When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Mitspa]

Mitspa,


I'm not sure what you mean by "throughout the NEW TESTAMENT"; Could you show me some examples from Matthew Mark Luke and John ? or do you just mean statements we hear from Paul himself?

I'm thinking that Paul is a lawyer, and whenever I read a lawyer -- I look for lawyer talk.
Sometimes lawyers say tricky things in order to get people to do the right thing -- even if for an imperfect reason.
I mean; Salvation doesn't depend on erudite knowledge; for even the simple can be saved through Faith.
So Paul was free to use his judgment about what to say -- and what to withhold from us, in order to save as many as possible; which means he likely tried to use the most psychologically powerful of arguments -- even if not those which are the *clearest* possible truth. ( Even Jesus says, I have many things to teach -- but "you" can not bear it now ).

My study of Paul is getting into technicalities that I don't think affect my salvation; but at the same time, I want to make sure I understand his teaching well; for I desire to know Jesus Christ more fully in terms of the Hebrew as well as Gentile perspectives. (The O.P. attracted me, specifically, because of some things Jethro Bodine mentioned.)

Here's a woman's issue from Paul, that is very much a part of the O.P.; but also notice how he ties it to the old testament Law.

1Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Yet this law is not exactly the same law that Paul speaks of in Romans; and it is very frustrating to try and figure out which applies where and why and how; and I mean this especially after studying the Old Testament women who show that there is indeed a hierarchy, based on the temple platforms, but also that women could be full fledged leaders in public; ( One of the Judges, in Joshua, for example is a woman -- but God doesn't allow her to act the same as men judges, when it comes to killing; his plan for women is clearly different. ). And I could cite other examples as well.
But, I'll leave off writing -- for I myself feel like I'm droning on....

You seem like a good fellow, but if you have so little regard for Pauls epistles? and Pauls position as the Apostle of the Lord Jesus. And the Holy Spirits clear intention as to his athority above all other writters of scripture? I doubt you will enjoy a conversation with me.
Rom 2:16 In the day that God will judge the secrets of men ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL.
Rom 1:1
Rom 15:19
1 Cor 4:15
1 Cor 15:1
2 Cor 11:4
Gal 1:6-8
Gal 1:11
1 Tim 1:11
2 Tim 2:8

And many more prove beyond all doubt that Paul is above all teachers as it relates to the truth of the gospel. If any man teach another gospel? They are false teachers.

 

[About the Son of God]

Good point on Paul.

Although...

Why do so many people waddle around in Paul and ignore what Jesus has to say??? It is as if Paul is a "canon within a canon"...

Kanon? Greek for list?
I am aware of the eastern churches having two lists of scripture; one which is "canonical" and used in the "celebration" of "holy mysteries", which refers to the command of Jesus to "do this in remembrance (Greek: ana-mnesis) of me" -- and a second list of books which are not used in their public work (Greek liturgious, I think you might call it liturgy? );

But, they use Paul in the liturgy -- and not the second canon; the so called "Apocryphal" books when it comes to the yearly cycle of bible readings. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "canon within a canon" ? It that something special to your church?

I hope I didn't make my comments on Paul that strong , though!... For I don't think even the people most strongly attracted to Paul are ignoring what Jesus has to say; Rather It's just that Paul is so strong worded, that when people get riled up (stone throwing)-- Paul is the one they reach for, first. He acts the part of the leader, and people want that; It's hard to follow the sayings of Jesus, "The Greatest among you must serve;" or take Jesus' strong remarks about humility into account when confronted with someone who you feel is attacking your character and making the "blood boil"!

Peter is one that a lot of people find wimpy ... even if he was the oldest of the 12 (which I base on the seating arrangements of the last supper); I don't think people see how that appeals to Christ's statement of how we ought to live & encourage one another; eg: "the last will be first." "when you (singular) have turned, strengthen your brothers." "The greatest must serve"; and also in the O.T. how God chose Moses, the "meekest" of men to lead.

