORD assigned to Mark to write?


and btw -- we **might** have something from Apollos. i know that the majority opinion is that Hebrews was written by Paul, but it's possible it was Apollos - one thing that's pointed out as evidence that it's possibly Paul's work is the depth of knowledge about the Law, which is something Paul also displays in his letters. but of Apollos it's said in Acts 18:24 that he was 'mighty in the scriptures' and that he was arguing in the synagogues and no one could oppose him. so he also understood the Messiah in the OT, and it was two disciples converted through Paul who taught him about the revelation of Christ and the gift of the Spirit, so if there are similarities in Hebrews with the qualities of Paul's discourses, that could be explained by the gospel having been explained more accurately to Apollos through Paul, via Priscilla & Aquila. it's said in the same part of Acts that Apollos greatly helped those who had believed through grace -- so he also is indicated by the things in Hebrews, the explanation of the grace of God through the Son, in the same way Paul is.

i'd like for Hebrews to be Apollos' writing. i think he is such an interesting character in the Bible; i love him. the book doesn't tell us who it was that wrote it down; it may not be, and most people, people who are a lot more knowledgeable on the subjects than me, think it wasn't. but it may be. there's a 'maybe'

Oh no I wasn't talking about tou in fact most here are doing the same. as for hebrews being written by Appolos I would have to search other things written by him by him to know for sure because the style of writing and the usage of words are like a fingerprint for writers being a writer myself I may be able to tell if it is his writing or not/ Paul has a very distinctive yet powerful form of writing and often times if not most times will always after he says his peice make sure people are pointed to Christ and he always put himself down in a humble way not a beating yourself up kind of way.

 

[Scribe]

If we don't believe the Gospels, then we can't believe anything at all...It is ludicrous to
compare Paul to the Son of god. I love Paul, he is a great help to my Christian faith
but his letters are not law and they never will be, it's absurd that Jesus would abolish
the old covenant as written in Hebrews and replace it with a new list of laws when
He died on the cross so people could be free and now the third millennium Pharisees want to
bring back laws. Jesus called them fools and hypocrites then and He would call them that now.
As I say I follow Paul in his help for my beginning in Christianity. But it is not a sin for me to
disagree with Paul.

The Gospels are not written by the Son of God. They were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul was also inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the letters he wrote. The Son of God did not write any of the Gospels. You are not comparing the Son of God to Paul you are comparing the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to Paul.

Can you reference the chapter and verses where Paul wrote something that you are thinking contradicts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

What writings of Paul are you disagreeing with? Just saying that it is not a sin for you to disagree with Paul and yet not telling us what it is Paul said that you disagree with is getting us no where. And yes.. it is a sin for you to disagree with what Paul wrote. It is downright devilish!

 

[Nehemiah6]

it is a sin for you to disagree with what Paul wrote. It is downright devilish!

That is correct. It is downright devilish. Not sure if this person is a troll come on board to undermine the faith of some. ALL OF PAUL'S EPISTLES ARE SCRIPTURE.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I believe he is talking about how we put to much emphasis in Pauls writings and in preachers

No. He is actually REJECTING Paul's epistles as Scripture. There are many out there accusing Paul of being a false apostle. That comes from Satan.

 

[Relic]

When we are not "under Law" as Christians, the MEANING is: we are not under the PENALTY for breaking it. Such verses as "the law KILLETH, but the Spirit gives life, is referring to the PENALTY which is death. Romans 7: 12, tells us: "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good". Regarding any thought that the Law itself is abolished, (except in the conversion of the sinner) Romans 3:31, says: "Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid, yea we ESTABLISH the Law". Or Romans 10:4. "For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness." Jesus summed up All the Law and commandments, when he said Love is the fulfilling of the Law. Herein is where most people think that "love" is how we "feel" towards one another. But, love has two parts to it's fulfillment to be complete: the RIGHT feelings, (compassion, tenderness etc.) coupled with the RIGHT actions, or DOINGS. In a word, to "love, is to FEEL and DO, RIGHTLY. For example, Jesus said to the religious rulers of his day, that they APPEARED righteous on the outside, but within, we full of hypocrisy and dead means bones.

As I read your other comments, I'm left wondering if your just kicking over.......

View attachment 217695

your playing word games to dismiss the comments of others while trying to appear insightful yourself... IMO

Paul preached the Gospel of Christ!

Learn the meaning of this: 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7 vs. 12) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

I'm not into word games, so enjoy yoursellf

You third millennium Pharisees are the the ones with the knives out with all your psycho babble.
The old Pharisees created laws upon laws upon laws....now the new ones want to build a new
set of laws that no one can keep. I stand by all I have posted to date. the new lawmakers
are living in the flesh and they have no idea what the Spirit is. Living in the Spirit does not contain
words because when you are in the heart of God and He is in yours, there are no words necessary
because we have a intimate relationship with our Divine Father.

Love Fulfills the Law
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So if love is the fulfilment of the law; why the contradiction of making more.

