Pauline Epistles not Scripture (split from Microchipped thread)

[johnm]

<<<I'm sure the Apostle Paul would be surprised to hear you call Scripture "BS"

Galatians 5:4 "For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace." (New Living Translation)

If you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.

Love the legalist, hate the legalism...

"Legalism kills more congregations and stops more individual spiritual development than sin does...">>>

I regard the word of God as the bread of life and when one eats it one grows into harvestable fruit and I regard theses forums as chewing the cud. Debate never prove who is right only who is the best debater; having said that Paul would be pleasantly surprised to hear the BS you have turned his words into. I find Galatians 5:4 a paraphrase from the OT.

I do not know you or Paul and there is nothing personal in what I am saying. I assume you are implying that Paul said, “If one keeps the Law one has cut oneself off from Christ and has fallen from God’s grace.” You are mistaken, Paul has not contradicted Christ when Christ said, “If you want to enter life keep the commandments.”  Paul confirms Christ if you consider everything he has said.

I do not trust Paul as far as I can kick him and I do not regard his epistles as scripture; however 99.9% of what Paul says is valid interpretation of the OT and I recognise the authority of the OT where as you appear to worship Paul as having authority at the expense of Christ. Why is this so, why do the Bulk of Christendom read the wrong meaning into Paul’s epistles?

If there is nothing wrong with what Paul’s epistles say, why does the Bulk of Christendom read wrong meaning from them? I would speculate that it is the Unholy Spirit (the spirit of anti-Christ) that works with Pauls epistles and that the epistles may have been designed for that purpose.

Consider these scriptures: John 5:31-34 (KJV)
31  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32  There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33  Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34  But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

And

John 8:18 (KJV)
18  I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Now

Acts 9:5 (KJV)
5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Some spirit is claiming to be Jesus but there is no witness from the father; the apostle Paul has no more authority than Mohammad. I don't know if Paul as deceived or if he was the deceiver.

[MeMyself]

I do not know you or Paul and there is nothing personal in what I am saying. I assume you are implying that Paul said, “If one keeps the Law one has cut oneself off from Christ and has fallen from God’s grace.” You are mistaken, Paul has not contradicted Christ when Christ said, “If you want to enter life keep the commandments.”  Paul confirms Christ if you consider everything he has said.

I do not trust Paul as far as I can kick him and I do not regard his epistles as scripture; however 99.9% of what Paul says is valid interpretation of the OT and I recognise the authority of the OT where as you appear to worship Paul as having authority at the expense of Christ. Why is this so, why do the Bulk of Christendom read the wrong meaning into Paul’s epistles?

If there is nothing wrong with what Paul’s epistles say, why does the Bulk of Christendom read wrong meaning from them? I would speculate that it is the Unholy Spirit (the spirit of anti-Christ) that works with Pauls epistles and that the epistles may have been designed for that purpose.

Consider these scriptures: John 5:31-34 (KJV)
31  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32  There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33  Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34  But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

And

John 8:18 (KJV)
18  I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Now

Acts 9:5 (KJV)
5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Some spirit is claiming to be Jesus but there is no witness from the father; the apostle Paul has no more authority than Mohammad. I don't know if Paul as deceived or if he was the deceiver.

wow....okie dooo....

[Alan]

I do not know you or Paul and there is nothing personal in what I am saying. I assume you are implying that Paul said, “If one keeps the Law one has cut oneself off from Christ and has fallen from God’s grace.” You are mistaken, Paul has not contradicted Christ when Christ said, “If you want to enter life keep the commandments.”  Paul confirms Christ if you consider everything he has said.

I do not trust Paul as far as I can kick him and I do not regard his epistles as scripture; however 99.9% of what Paul says is valid interpretation of the OT and I recognise the authority of the OT where as you appear to worship Paul as having authority at the expense of Christ. Why is this so, why do the Bulk of Christendom read the wrong meaning into Paul’s epistles?

