L
As I understand the word; a Christian is a follower of Christ. He or she does what The Messiah says to do. And we know that's pretty much the basis of the faith.
---
And by the way, that's what I am; I'm a follower of what The Messiah says. I'm not this label or that label. I don't belong to this group or that group. I don't lean on what any other man but Christ has said to do.
Now I can't say this was always the case for me personally. In my early years of Christianity I was so convinced I was a follower of Christ because I saw the movies made about him a couple of times and went to church. But I hadn't completely read through even *one* of the four gospels (we're talking every word), because (pfft) sure I knew Christ; I knew the most important points about him (i.e. I had the cliff notes of the gospel in my head). But it turns out that after I began REALLY studying I realized I barely knew ANYTHING he actually taught or spoke on. So how could I claim to be a follower?
---
Luke 6:46
Now what I've witnessed in a few posts and threads is not only a lack of obedience in how Christ told us to treat our brethren (and instead witness pigeonholing, backbiting, verbal venom, etc.), but even when there arises specific disagreements about particular subjects of real contention very few of us actually quote *Christ* when in the middle of defending a stance...and will instead quote Paul.
Now there's nothing wrong with Paul...but who is our foundation? Who is our rock: Paul or Christ? Of course, Christ is...which means Paul's words should NOT be the primary source of a stance, but a supportive source of a stance that *Christ takes* on a subject (since he's the one we're conforming to). Otherwise it suggests that things Christ said were somehow "incomplete" and needed further clarification by Paul (as if Paul is the "fulfillment" of Christ...I'm being extreme here but only to make my point). Peter even says that Paul's words are hard to understand and without the *proper foundation* one can twist his words into lawlessness.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Again Peter is saying that "Paul alone" can lead to lawlessness (i.e. wickedness = "'a twisting of' like a candle wick") without knowledge and stability and one being on guard.
Hopefully no one is offended at me for the scripture I just posted because I didn't write it, Peter did. But again, very few quote what Christ said and will instead lean on Paul's words (while at the same time accusing their brethren of "not following what *Christ* said"). Paul can't be the "lead off" unless and until one's (at least) stable in *ALL* that Christ has said.
What I often read is a stance founded on (a) something Paul has said, which is then build upon (b) more of what Paul has said and then supported with (c) external publications [i.e. "extra-biblical" writings by definition] that attempt to discredit an opposing stance...when this is not necessary to do because...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
And when Paul said this to Timothy there wasn't a codified NT. So what scripture was Paul talking about in his letter? He wasn't wasn't calling his own letters scripture.
All one needs are the scriptures to determine whether a stance is correct or incorrect, when they're read in the proper context AND in order: from beginning to end, not from back to front (because again if one establishes the wrong foundation, meanings can drastically change).
So feel free to use this thread to address WHAT CHRIST SAYS FIRST about some major issues up for argument, AND THEN read what Paul has to say as weighed by what Christ establishes first.
Because we are not Paulians...we are Christians.
Aristocat GOOD man.... But I find it like this... Christians become saints, and saints becomes the finished product of God...
Disciples are Christians but also saints.... So disciples only covers 2/3 of the proces and Christians 1/3. A saint is not a Christian, becasue the saint reached the END of Christianship but still is in the process of Discipleship.... Disciples can be holy, and unholy, epends on the distance they FOLLOWED... Christians follows unto the holy step, then they are still disciples, but HOLY disciples, Thus SAINTS... A Saint is no longer Christain, but SAINT... and now HOLY disciple.
There is merit to some things he said, but IMO it is all just a pretext to undermine Paul's authority. Undermining Paul's authority is a ploy law-cultists use, because he is so lethal to their belief system. Part of my opinion is based on prior postings of his that indicate a propensity towards works of law rather than works of Christ. His opening paragraph in this OP even indicated such.
My opinion will remain unchanged until I discern that the OP is truly walking in the faith of Christ.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Thanks. I truly love how you teach that you rely on Christ as your foundation. When I once posted how if Paul confused me, in the past, on any subject I would go and see what Jesus teaches on the subject, and I was always satisfied. I was then accused of "checking up on Paul's being an apostle." It is true, at one time Paul would make me feel uneasy until it hit me I could go to the Master Who tells us to learn of Him, and since I have always been able to read Paul and love his writings too. Thank you for the share.
