Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

The doctrine that paul taught was it against the law, p

This whole thread seems off center. First why is it called "the doctrine that Paul taught"? Isn't all scripture God breathed and God inspired? It's still God's Word no matter who actually wrote it. Either you believe that or you don't.

It isn't "Paul's Gospel". It's the Word of God. It's scripture.

Agreed! Problem is there are folks out there who pick and choose what is acceptable within scripture and usually its the parts that confirm the belief they've choosen to model their theology from.
C4E
 
This whole thread seems off center. First why is it called "the doctrine that Paul taught"? Isn't all scripture God breathed and God inspired? It's still God's Word no matter who actually wrote it. Either you believe that or you don't.

It isn't "Paul's Gospel". It's the Word of God. It's scripture.

Second why the debate between the 10 commandments and the other laws? All of the OT laws aren't even included in the Bible. Even if they were, many of the OT laws were "updated" or "changed" in the NT.

Some examples of this are the eye for eye verses in Exod 21:24 and Deut 19:21
In Matt 5:38 Jesus says this has changed.

Another example is the unclean animals Jews weren't supposed to eat.
Levit 11:4 and Deut 14:7-8, etc...
In the NT God tells Peter it's OK to eat these animals now. Acts 11:5-9

John 13:34 is a "new" commandment, but really is just many of the 10 commandments rolled up into one. (Matt 22:36-40)

** off on a tangent ** -- A hermit could do the 1st commandment I suppose, he could love the Lord God with all his heart. The next nine, a hermit cannot do. He couldn't kill, or steal from, or covet, ot commit adultery with anyone, because there is no one to do these things to. So on one hand you could "well then he can't break those commandments", well Ok, maybe that's true.. but on the other hand he can't show love to anyone either.

Finally we have the big covenant change. (Mostly in Hebrews chapters 7, 8 and 9)
This is really the difference between the OT covenant and the NT covenant.

Some things change, some things stay the same. Some Jewish laws aren't in the Bible (Torah) at all. Keeping the commandments isn't something we should "have" to do (yes there is grace) but rather something we want to do because we love him. (John 14:15, 23)

we read in the OT AND NT

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

your post is not valid

God or his word don't change
 
=B-A-C;187173]This whole thread seems off center. First why is it called "the doctrine that Paul taught"? Isn't all scripture God breathed and God inspired? It's still God's Word no matter who actually wrote it. Either you believe that or you don't.

the thread is not off center actually most here verifies what the thread says.

people uses Paul writing to twist God's word to fit there denomination.


It isn't "Paul's Gospel". It's the Word of God. It's scripture.

why are people using Paul writing to twist God's word

Second why the debate between the 10 commandments and the other laws? All of the OT laws aren't even included in the Bible. Even if they were, many of the OT laws were "updated" or "changed" in the NT.

where is this writen in God's word?


Some examples of this are the eye for eye verses in Exod 21:24 and Deut 19:21
In Matt 5:38 Jesus says this has changed.


has it changed? go back and read both again and ask yourself what really changed if anything.

in Deuteronomy man was judge and jury in Matthew God took it away from man and God himsleg is judge and jury

lets read
Galatians 6:7

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.



Another example is the unclean animals Jews weren't supposed to eat.
Levit 11:4 and Deut 14:7-8, etc...
In the NT God tells Peter it's OK to eat these animals now. Acts 11:5-9

where do you read in Acts where Peter said we can eat unclean animals, I cant find it?

** off on a tangent ** -- A hermit could do the 1st commandment I suppose, he could love the Lord God with all his heart. The next nine, a hermit cannot do. He couldn't kill, or steal from, or covet, ot commit adultery with anyone, because there is no one to do these things to. So on one hand you could "well then he can't break those commandments", well Ok, maybe that's true.. but on the other hand he can't show love to anyone either.

what hermit do you know that has NO interactions with man?

Finally we have the big covenant change. (Mostly in Hebrews chapters 7, 8 and 9)
This is really the difference between the OT covenant and the NT covenant.

what is the difference?

Some things change, some things stay the same. Some Jewish laws aren't in the Bible (Torah) at all. Keeping the commandments isn't something we should "have" to do (yes there is grace) but rather something we want to do because we love him. (John 14:15, 23

where do you read this at?
 
Agreed! Problem is there are folks out there who pick and choose what is acceptable within scripture and usually its the parts that confirm the belief they've choosen to model their theology from.
C4E

sounds like a denomination

Roman Catholic
Protestant
Orthodox.
 
Quote:
=B-A-C;187173]This whole thread seems off center. First why is it called "the doctrine that Paul taught"? Isn't all scripture God breathed and God inspired? It's still God's Word no matter who actually wrote it. Either you believe that or you don't.

the thread is not off center actually most here verifies what the thread says.

people uses Paul writing to twist God's word to fit there denomination.