There's a half formed thought in my mind ... God was angry with his own people, Israel, and in some ways -- he chose Paul to be the one that stung them from without; although Paul *really* wasn't supposed to be spending his efforts on that, if you look at what God said Paul was chosen to do. But the glory (and infuriating interference) of the Judaizers was just too much for his limited self restraint.

Unfortunately, he sort of left a pattern of pure contention with the "Jews", when that's not really helpful for us to understand them. (not that Paul could avoid responding when the Jews preyed on his churches!!!)

Paul is arguing against Judaizers in Romans. Those who brag about having the Mosaic Law, as if possession grants salvation. Clearly, Paul destroys that notion in Romans 2 - pagans obey the eternal law in their hearts while in Romans 3, Jews are no better off with the Mosaic Law, since they aren't obeying it.

So, to you -- his remarks about the law, are the "ceremonial" law? -- although -- I think it was your remark in another post about him quoting the psalms to embarrass them ?

I think it odd that Paul would call the prophets ( which the psalms are, BTW ) and Isaiah (which is also used) "Law"; for they aren't Torah -- but rather, the prophets are sent to condemn people of disobeying the Law -- and to turn them back when it might be ignorance.
The prophets are in effect, an external "conscience" pointing at someone's guilt. So when Jesus says to the Pharisees (of which Paul still claims to be) -- does not "your law" say ... he's not claiming them as a law applying to all people, or to himself.

It's noticable in the Gospels that the Pharisees were the ones who kept genealogies about which of their "fathers" killed which prophet !!! :D
So when Jesus make the "law" of prophets apply to Pharisees -- it's clearly a perjorative. ( highly, highly, ironic! They essentially claim their own guilt. )

Paul too, then, quoting this as "law" seems to aim it almost exclusively at prophet killers (Pharisees.)

But the Psalms do also condemn boastful Gentiles (they are only "men") and jasoncran touched on the Noahide laws; so I wonder about the times (brought up by sparrowhawke) where God would call some pagans -- like King Cyrus -- "my anointed" ! (Christos)

What is the point of becoming circumcised, when Abraham was justified before being circumcised? Only faith in God brings forth justification. Jesus and Paul state that it is DOERS of the Law (whether written on the heart or not), not the possessors of the Law, who will be justified. The just live by faith. Regards

Well, there is a point.... God demanded it; and punished those who disobeyed.
And, I'd like to probe that idea with respect to "baptism" vis "circumcision."; which are parallel ideas/signs.

But ... I need to think about it before diving in. My mind sort of echoes with sounds of scripture readings and too many to sort out right now....

I'm also sorry I've been so slow to respond to your earlier post, which I found really hit the nail on the head, so to speak; eg: the idea you wanted to "kick around" about Jesus "giving the power" to do something that the Old could not. The thread grows so fast, I have trouble just keeping up....

 

[Mitspa]

Thats not Pauls gospel! Nor can anyone understand humility until they have died with Christ to the law, as Paul taught.
Who is in pride but those who in confidence of their flesh go about to establish their own righteousness and have not submitted to Gods Righteousness. Who is humble but those who will not be found having their own righteousness, which is by the law, but be found In Chirst and in Gods Righteousenss.
But we are those who have no confidence in the fleah, but worship God in spirit. The pharisee loved to put on shows of false humilty and to appear humble, but they where the most prideful of men. Humility is not in appearance but in heart.

 

[About the Son of God]

You seem like a good fellow, but if you have so little regard for Pauls epistles?

Mitspah -- I hope you didn't take St. Francis de Sales comment to be mine.
I've been commenting back to him, and just now saw your post.
Throughout the thread, I've been studying Paul more than any other writer; It's not Paul I have low regard for -- it's the disrespect of one Christian for another when they can't prove what they are talking about beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't regard Paul's epistles as any greater or less than the other Apostles. PERIOD.
Paul is not the owner of the Gospel, and every recorder of the Gospel say that God will judge the secrets of men's hearts.