If there is nothing wrong with what Paul’s epistles say, why does the Bulk of Christendom read wrong meaning from them? I would speculate that it is the Unholy Spirit (the spirit of anti-Christ) that works with Pauls epistles and that the epistles may have been designed for that purpose.

Consider these scriptures: John 5:31-34 (KJV)
31  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32  There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33  Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34  But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

And

John 8:18 (KJV)
18  I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Now

Acts 9:5 (KJV)
5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Some spirit is claiming to be Jesus but there is no witness from the father; the apostle Paul has no more authority than Mohammad. I don't know if Paul as deceived or if he was the deceiver.

wow....okie dooo....

That's what I thought 

[OldDad]

I do not know you or Paul and there is nothing personal in what I am saying. I assume you are implying that Paul said, “If one keeps the Law one has cut oneself off from Christ and has fallen from God’s grace.” You are mistaken, Paul has not contradicted Christ when Christ said, “If you want to enter life keep the commandments.”  Paul confirms Christ if you consider everything he has said.

I do not trust Paul as far as I can kick him and I do not regard his epistles as scripture; however 99.9% of what Paul says is valid interpretation of the OT and I recognise the authority of the OT where as you appear to worship Paul as having authority at the expense of Christ. Why is this so, why do the Bulk of Christendom read the wrong meaning into Paul’s epistles?

Dude, Paul wrote Galatians.

You must be smarter than Simon Peter - who himself called Paul's writings, "Scripture."

But, no, you are not. You're just another internet gnostic who twists the scriptures to fit whatever wall-eyed interpretation you've suckled on to.

[notreligus]

<<<I'm sure the Apostle Paul would be surprised to hear you call Scripture "BS"

Galatians 5:4 "For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace." (New Living Translation)

If you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.

Love the legalist, hate the legalism...

"Legalism kills more congregations and stops more individual spiritual development than sin does...">>>

I regard the word of God as the bread of life and when one eats it one grows into harvestable fruit and I regard theses forums as chewing the cud. Debate never prove who is right only who is the best debater; having said that Paul would be pleasantly surprised to hear the BS you have turned his words into. I find Galatians 5:4 a paraphrase from the OT.

I do not know you or Paul and there is nothing personal in what I am saying. I assume you are implying that Paul said, “If one keeps the Law one has cut oneself off from Christ and has fallen from God’s grace.” You are mistaken, Paul has not contradicted Christ when Christ said, “If you want to enter life keep the commandments.”  Paul confirms Christ if you consider everything he has said.

I do not trust Paul as far as I can kick him and I do not regard his epistles as scripture; however 99.9% of what Paul says is valid interpretation of the OT and I recognise the authority of the OT where as you appear to worship Paul as having authority at the expense of Christ. Why is this so, why do the Bulk of Christendom read the wrong meaning into Paul’s epistles?

If there is nothing wrong with what Paul’s epistles say, why does the Bulk of Christendom read wrong meaning from them? I would speculate that it is the Unholy Spirit (the spirit of anti-Christ) that works with Pauls epistles and that the epistles may have been designed for that purpose.

Consider these scriptures: John 5:31-34 (KJV)
31  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32  There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33  Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34  But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

And

John 8:18 (KJV)
18  I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Now

Acts 9:5 (KJV)
5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Some spirit is claiming to be Jesus but there is no witness from the father; the apostle Paul has no more authority than Mohammad. I don't know if Paul as deceived or if he was the deceiver.

I know that there are people like you who emphasize the Gospels and deny the significance or authority of Paul.   But it's not all that often that I run into one. 

If you deny Paul's doctrine as authoritative then how can you consider yourself a Christian?   Or, do you?   I may be presumptuous in that.  (By that I mean to ask, are you a Messianic or similar who holds to Israel and the Church as separate entities and you separate the Scriptures accordingly?   Messianics don't always refer to themselves as Christian.) 

Paul's epistles are the primary source of doctrine for the New Covenant Church.   These are those who have been bought with a price, the precious blood of the Lamb of God. 