Quote:
It isn't "Paul's Gospel". It's the Word of God. It's scripture.

why are people using Paul writing to twist God's word

I had never heard of them before, but my niece mentioned them the other night in a conversation we had. I believe they call themselves....believe this or not.....Paulist....They exclude all of Paul's writings. They believe that his writings are actually subversive or should I say contrary to what Jesus preached in the gospels! They can't seem to see the unity of Scripture. That's why I believe as BAC asked...isn't all the word God breathed? Sadly, not all believe it.

sounds like a denomination

Agreed, but it can also include individuals who will profess no particular denominational affiliation as well. Normally, this will be done, because they haven't come across anyone who agrees with all their interpretation of scripture. I wonder if they would be considered a denomination in waiting?
C4E
 
So if the law was nailed to the cross that would mean its okay to use the Lords name in vain, put other gods before HIM, make graven images and bow before them, pollute the Sabbath day, steal, commit murder, commit adultery and bear false witness.

If all these things are okay to commit, then we might as well throw the Bible out the back door and do what ever feels good to us.

Today we will find out what law was nailed to the cross.

We will see that Paul was in fact a law keeper and how he preached out of the Law and the Prophets.

Now let's begin by taking a look at both of the laws and how they worked together.

We will see there were two laws given to Moses, they were the commandments and the sacrificial law

Watch how they worked together.

That is certainly one perspective. Here is another:

The consequences of the law is death."The Law was nailed to the cross and along with the subsequent resurrection, took away the penalty of death for those who believe.

Corinthians 15:55

<SUP id=en-NIV-28774 class=versenum>55</SUP> “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”<SUP class=footnote value='[a]'>[a]</SUP>
 
Last edited:
Six hundred. And as for differences, application and address are the largest differences.

There is no difference, they are all the same. Every edict given under the old covenants are essentially the same.

They all are holy, righteous but, none are sufficient to forgive and save man from his impercetion.

Thats why God said he would give us a better covenant, The New Covenant, which was ushered in with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
 
There is no difference, they are all the same. Every edict given under the old covenants are essentially the same.
I beg to differ. They are not the same. Some are to priests. Some are to Levites. Some are for kings, others are for high priests or the common Israelite or for women. They most certainly have a difference.

They all are holy, righteous but, none are sufficient to forgive and save man from his impercetion.
'But' is key to your problem. The Torah was not designed to save us and that is the argument that Paul repeatedly makes. He also repeatedly points out its importance for believers.

Thats why God said he would give us a better covenant, The New Covenant, which was ushered in with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I agree He called for a better covenant, but the better covenant would include a way to have His Law on our hearts. He also promised to eradicate the curses of the Torah, but fulfill the promises and benefits. You are correct in finding this in Messiah.
 
I beg to differ. They are not the same. Some are to priests. Some are to Levites. Some are for kings, others are for high priests or the common Israelite or for women. They most certainly have a difference.

'But' is key to your problem. The Torah was not designed to save us and that is the argument that Paul repeatedly makes. He also repeatedly points out its importance for believers.

I agree He called for a better covenant, but the better covenant would include a way to have His Law on our hearts. He also promised to eradicate the curses of the Torah, but fulfill the promises and benefits. You are correct in finding this in Messiah.

Of course, there were hundreds of laws under the old covenant, many different and based on different requirements.

But, they were all requirements and in that sense all the same, they were the law which was to be kept. We are no longer under those laws.

I have no problem. I agree, I repeatedly say that the laws purpose was not to save but reveal our sin. I don't why you repeatedly say I don't understand that!?

No, in the New Covenant, he did not write his laws of the Old Covenant on our hearts as you say. We couldn't remember all of them, much less keep them all.

What he did do his put himself in our hearts and we would have to ask no one who is God, that we would know him personally as our God.

The basic difference in the old and the new is that the New Covenant is all about God in us which the Old Covenant was not!
 
That is certainly one perspective. Here is another:

The consequences of the law is death."The Law was nailed to the cross and along with the subsequent resurrection, took away the penalty of death for those who believe.

Corinthians 15:55

<SUP id=en-NIV-28774 class=versenum>55</SUP> “Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?”

what law was nailed to the cross?

keep in mind people are still dying 2000+ years after Jesus death and resurrection.
 
Strange question?

Dear ozell, care to supply more information.

Your question is too brief to understand.
 
Dear ozell, care to supply more information.

Your question is too brief to understand.

Colossians 2:13-15

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
 
Of course, there were hundreds of laws under the old covenant, many different and based on different requirements.
Excellent. There are apparently hundreds under the 'new covenant'.

But, they were all requirements and in that sense all the same, they were the law which was to be kept. We are no longer under those laws.
So any requirement is deserving of desertion? Where are we commanded not to follow them?