According simply means to "agree", not to "own" as a unique "father" of a Gospel; Paul too MUST agree with the other Gospels; or else he curses himself.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

1Cori 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! (note: not "my" Gospel)

Galat 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ( And note: we is not Paul alone -- but Paul too can be "cursed" by it. ).

and Pauls position as the Apostle of the Lord Jesus. And the Holy Spirits clear intention as to his athority above all other writters of scripture?

The Holy Spirit wrote scripture through the other apostles as well; If you wish to deny his authority as equal -- take it up with him in prayer, and not with me. I'm not your judge, and you're not mine -- and to stay civil, we need to simply admit that difference and part in peace if that's the case.

I doubt you will enjoy a conversation with me. Rom 2:16 In the day that God will judge the secrets of men ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL. Rom 1:1 Rom 15:19 1 Cor 4:15 1 Cor 15:1 2 Cor 11:4 Gal 1:6-8 Gal 1:11 1 Tim 1:11 2 Tim 2:8 And many more prove beyond all doubt that Paul is above all teachers as it relates to the truth of the gospel. If any man teach another gospel? They are false teachers.

So long as you support your points honestly, and don't use ad-hominem, strong disagreement does not cause me to not enjoy a conversation; But when the Christan spirit of fraternal edification, and building up, and strengthening each other -- turns into judgment by people who don't have the authority:

Matth 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matth 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Please seek out your own kind of debaters, if you want to Judge. Virtual venom matches are beyond my stomaching.

Either way, I'm still open to talking with you to the time you make a final decision.

 

[Mitspa]

Well the scriptures do make, in clear terms, all doctrine subject to and to be judged by that which Paul teaches.
I have given but jjust a few of the clear scriptures that prove this very point. I will add without any doubt that a man cannot see the 4 Gospels unless he has been brought in to the light of Pauls epistles and the true gospel which he taught. So for someone to say, well, Paul says this and Jesus says that? Only proves they have failed to understand the gospel. There is no conflict at all between the Lord and Paul. The conflict is only in the mind of those who do not understand grace. Those who look to the law are blinded by the law. 2 Cor 3
The god of this world uses the law of moses, to blind them from Pauls gospel. 2 Cor 4

 

[About the Son of God]

Thats not Pauls gospel! Nor can anyone understand humility until they have died with Christ to the law, as Paul taught.

Mitspa -- I don't even know who you are writing to, let alone what "That" is.
Are you speaking to me?
If so, would you please quote exactly what you are talking about?

 

[childeye]

I think mitspa is saying Paul's Gospel is the same Gospel of Christ. What I get from what he is saying is that the Gospel is living and resists the proud who think they choose to be good by their self will.

 

[Mitspa]

Well the scriptures do make, in clear terms, all doctrine subject to and to be judged by that which Paul teaches.
I have given but jjust a few of the clear scriptures that prove this very point. I will add without any doubt that a man cannot see the 4 Gospels unless he has been brought in to the light of Pauls epistles and the true gospel which he taught. So for someone to say, well, Paul says this and Jesus says that? Only proves they have failed to understand the gospel. There is no conflict at all between the Lord and Paul. The conflict is only in the mind of those who do not understand grace. Those who look to the law are blinded by the law. 2 Cor 3
The god of this world uses the law of moses, to blind them from Pauls gospel. 2 Cor 4

I would also add that Paul rebuked Peter and James in the very epistle that affirms his gospel. He makes the gospel very clear in the Gal. epistle. THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH. those who seek to be justified by the law are under the curse of the law.
The believer that turns from grace to law, has fallen from grace.
This is the gospel, and if anyone, even an angel from heaven preaches the law of moses, they are in fact a false teacher.
Now I do not desire to make my discussion of doctrine, personal, but at the same time I do not move from the truth of the gospel "that Paul taught".
If you have little regard for his epistles? then I doubt we have much to discuss in way of doctrine? I do not mean this as a personal insult, but we have no real foundation of truth from which we could build any understanding.
Now I have posted clear scripture that shows that ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BY PAULS GOSPEL. along with others that prove this same point. If you reject the clear point of these scriptures? I doubt we have any ability to find common ground.