FYI, Paul told the Law-followers that if they violate any Law then they were guilty of all points of the Law.   If you have stolen something then under the Law you're also a liar and a murderer.   If you come under the authority of Christ and versus choosing the authority of Moses and the Law, your righteousness is imputed to you from Christ.   

[johnm]

<<<Dude, Paul wrote Galatians.
You must be smarter than Simon Peter - who himself called Paul's writings, "Scripture.">>>

I have heard this before, a long time ago; when and where does Peter call Paul’s epistles scripture?
I have done a word search on “scripture” in the Bible; and the word scripture always refers to the OT even when Paul and peter use it.

<<<But, no, you are not. You're just another internet gnostic who twists the scriptures to fit whatever wall-eyed interpretation you've suckled on to.>>>

You should be able to untwist the scriptures and show me where I went wrong.

[Free Christian]

I have not heard of a Christian who did not believe the New Testament writings to be scripture before.
The language used in your posts Johnm shows clearly though that you do not, as you have said, believe it to be so.
Otherwise you would practice verses such as Colossians 3 v 8 and 4 v 6 as well as Ephesians 4 v 29.
Could I ask you what church you are a part of John?

[DaveW]

I got micro-chipped this last weekend.  Bought a big bag of Lays regulars and when i opened the bag it was full of micro chips. Only a couple of big ones left intact.

    

[johnm]

<<<I know that there are people like you who emphasize the Gospels and deny the significance or authority of Paul.   But it's not all that often that I run into one. >>>

Why do you make this personal? I have heard of one group who called Paul a traitor but I would not agree with their reasons for doing so. I don’t emphasize the Gospels and deny the authority and power thereof of Paul; I recognise the power and authority of Christ and His father and deny their arch enemy.

<<<If you deny Paul's doctrine as authoritative then how can you consider yourself a Christian?   Or, do you?   I may be presumptuous in that.  (By that I mean to ask, are you a Messianic or similar who holds to Israel and the Church as separate entities and you separate the Scriptures accordingly?   Messianics don't always refer to themselves as Christian.) >>>

It is interesting to see how your mind is working; wordage is a funny thing; do you know that when the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch they didn’t call themselves Christians but outsiders called them Christians, presumably uncomplimentary. For me the word Christian is merely a word in the English language and I would normally call myself Christian as opposed to Muslim or Atheist or Jewish. As an observation I notice that most who call themselves Christian wear their own apparel and eat their own food, and I worry about myself in this regard. I am a non-conformist, half Irish, quarter Scotch and quarter English. In as far as I used doctrine it is the word of God, not based on the word of God nor based on the word of Paul. Israel is them who have entered into the new covenant based around the Ten Commandments; Christians primarily are those who have a Mickey Mouse new covenant based on abrogating the Law; Paul does not abrogate the Law but he muddies the water. Only the Father has authority, show me where this is imputed to Paul.

<<<Paul's epistles are the primary source of doctrine for the New Covenant Church.   These are those who have been bought with a price, the precious blood of the Lamb of God. >>>

That is confusion at best.
 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture refers to the OT; part of the OT is found in Paul, but why have a middle man wrought with confusion; the real issue here is the New Covenant Church, but which new covenant; the one where the Ten Commandments define it or the one where the Law is abrogated, one of these is with God and the other is with Satan.

I am sure that keeping Sunday Holy will be counted as righteousness for some because being deceived by Satan will not rob anyone of their salvation; being separated from Christ is something a person achieves by themselves; depending how they respond to the deception; overcoming is required.

[notreligus]

<<<I know that there are people like you who emphasize the Gospels and deny the significance or authority of Paul.   But it's not all that often that I run into one. >>>

Why do you make this personal? I have heard of one group who called Paul a traitor but I would not agree with their reasons for doing so. I don’t emphasize the Gospels and deny the authority and power thereof of Paul; I recognise the power and authority of Christ and His father and deny their arch enemy.