Paul's authority came from Christ. His teachings come from Christ. Paul said nothing that Jesus did not tell him to say.
The OP is tantamount to saying only the 4 gospels are inspired and from God. I have news for you, the way we follow Christ is to follow the WHOLE counsel of God. That is because the entire Word of God is true.
A Christian is one who is saved by grace.
"For by grace you have been savedthrough faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, [SUP]9 [/SUP]not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Eph. 2:9-9
Christians are saved by Grace through faith, not works. Right?
I associate you with 'brethren' and neither was I ever anything but loving in my posts to you, yet you associate me with 'cultist' and 'enemy' and 'subverter' and 'evil' and 'ungodly'. I pray your words aren't used against you. But be that as it may...if that is what I am to you then it's your duty to dispatch me because the sheep are in danger and the truth must prevail, correct? This is your opportunity. "Let God be true, but every man a liar".
So who is of greater authority: Paul or Christ? Since I must prove my faith *in Christ* I will tell you that Christ has greater authority than Paul. But as others have pointed out, HeRoseFromTheDead, I actually support Paul's writings. In fact, my last quote in the OP was from Paul, but let's go with that...
Let's stand on Paul as being of the Highest authority in matters of faith, even higher than Peter. Let's establish that after Christ there is no one else to which one should hold besides Paul for new testament truth...not James, not Peter, not Jude. In fact, I can show you in scripture that Paul was prophesied to be THE leader of the church after Christ (if you'd like to see it); ordained by God since *before* Christ walked the earth in the flesh.
Now...with all of the authority that you and I willingly acknowledge is rightfully Paul's, when he says the following to Timothy...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
...(standing on the words of Paul), *what scripture* was Paul referring to in his letter: was it what we call the OT or the NT?
Paul's words ARE Jesus' words! I cannot not believe these anti-Paulites!! Just a cult to deny half the New Testament.
I do NOT follow Paul. I follow Jesus. But the words Paul wrote are the words given by God - by Jesus. How can anyone not understand this?
Even the gospels are words written by someone else. By your premise, you should not follow the Bible at all, since Jesus himself did not write down the words.
If someone uses those words against me, I will search my heart to see if they are correct, and/or examine who said them to determine if they have the holy spirit. I sincerely hope that my opinion of you is wrong.
"...the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.
But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are Spirit and life.
Obviously Christ is the greatest authority; and obviously Paul had the authority to speak his words. So what Paul spoke is not to be undermined.
I don't dispute 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the least. I know the OT is very profitable. Virtually everything in it points to Christ. That is what it's useful for - building faith in the one we are commanded to follow. That's it. That's all it's good for.
Now what I've witnessed in a few posts and threads is not only a lack of obedience in how Christ told us to treat our brethren (and instead witness pigeonholing, backbiting, verbal venom, etc.), but even when there arises specific disagreements about particular subjects of real contention very few of us actually quote *Christ* when in the middle of defending a stance...and will instead quote Paul.Hey Yahshua could you explain why you said this about Paul ? are you against Paul who is a man of God ?
Originally Posted by Yahshua![]()
Now what I've witnessed in a few posts and threads is not only a lack of obedience in how Christ told us to treat our brethren (and instead witness pigeonholing, backbiting, verbal venom, etc.), but even when there arises specific disagreements about particular subjects of real contention very few of us actually quote *Christ* when in the middle of defending a stance...and will instead quote Paul.
Not by the words of Paul; that's not it. That's not it at all. Remember, right now we're standing on Paul's high authority; we're abiding by what he says, and he says the OT (the same scripture called "The Hebrew Scriptures" by one group and "The Torah" by another group) is good for:
1. Teaching...(what?)
2. Rebuking...(in what?)
3. Correcting...(in what?)
4. Training in righteousness...
...so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Are these not Paul's words?
Yes they're Paul's words.
1. Teaching...(what?) - Christ
2. Rebuking...(in what?) - teachings contrary to the doctrine of Christ
3. Correcting...(in what?) - errors in beliefs and doctrines that deviate from Christ
4. Training in righteousness... of GOD in Christ
...so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - of faith.