 

[Mitspa]

Mitspa,


I'm not sure what you mean by "throughout the NEW TESTAMENT"; Could you show me some examples from Matthew Mark Luke and John ? or do you just mean statements we hear from Paul himself?

I'm thinking that Paul is a lawyer, and whenever I read a lawyer -- I look for lawyer talk.
Sometimes lawyers say tricky things in order to get people to do the right thing -- even if for an imperfect reason.
I mean; Salvation doesn't depend on erudite knowledge; for even the simple can be saved through Faith.
So Paul was free to use his judgment about what to say -- and what to withhold from us, in order to save as many as possible; which means he likely tried to use the most psychologically powerful of arguments -- even if not those which are the *clearest* possible truth. ( Even Jesus says, I have many things to teach -- but "you" can not bear it now ).

My study of Paul is getting into technicalities that I don't think affect my salvation; but at the same time, I want to make sure I understand his teaching well; for I desire to know Jesus Christ more fully in terms of the Hebrew as well as Gentile perspectives. (The O.P. attracted me, specifically, because of some things Jethro Bodine mentioned.)

Here's a woman's issue from Paul, that is very much a part of the O.P.; but also notice how he ties it to the old testament Law.

1Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Yet this law is not exactly the same law that Paul speaks of in Romans; and it is very frustrating to try and figure out which applies where and why and how; and I mean this especially after studying the Old Testament women who show that there is indeed a hierarchy, based on the temple platforms, but also that women could be full fledged leaders in public; ( One of the Judges, in Joshua, for example is a woman -- but God doesn't allow her to act the same as men judges, when it comes to killing; his plan for women is clearly different. ). And I could cite other examples as well.
But, I'll leave off writing -- for I myself feel like I'm droning on....

You seem like a good fellow, but if you have so little regard for Pauls epistles? and Pauls position as the Apostle of the Lord Jesus. And the Holy Spirits clear intention as to his athority above all other writters of scripture? I doubt you will enjoy a conversation with me.
Rom 2:16 In the day that God will judge the secrets of men ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL.
Rom 1:1
Rom 15:19
1 Cor 4:15
1 Cor 15:1
2 Cor 11:4
Gal 1:6-8
Gal 1:11
1 Tim 1:11
2 Tim 2:8

And many more prove beyond all doubt that Paul is above all teachers as it relates to the truth of the gospel. If any man teach another gospel? They are false teachers.

Now here you ask me to back up the claims i made with scripture. This I did, and have many more to prove the point I made and the point that all doctrine must be judged by Pauls epistles.

 

[josefnospam]

The law is in full force but we ,who are his ,are not under the law. Good thing too as no one can keep the law perfectly. We don't have to do anything except believe in Christ and his finished work. So we can rest in him and not strive to keep the law, knowing when we fail to do so we have a saviour.
His mercy and grace is amazing.........................

 

[About the Son of God]

Well the scriptures do make, in clear terms, all doctrine subject to and to be judged by that which Paul teaches.

And that's true of all the Apostles; not Just Paul.
But I agree -- if we have to (and I think it's the hard way) we can find most of what we need to know from Paul's epistles; However, Paul doesn't write his full gospel in the epistles; Rather we also need to look to the Gospel, Particularly Luke -- which records Paul as well (Luke the historian was a person who worked with Paul, as his convert, and who recorded the actual Gospel that he shared with Paul), we can also see Luke's close association with Paul in Acts.

Luke wrote both the Gospel, and Acts.

I have given but jjust a few of the clear scriptures that prove this very point. I will add without any doubt that a man cannot see the 4 Gospels unless he has been brought in to the light of Pauls epistles and the true gospel which he taught.