<<<If you deny Paul's doctrine as authoritative then how can you consider yourself a Christian?   Or, do you?   I may be presumptuous in that.  (By that I mean to ask, are you a Messianic or similar who holds to Israel and the Church as separate entities and you separate the Scriptures accordingly?   Messianics don't always refer to themselves as Christian.) >>>

It is interesting to see how your mind is working; wordage is a funny thing; do you know that when the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch they didn’t call themselves Christians but outsiders called them Christians, presumably uncomplimentary. For me the word Christian is merely a word in the English language and I would normally call myself Christian as opposed to Muslim or Atheist or Jewish. As an observation I notice that most who call themselves Christian wear their own apparel and eat their own food, and I worry about myself in this regard. I am a non-conformist, half Irish, quarter Scotch and quarter English. In as far as I used doctrine it is the word of God, not based on the word of God nor based on the word of Paul. Israel is them who have entered into the new covenant based around the Ten Commandments; Christians primarily are those who have a Mickey Mouse new covenant based on abrogating the Law; Paul does not abrogate the Law but he muddies the water. Only the Father has authority, show me where this is imputed to Paul.

<<<Paul's epistles are the primary source of doctrine for the New Covenant Church.   These are those who have been bought with a price, the precious blood of the Lamb of God. >>>

That is confusion at best.
 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture refers to the OT; part of the OT is found in Paul, but why have a middle man wrought with confusion; the real issue here is the New Covenant Church, but which new covenant; the one where the Ten Commandments define it or the one where the Law is abrogated, one of these is with God and the other is with Satan.

I am sure that keeping Sunday Holy will be counted as righteousness for some because being deceived by Satan will not rob anyone of their salvation; being separated from Christ is something a person achieves by themselves; depending how they respond to the deception; overcoming is required.

I am English, Irish, Cherokee and Shawnee.

I am not a member of the Mickey Mouse Club but I am a disciple of Jesus Christ.   

[johnm]

<<<I have not heard of a Christian who did not believe the New Testament writings to be scripture before.
The language used in your posts Johnm shows clearly though that you do not, as you have said, believe it to be so.
Otherwise you would practice verses such as Colossians 3 v 8 and 4 v 6 as well as Ephesians 4 v 29.
Could I ask you what church you are a part of John?>>>

I occasionally attend a SDA church and they are fairly flexible as to what one may believe but my reasons for not belonging to a church is personal; I have never been thrown out of a church but I have been barred from a forum when I locked horns with a dispensationalist probably messianic; I don’t remember what that was about; I don’t think it had to do with Paul; I remember he called me a Gnostic but that normally does not bother me.

Illiteracy isn’t a sin and to be a liar one has to know differently to what one is saying; maybe those, I won’t call them scriptures I will call them verses apply to you and not me. You are mistaken, I believe everything I say about Paul’s epistles and the angel of light claiming to be Jesus; I most probably use the word “believe” differently to you.

What is scripture? Every time scripture is mentioned in the NT it refers to the OT. I do not regard Paul’s writings as God’s word or inspired by God; my charge is that while using God’s word in his writings Paul uses them deceptively, in other words Paul’s epistles, while containing God’s word, are a malicious confrontation to Christ.

My information is the earliest copies of the gospels are dated 30 years after the originals were written and 60 years after Christ, but not until 2nd centaury does the story of Mary Magdalene appear in one of the Gospels, I don’t recall which one but editing took place. This is a time when the Roman Churches are becoming saturated with Paganism and about the time the Church (Roman) Fathers were deciding what would be in the Bible; I recall hearing how one of the Minor Prophets almost missed out. 

Paul’s writings would not be in the Bible if God did not allow it but scripture no way; Paul’s writings are the mouse trap for the Mickey Mouse covenant. In speculating I would say Paul was part of a Pharisee conspiracy (not excluding Satan) to white ant the new church, which would mean Paul did not come alone. First by removing circumcision and second by allowing food sacrificed to idols to be eaten. As far as I can tell circumcision did not become a problem in Acts until after the arrival of Paul. John didn’t mention circumcision in Revelation so it doesn’t appear to be a problem but allowing the eating food sacrificed to idols is allowing the practicing of Paganism.  Revelation 2:14 (KJV)
14  But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Was Peter deceived?  Yes, but it was not counted against him because he never abrogated the covenant or nailed it to the cross.