 

[Blik]

I like how you described it as the tides of the ocean . of coruse if I am not mistaken the Torah was only described as the old testament in which they were under the law but in the new testament they fulfill and as you put it are in sync with it not under it.

I don't think that the Lord is telling us not to listen and obey the law when we are told we are under grace not law.

When we are under grace we are taking advantage of the work of Christ so we can be forgiven our sins. That doesn't mean we are free to choose sin, but that we are forgiven. When we are under law not grace then we must obey every single law for there is no forgiveness. It doesn't mean that the law should be ignored by those under grace.

Although the first five books of the bible are called the Torah, it also applies to all the instructions God gives us. According to Strong's, Torah is in the NT also.

 

[Blain]

No. He is actually REJECTING Paul's epistles as Scripture. There are many out there accusing Paul of being a false apostle. That comes from Satan.

I saw him say they are not law but to say they are not scripture? where does he say or imply this?

 

[Nehemiah6]

I saw him say they are not law but to say they are not scripture? where does he say or imply this?

Here is what was said in the OP: So many are told that Paul's writings are laws but they are not laws.... Every time verses get peppered on to the screen, is like those verse are the authority. Well they are not...

But the apostle Peter said that all of Paul's epistles have the authority of Scripture. And Paul does not teach "laws", although he does lay down the law for Christians. And some people don't like that.

 

[Blain]

Here is what was said in the OP: So many are told that Paul's writings are laws but they are not laws.... Every time verses get peppered on to the screen, is like those verse are the authority. Well they are not...

But the apostle Peter said that all of Paul's epistles have the authority of Scripture. And Paul does not teach "laws", although he does lay down the law for Christians. And some people don't like that.

Oh I see, I don't get it though why Paul in particular? I mean maybe he wasn't part of the original 12 apostles but he was clearly chosen by God to do what he did, I was unaware such people existed.

 

[Blik]

You third millennium Pharisees are the the ones with the knives out with all your psycho babble.
The old Pharisees created laws upon laws upon laws....now the new ones want to build a new
set of laws that no one can keep. I stand by all I have posted to date. the new lawmakers
are living in the flesh and they have no idea what the Spirit is. Living in the Spirit does not contain
words because when you are in the heart of God and He is in yours, there are no words necessary
because we have a intimate relationship with our Divine Father.

Love Fulfills the Law
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So if love is the fulfilment of the law; why the contradiction of making more.

It is true that love fulfills the law. By keeping this truth in mind, we can test all the law. Was cutting flesh love as in circumcision? There was love expressed by this as it marked man as loving and belonging to God. The love stayed as a commandment, we do not need the cutting of flesh.

Paul was put on trial in his day as a person who was against God's ways. Even in our age some are saying Paul taught against the law. It is a misunderstanding of Paul. He was cleared of the charge in his day, and any true study of Paul today clears him.

Paul reported that God did not demand such as the cutting of flesh, but Paul repeats that God wants us to follow all the laws of love.

 

[posthuman]

I saw him say they are not law but to say they are not scripture? where does he say or imply this?

his entire argument in this thread sounds like he is trying to say that it's "ok for him to think the NT is wrong"

to wit, 'not a sin for him to disagree with Paul' -- so, for a person to say there's nothing the matter with thinking the Bible is wrong, they do not believe the Bible. for a person to pick Paul out and say there's no harm in thinking Paul is wrong, they do not believe the parts of the Bible Paul wrote are scripture. or, they have a very low view of scripture; they don't think it's God's word, just Paul's, and they think Paul is wrong.

what he thinks Paul is wrong about so far he won't say.
hoping to get him to clarify on several points but he hasn't answered my posts. maybe tomorrow he will reply.

 

[Benadam]

I think we are seeing a reaction to false doctrine about 'works of the Law'

It is a reaction to a false accusation that became a dominant theme to protest and consequently an ever present pit to not walk into. A pit that doesn't exist because the accusation was based on a false understanding.

Paul's teaching was focused on Jewish converts who would impose Jewish laws designed to reveal the need for a savior onto Gentiles who have accepted that savior.
Laws designed to reveal the power of sin which is death and consequently a need for Salvation is not Law someone who believes in Jesus has to worry about in the slightest. Yet so many do for the last few centuries.

 

[Kolistus]

If we don't believe the Gospels, then we can't believe anything at all...It is ludicrous to
compare Paul to the Son of god. I love Paul, he is a great help to my Christian faith
but his letters are not law and they never will be, it's absurd that Jesus would abolish
the old covenant as written in Hebrews and replace it with a new list of laws when
He died on the cross so people could be free and now the third millennium Pharisees want to
bring back laws. Jesus called them fools and hypocrites then and He would call them that now.
As I say I follow Paul in his help for my beginning in Christianity. But it is not a sin for me to
disagree with Paul.

Its not the book of Hebrews that says Jesus would abolish the old covenant, even the OT says there will be a new one, a different one:

Jeremiah 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

These verses are quoted in Hebrews.

 

[Adstar]

Once again Pauls words where the Words of God that He was inspired to write through Gods Holy Spirit..