I seriously disagree based on what I know. A lawyer who studied the Law as much as Paul, could reconstruct all of Paul's arguments except three that I know of; Roman 5:12 is the most excellent example, for that took inspiration beyond even knowledge of the Law, Prophets, foreign prophets (Greek pagan prophets), and even the Gospels. It's an insight directly from the Holy Spirit.

The rest of what Paul talks about is documented in prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Torah, Genesis, etc.
It's a matter of wisdom to be able to see all of them... but Paul is not the only person God grants wisdom to.
I don't see anything pertinent to *salvation* in Paul's writings which can't be found in other sources.
If I have overlooked something.... ? We could discuss it.

So for someone to say, well, Paul says this and Jesus says that? Only proves they have failed to understand the gospel.

Yes, although Paul's epistles aren't Gospels, they're doctrines, reflections, exhortations, ministry.
However, it's just as likely that a person who makes the remark you talk about fails to understand Paul -- and not Jesus. When they can understand both the same -- then they have the truth of the Gospel.

There is no conflict at all between the Lord and Paul. The conflict is only in the mind of those who do not understand grace. Those who look to the law are blinded by the law. 2 Cor 3
The god of this world uses the law of moses, to blind them from Pauls gospel. 2 Cor 4

I can agree with that; although I think you have come into the thread late, and haven't read everything I have said... so are jumping to premature conclusions. Again, read what I say carefully.
Paul is not above sin, nor hypocrisy, any more than Peter.
Paul's pride got him into plenty of trouble with God....

2Cori 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Other translations are more consistent than the KJV, but it's good enough to show the point. ( Messenger is the word "angel" in Greek; )

1Timo 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
1Cori 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul is a person who murdered Christians, and whom God took as a captive from the enemy; and the sin which Pharisees had the worst time with was pride and hypocrisy; Hypocrisy, by itself is not a deadly sin, but it does anger God:

1John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

I used Miriam as an example before, for God sent an angel of Satan to give her leprosy (buffeting in the flesh); to punish her for pride toward Moses. It is Gods chosen way to humble the proud, and the hypocrite of his Chosen, to damage their flesh to insure their salvation -- and in cases where they are not saved, to begin the final punishment.
Paul, obviously, is beloved *and* saved.

 

[About the Son of God]

Mitspa,

I don't condone a return to the Law of Moses. I think you are getting the wrong idea.
I am concerned that I am aggravating you; and that it might be too difficult for you to stay calm if I continue. So long as you are certain that this is not the case, we can continue.

Can you explain to me from your perspective -- since you deny the Law in a flat sort of way -- why Paul *DEMANDS* that women stay silent in Church, which is something written in the Law?

 

[Mitspa]

And that's true of all the Apostles; not Just Paul.
But I agree -- if we have to (and I think it's the hard way) we can find most of what we need to know from Paul's epistles; However, Paul doesn't write his full gospel in the epistles; Rather we also need to look to the Gospel, Particularly Luke -- which records Paul as well (Luke the historian was a person who worked with Paul, as his convert, and who recorded the actual Gospel that he shared with Paul), we can also see Luke's close association with Paul in Acts.

Luke wrote both the Gospel, and Acts.

I seriously disagree based on what I know. A lawyer who studied the Law as much as Paul, could reconstruct all of Paul's arguments except three that I know of; Roman 5:12 is the most excellent example, for that took inspiration beyond even knowledge of the Law, Prophets, foreign prophets (Greek pagan prophets), and even the Gospels. It's an insight directly from the Holy Spirit.

The rest of what Paul talks about is documented in prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Torah, Genesis, etc.
It's a matter of wisdom to be able to see all of them... but Paul is not the only person God grants wisdom to.
I don't see anything pertinent to *salvation* in Paul's writings which can't be found in other sources.
If I have overlooked something.... ? We could discuss it.