[Free Christian]

I am at a loss to understand how you can say Pauls writings would not be in the Bible if God did not allow it!
Why would the God of truth allow writings which you consider to be deceptive in His Word? That is in opposition to His nature.
None of what you say makes any sense at all.
I hope God opens your eyes.

[MeMyself]

You are mistaken, I believe everything I say about Paul’s epistles and the angel of light claiming to be Jesus;

Wow.  This is...wow.

What is scripture? Every time scripture is mentioned in the NT it refers to the OT. I do not regard Paul’s writings as God’s word or inspired by God; my charge is that while using God’s word in his writings Paul uses them deceptively, in other words Paul’s epistles, while containing God’s word, are a malicious confrontation to Christ.

Again...you leave me...wow...words fail.

My information is the earliest copies of the gospels are dated 30 years after the originals were written and 60 years after Christ, but not until 2nd centaury does the story of Mary Magdalene appear in one of the Gospels, I don’t recall which one but editing took place. This is a time when the Roman Churches are becoming saturated with Paganism and about the time the Church (Roman) Fathers were deciding what would be in the Bible; I recall hearing how one of the Minor Prophets almost missed out.

Where did you come up with this information?

Paul’s writings would not be in the Bible if God did not allow it but scripture no way; Paul’s writings are the mouse trap for the Mickey Mouse covenant.

Oh.my.gosh!  I feel honestly afraid for you!

In speculating I would say Paul was part of a Pharisee conspiracy (not excluding Satan) to white ant the new church, which would mean Paul did not come alone.

Everything Paul preached pointed people to Christ Jesus!  The Pharisees wanted Christ and His followers killed...your theory just doesn't add up!

First by removing circumcision and second by allowing food sacrificed to idols to be eaten. As far as I can tell circumcision did not become a problem in Acts until after the arrival of Paul. John didn’t mention circumcision in Revelation so it doesn’t appear to be a problem but allowing the eating food sacrificed to idols is allowing the practicing of Paganism.  Revelation 2:14 (KJV)
14  But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Was Peter deceived?  Yes, but it was not counted against him because he never abrogated the covenant or nailed it to the cross.

Phew...

[DaveW]

Um - yeah.  What MeMy said.

[OldDad]

We are obviously dealing with one of the apostates Paul, Peter, and Jude talks about - in SCRIPTURE.

Also a troll.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Also a troll.

Trolls usually don't bother making reasoned arguments.  Nonetheless, this is far afield from orthodoxy, and as such has been moved to the Non-Trad forum.

Jarrod

[OldDad]

Oh definitely trollish, and you were right to move the thread. Just too bad it wasn't to the dumpster.

[DaveW]

Yeah - this needs its own thread.

I have come across this in some of the "one law" folk in Messianic circles.  They see one place where it says the commands are "Forever." Then they see Paul saying that they are irrelevant. Without properly understanding the relationship between believing Jews and believing Gentiles, one comes to either A - the Jews do not keep the Law any more (Paul supersedes Moses) or that B - Paul got it wrong and Moses is still in force.

Both opinions are wrong.

[fish153]

<<<Dude, Paul wrote Galatians.
You must be smarter than Simon Peter - who himself called Paul's writings, "Scripture.">>>

I have heard this before, a long time ago; when and where does Peter call Paul’s epistles scripture?
I have done a word search on “scripture” in the Bible; and the word scripture always refers to the OT even when Paul and peter use it.

<<<But, no, you are not. You're just another internet gnostic who twists the scriptures to fit whatever wall-eyed interpretation you've suckled on to.>>>

You should be able to untwist the scriptures and show me where I went wrong.