Christ is the focus of the OT. Nothing else matters.
So if Christ is the only one that matters, and Christ is of a higher authority than Paul, does Christ say what Paul just said? Does Christ provide another witness to the SAME TRUTH Paul just said to Timothy? Does Christ endorse the Old Testament (called "The Hebrew Scriptures" to some and "The Torah" to others) for these SAME THINGS outlined by Paul and detailed by you?
And that is the key.
The young man said to [Jesus], “All these [commandments of Moses] I have observed. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor—and you will have treasure in heaven—and come, follow me.” Matthew 19:20-21
As I understand the word; a Christian is a follower of Christ. He or she does what The Messiah says to do. And we know that's pretty much the basis of the faith.
---
And by the way, that's what I am; I'm a follower of what The Messiah says. I'm not this label or that label. I don't belong to this group or that group. I don't lean on what any other man but Christ has said to do.
Now I can't say this was always the case for me personally. In my early years of Christianity I was so convinced I was a follower of Christ because I saw the movies made about him a couple of times and went to church. But I hadn't completely read through even *one* of the four gospels (we're talking every word), because (pfft) sure I knew Christ; I knew the most important points about him (i.e. I had the cliff notes of the gospel in my head). But it turns out that after I began REALLY studying I realized I barely knew ANYTHING he actually taught or spoke on. So how could I claim to be a follower?
---
Luke 6:46
Now what I've witnessed in a few posts and threads is not only a lack of obedience in how Christ told us to treat our brethren (and instead witness pigeonholing, backbiting, verbal venom, etc.), but even when there arises specific disagreements about particular subjects of real contention very few of us actually quote *Christ* when in the middle of defending a stance...and will instead quote Paul.
Now there's nothing wrong with Paul...but who is our foundation? Who is our rock: Paul or Christ? Of course, Christ is...which means Paul's words should NOT be the primary source of a stance, but a supportive source of a stance that *Christ takes* on a subject (since he's the one we're conforming to). Otherwise it suggests that things Christ said were somehow "incomplete" and needed further clarification by Paul (as if Paul is the "fulfillment" of Christ...I'm being extreme here but only to make my point). Peter even says that Paul's words are hard to understand and without the *proper foundation* one can twist his words into lawlessness.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Again Peter is saying that "Paul alone" can lead to lawlessness (i.e. wickedness = "'a twisting of' like a candle wick") without knowledge and stability and one being on guard.
Hopefully no one is offended at me for the scripture I just posted because I didn't write it, Peter did. But again, very few quote what Christ said and will instead lean on Paul's words (while at the same time accusing their brethren of "not following what *Christ* said"). Paul can't be the "lead off" unless and until one's (at least) stable in *ALL* that Christ has said.
What I often read is a stance founded on (a) something Paul has said, which is then build upon (b) more of what Paul has said and then supported with (c) external publications [i.e. "extra-biblical" writings by definition] that attempt to discredit an opposing stance...when this is not necessary to do because...
2 Timothy 3:16-17
And when Paul said this to Timothy there wasn't a codified NT. So what scripture was Paul talking about in his letter? He wasn't wasn't calling his own letters scripture.
All one needs are the scriptures to determine whether a stance is correct or incorrect, when they're read in the proper context AND in order: from beginning to end, not from back to front (because again if one establishes the wrong foundation, meanings can drastically change).
So feel free to use this thread to address WHAT CHRIST SAYS FIRST about some major issues up for argument, AND THEN read what Paul has to say as weighed by what Christ establishes first.
Because we are not Paulians...we are Christians.
I hope and pray you are not saying Yeshua does not teach us to obey the commandments of moral and good behavior.
You know He declared He completed the law, and He did not abolish it? People who do not see this are quite blind.
On the cross, Yeshua destroyed the sting of death, that is the punishment for sin, and sin is transgressing the law, it is not the law itself.
Sin found its power in the law, but now, it has no power for those who are truly in Yeshua.
All of this is taught in the New Testament, and in the Old if the veil is not over the eyes.