I have no problem. I agree, I repeatedly say that the laws purpose was not to save but reveal our sin. I don't why you repeatedly say I don't understand that!?
I didn't mean to upset you. I only call out the fact that if you know they weren't for salvation, your opinion should necessarily change. Many in the anti-nomian movement claim that because it is not salvation, it should be dropped. I disagree. It isn't for salvation, but it is still how our relationships should play out. That's why it was designed.

No, in the New Covenant, he did not write his laws of the Old Covenant on our hearts as you say. We couldn't remember all of them, much less keep them all.
Which ones did He write on our hearts, then? If Jews can memorize the entire Torah, I fail to see how we can't remember the commands-He tells us is not too hard for us.

What he did do his put himself in our hearts and we would have to ask no one who is God, that we would know him personally as our God.
I agree with this, but it doesn't answer my questions.

The basic difference in the old and the new is that the New Covenant is all about God in us which the Old Covenant was not!
.....I wholeheartedly disagree. The difference is Messiah.
 
Ozell, You make my brain hurt. You start these threads and then reply to yourself over and over and over again.

I don't care to really debate your "theory's" or your interpretations because personally, I think your way out there.

BTW, you never answered a question I had for you in another thread....."Do you consider yourself to be Born Again and a Christian according to Rom.10:9-10 " ?
 
Ozell, You make my brain hurt. You start these threads and then reply to yourself over and over and over again.

I don't care to really debate your "theory's" or your interpretations because personally, I think your way out there.

BTW, you never answered a question I had for you in another thread....."Do you consider yourself to be Born Again and a Christian according to Rom.10:9-10 " ?

Where did he reply to himself?
 
Ozell, You make my brain hurt. You start these threads and then reply to yourself over and over and over again.

I don't care to really debate your "theory's" or your interpretations because personally, I think your way out there.

BTW, you never answered a question I had for you in another thread....."Do you consider yourself to be Born Again and a Christian according to Rom.10:9-10 " ?


Sister

I make your brain hurt?

because I put verses from the very bible we read?

I'm not debating you or anyone here I call it fellow shipping, because you don't agree with what is written has nothing to do with what I post and I don't consider it a debate.

to answer your question

where in Romans 10 do you read that we are born again

<SUP>9</SUP>That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

<SUP id=en-KJV-28199 class=versenum>10</SUP>For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I don't read anything here about being born again

who told you that we are born again according to these words from Paul?

here is what I am according to the word of God

lets read

1 Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever

as long as I am in this flesh and blood body I am a corruptible seed

when the Lord give me my resurrected body then I will be a incorruptible seed, then and only then will I be born again.

now let me ask you are you born again, are you a incorruptible seed?

if you think you are, are you able to follow this command from God?

John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


 
Last edited:
Colossians 2:13-15

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

is the commandments against us?

so what really was nailed to the cross?
 
is the commandments against us?

so what really was nailed to the cross?[/QUOTE]

Our sins were nailed to the cross, nothing more.

The cross forgives, the resurrected spirit of Jesus Christ saves!
 
Beware of confusion. The deceiver is very clever. He will make you so smart you become confused. I know this so very well, as I became confused. I had to run to God and say.......Help

There are three basic laws in the Bible, Moral Law, Ceremonial Law and Civil law.

Some of the Ceremonial laws, or laws of tradition we no longer abide by, they were for the people before Christ left his Holy Spirit for us.

Civil Law is the law of society, our governments and so on. We are told we have to abide by them, for society to function, this does not mean we have to believe in them and if we support some, we may have to answer to God for that. Just the same we are supposed to abide by them. I find some of them hard to swallow, and will peacefully protest them at times......many of our civil laws violate the Moral laws of God as these laws are the laws of man.


Moral Laws are the simple Laws of God. Those never were done away with, never will be done away with and if you do not follow them, you are walking away from God.

So the simple laws of morality never were gone, never will be gone and were never intended to be gone. We know right from wrong, and the spirit tells us these things, and to make excuses to not follow them or to try to become so smart that you deny them only leads to your own demise.

Just because Jesus gave his life to save us from sin, does not mean we can ignore the simple laws of good, given to us by God.

In Ezekiel someplace we are told that a good man can fall and suffer death. And that a bad man can become good and obtain life. So it is a struggle to maintain a good life and to daily push the things of the world back.

But it does become pretty easy, once you simply run to God like a little child and say...........Help!!! I have learned to not become very smart, to just ask God. To accept all he tells me. One of my prayers to God was to accept me as a child, never let me become too smart and to show me wisdom. He is working on thatI also asked that I never be as wise as Solomon and bit by bit become stupid. When we allow ourselves to become smarter than God, we run the risk of not following his simple Moral Law.

So beware of confusion, it can sneak up on you. My own personal belief is that if one has completely accepted God, then there is no confusion. All that just poof.......is gone. I see this in myself.

Kit
 
Last edited:
Back
Top