2Cori 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Well my friend, Luke did not share the gospel with Paul!
Gal 1:11
Paul was shown Christ through the the Spirit, even he was taken unto the third heaven.
Now THE GOSPEL is what Paul taught, without Paul the 4 "gospels" are hidden from those who are under law.
Now the essence of the Gospel is this "THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS HAS SET ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH.

The law of moses can never make a charge of sin against me.For I am justified freely by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For a man who does not know this? Is a man who has nothing to teach me or others.

 

[Mitspa]

Mitspa,

I don't condone a return to the Law of Moses. I think you are getting the wrong idea.
I am concerned that I am aggravating you; and that it might be too difficult for you to stay calm if I continue. So long as you are certain that this is not the case, we can continue.

Can you explain to me from your perspective -- since you deny the Law in a flat sort of way -- why Paul *DEMANDS* that women stay silent in Church, which is something written in the Law?

The fact that something is written in the Old Testament and that Old is a witness to the New does not mean that we are under the old.
Thats like saying that Mexico has a law like the USA, so therefore we are under Mexican law?
Also Paul explains his reasons for the limits he puts upon women. Thses limits are lifted under certain conditions.
To take a random scripture where the law is used as a witness to a point and then attempt to overturn the whole counsel of grace is just great error! This is not an honest attempt to find the truth, but a attempt to confuse the truth.

 

[francisdesales]

Although...
Kanon? Greek for list?...

What I mean is what you correctly discern in a different post, that Paul is not above anyone else. Sorry about not making that more clear.

This is the sort of statement I am talking about that was just recently made (as in not uncommon among certain people):

"..all doctrine must be judged by Pauls epistles. "

Where is THIS in the Scriptures??? Where does Paul makes this statement? Isn't God inspiring all of the authors of Sacred Scriptures? We don't judge doctrine by excluding parts of Scripture, nor are we to hold one set of Scriptures above others - with the exception of the Gospels, perhaps (especially considering it is JESUS who saves, not Paul).

I find this sort of comment a "canon within a canon". Paul's work is supposedly "clear" and defines how we look at the rest of Scriptures, when, as you noted, Peter calls Paul difficult and a shallow reading of it can lead people to destruction. "Ignore what Jesus says, Paul is who we will focus on". As if the entire Gospel is built around being justified by faith apart from the Mosaic Law. Funny, Jesus teaches for three years and never mentions that...

That is the attitude that I find disconcerting - and leads to error. People ignore Jesus because He upsets the view of Paul that some have.

I'll get to the rest of your post soon.

Regards

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We don't have to do anything except believe in Christ and his finished work.

How does this keep the lonely housewife, or the office co-workers, or the facebook junkie from committing adultery? Or keep the struggling couple from cheating on their taxes? Ultimately it does. But how does that look in practice? The 'don't have to do anything' part is bothersome to me. Especially in light of what I now know about sin and temptation after 27 years of walking with God.

Some seem to think we don't need knowledge of the law in any way shape or form when temptation comes a knockin'. Is just knowing some specifics about how to love God/ love people in the midst of temptation tantamount to trying to be justified by that law? That seems to be the thinking in the church today. What do you say?

 

[francisdesales]

I would also add that Paul rebuked Peter and James in the very epistle that affirms his gospel.

Why did Paul rebuke Peter in Galatians? It certainly was not over doctrine.

Now I have posted clear scripture that shows that ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BY PAULS GOSPEL. along with others that prove this same point. If you reject the clear point of these scriptures? I doubt we have any ability to find common ground.

I thought Jesus would judge men, not Paul...

Has it occured to you that you are misinterpreting the "gospel of paul", thus, making such statements that tend to place Paul above Jesus? IF your interpretation of Paul is accurate, it should mesh with Jesus' Gospel. There would be no need to be judged by PAUL'S gospel, if the entire New Testament echoed your interpretation. But since it doesn't, "we" are forced to ignore Peter, James, John, and the Gospels.

Thus, your comment about being judged by Paul, RATHER than the Word of God in its entirety.

Here is an interesting quote I found regarding other Sacred Scriptures:

"The majesty of the Spirit of Christ exhibits itself in every part of the epistle" (of Second Peter). John Calvin

We don't need to confine ourselves to Paul, nor does Paul judge us.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So, to you -- his remarks about the law, are the "ceremonial" law? -- although -- I think it was your remark in another post about him quoting the psalms to embarrass them ?

No, in my opinion, Paul is speaking of the entire Mosaic Law. Romans 2-4 makes it clear, to me, that Paul is speaking of the Jewish pride of HAVING the Mosaic law - as if that possession placed them in a special position of prestige with God that would lead to knowledge of God and ultimate salvation (which has a multitude of meanings to the Jews, some refering to temporal salvation - some Jews did not believe in life after death).

A quick rundown of Romans 2-4:

Paul is speaking to the imaginary Jew who would fully agree with Romans 1 - the pagans have turned from God. But then he speaks of how SOME pagans are indeed doing "work", good deeds, that brings them to eternal life. They have the law of God written there. Obviously, this is NOT the Mosaic Law, but TORAH, the eternal law of God, called God's Wisdom. Certainly, the pagans do not have the Mosaic Law written on their hearts - but they ARE familiar with what we find in the Decalogue - Thou shall not commit adultery. They know these things and obey God's Law found in their conscience.

On the other hand, circumcised Jews who have the written law do not necessarily obey it. ONE MUST OBEY THE LAW KNOWN TO THEM! The Law gives no power to obey it. Paul notes that the Jews boast. Not of their OWN WORKS, but of possession of this written word of God. But what good is it, IF the Jews fail just as much as the Gentiles. Cue up Romans 3 and the litany of JEWISH failures. Now, a careful reading of these Psalms will show that they are David writing about evil Jews, not about all Jews. That misrepresents what the Psalmist is saying, since these very same Psalms point out the DIFFERENCE between the evil and the just man. The wicked, everyone of THEM, do not pursue God. But some DO pursue God. That is clear from the Psalmists.

To some, what is a diatribe between the Judaizer who proudly thought that his possession of the Mosaic Law placed him in a superior and unique position becomes, mistakenly, a discussion of how "faith alone" saves - that nothing one does is of value in God's eyes.

The end of Romans 3 should also cue us to what Paul is actually talking about - Is God the God of the Jews only? No. The Mosaic Law set the Jews and Gentiles apart (the wall that Jesus broke down). God is a God of the Gentiles, too, and thus, the possession of the Law is of little value to God, if it is not obeyed.

Finally, Paul closes it out in Romans 4 by talking about a man who was justified before the Mosaic Law was ever given to Moses. Thus, a man is justified and done so without the Mosaic Law. Man is justified by faith in God apart from the Mosaic Law. Having the Mosaic Law is NOT NECESSARY to be justified. WHY revert to Jewish holidays, dietary laws - and CIRCUMCISION? If one places their trust in those laws, they are turing from Christ...

So Paul is again addressing Judaizers, which he often is doing.

These are my thoughts on the subject.

It's noticable in the Gospels that the Pharisees were the ones who kept genealogies about which of their "fathers" killed which prophet !!! :D
So when Jesus make the "law" of prophets apply to Pharisees -- it's clearly a perjorative. ( highly, highly, ironic! They essentially claim their own guilt. )

Paul too, then, quoting this as "law" seems to aim it almost exclusively at prophet killers (Pharisees.)

Interesting. I can see this, if one has zeal for the possession of something given by God to the extent that people forget the heart of the law - love of neighbor. Paul, when still called Saul, was one. From his point of view, he was protecting what God had given to His heritage, the Jews. HAVING the law was a sign of something special. And most people will interpret prophetic talk - AT THE TIME - as an effort to pull down the accepted interpretations of the law and its application. Prophets are not accepted at the time of their preaching too often because religious pride/zeal hardens one's ability to hear an alternative and ultimately more correct approach to finding God.

But the Psalms do also condemn boastful Gentiles (they are only "men") and jasoncran touched on the Noahide laws; so I wonder about the times (brought up by sparrowhawke) where God would call some pagans -- like King Cyrus -- "my anointed" ! (Christos)

Indeed, the Psalms mention boastful MEN. In Romans, Paul is citing Psalms that refer to Jews pursuing King David, evil men everyone of them... "David" goes on to talk about how the just man seeks out God. And what you said about pagans being God's instruments, yes, just got done with Jeremiah. He makes it clear that the Babylonians are God's instrument of discipline - but he does state that God will punish THEM as well.

What I find interesting is that the first Christians noted many Greeks are "pre-Christian" as they, TOO, seek the Logos. The Word of God. In their own abilities, limited because they did not have the Scriptures. In other words, Romans 2 is verified - God works where He wills, not just within the visible People of God.

Well, there is a point.... God demanded it {circumcision} ; and punished those who disobeyed.

Obedience to God is the point. He only gave this command to the Jews, and only those living in Old Testament times to people under the Old Covenant. Baptism is now the sign of the New Covenant, and the old is just a shadow of "what is to come".

And, I'd like to probe that idea with respect to "baptism" vis "circumcision."; which are parallel ideas/signs.

Certainly, just as Christ as the High Priest v the Jewish high priests...

Jewish rituals foreshadowed Christian rituals that we continue to do today.

I'm also sorry I've been so slow to respond to your earlier post, which I found really hit the nail on the head, so to speak; eg: the idea you wanted to "kick around" about Jesus "giving the power" to do something that the Old could not. The thread grows so fast, I have trouble just keeping up....

Yes, it does, and thanks for your response.

Regards

 

[JLB]

Paul's reference to "my Gospel" is more of an affirmation that "his Gospel" is correct, since we see him use the term "a different Gospel" or "a different Jesus" we know that he fought fiercely against those who would pervert the Gospel, by adding the elements of the Law of Moses to the pure Gospel.

Paul is uniquely qualified to expound upon these things as a lawyer of The Law of Moses over that of his fellow Apostles, in that there were not as educated in the Law as he was.

The Holy Spirit obviously used Paul's writings more than the others to form what we call The New Testament.

If you add the book of Hebrews to that equation, then it is seriously lopsided.

Without the wisdom and insights found in Paul's writings, The Church today would be totally confused.

Remember this, Paul's writings, as the Prophets were inspired by The Spirit of Christ -

10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made... Galatians 3:19

Jesus finished teaching us through Paul.

as it is written -

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12

Thank God.


JLB

 

[francisdesales]

Jesus finished teaching us through Paul.

as it is written -

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12

Thank God.


JLB

This is another example of placing the Pauline corpus over and above the rest of the New Testament. There is clearly no logical reason to do so - unless we are looking through a particular lense of interpretation and interpreting the rest of the NT through that lense. Thus, the teachings of Jesus become "hypothetical" to certain moderns today, since they see "justification by faith alone" as their primary pillar of the "gospel". The teachings to the Rich Young Man, for example, fall within that hermeneutical eigesis. Thus, we must "look to Paul" because Jesus "didn't speak clearly about justification" and so forth. This viewpoint nullifies the teaching of Jesus, as if He came to bring a hypothetical gospel!!!

It does NOT follow that because Jesus has "many things to still teach you" that PAUL was the one to FINISH those teachings. Chronologically, Pauline literature precedes John, Jude, James, and at least 2 Peter. Historically and theologically speaking, this is fairly certain. The volume of content does NOT set our priority of which writer to consider, ESPECIALLY when Scriptures themselves tell us to beware of the writings of Paul, misinterpreting THEM can lead to destruction.

It might be better to START from the Gospels and go from there, rather than from Paul and work backwards...

Regards