"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction". (2 Peter 3:16)

This is clearly stating that Paul's writings are considered "scriptures" or he wouldn't refer to "the other scriptures".

[chosenone]

Its not up to use to decide that parts of the Bible are not as 'important' as others, or that they are error.  I am seriously concerned about any believer who does this.

[notreligus]

Its not up to use to decide that parts of the Bible are not as 'important' as others, or that they are error.  I am seriously concerned about any believer who does this.

I don't think it's your nature to look for ulterior motives in what people post but you might want to start doing that.   There is more than one camp with the same mission but the mission is to change the mystery of Christ into something other than what the Apostle Paul taught.   Paul taught that before the foundation of the world God envisioned the Church.    The Church is all of mankind who have believed that Christ is the Son of God who has taken their deserved punishment upon Himself and paid the demand of the Law with His own life and shed Blood.   Some disagree that He died for a single people, the Church, and insist that His act was a continuation of God's relationship with His earthly people, Israel.   In their minds, the Gentiles are a secondary benefactor.    Paul says that there is one new man in Christ and there is no difference in Jew and Gentile.   Some are fighting that tooth and nail, so to speak.   They've lost the battle before they start because this was never God's plan.   God's plan is eternal and eternally He has sought after a single people with whom He has a relationship.   

The term "replacement theology" is thrown around a lot at this board.   That is a term manufactured by those who reject that there is no difference in Jew or Gentile.   A member here, who agrees with me, and whom I will leave nameless, believes that God's present covenant is with His Son.  A strong case may be made by that in the sense that we can come into a covenant relationship with God Almighty only through His Son, Jesus Christ.   God is no respecter of persons.   The racial heritage of a person has no bearing on who enters the family of God.   Instead of weeping and gnashing their teeth the Jews should be pleased that through Christ, who came through this "chosen" people, God has done what they were unable to do through their Law and Moses.   Instead they still seek a sign and still want notoriety for themselves when it is Christ Jesus whom they should be honoring and praising instead of their heritage.   

[MeMyself]

  Instead of weeping and gnashing their teeth the Jews should be pleased that through Christ, who came through this "chosen" people, God has done what they were unable to do through their Law and Moses.   Instead they still seek a sign and still want notoriety for themselves when it is Christ Jesus whom they should be honoring and praising instead of their heritage.   

I am very concerned about your attitudes about our Jewish brothers and Sisters.

[AVZ]

  Instead of weeping and gnashing their teeth the Jews should be pleased that through Christ, who came through this "chosen" people, God has done what they were unable to do through their Law and Moses.   Instead they still seek a sign and still want notoriety for themselves when it is Christ Jesus whom they should be honoring and praising instead of their heritage.   

I am very concerned about your attitudes about our Jewish brothers and Sisters.

Why are Jews our brothers and sisters?

[DaveW]

Why are Jews our brothers and sisters?

Because they are our fellow branches waiting to be grafted back into their own native tree along side all of us.

[MeMyself]

Why are Jews our brothers and sisters?

Because they are our fellow branches waiting to be grafted back into their own native tree along side all of us.

Yes. God's chosen people.  The fact that He says there is no distinction between us, means He loves Jews and Gentiles alike.

We should especially not thumb our noses to those that are Messianic!  We are joint heirs with Jesus and part of the family of God! We should be praising God that there are some who have recognized Messiah and turned to Him, not condemn them..and we should join in prayer for those still not seeing Him!

[johnm]

<<<"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction". (2 Peter 3:16)

This is clearly stating that Paul's writings are considered "scriptures" or he wouldn't refer to "the other scriptures".>>>

A prophet may not testify of himself; even in our courts one cannot give oneself a character reference. What Paul or any prophet says can be used against them. There is a verse that says test the prophet; but Peter said, “The prophets of old did not make it up, did not derive it by interpreting scripture but received prophesy directly from God”; God is the authority not the prophet. Paul said he had the gift of prophesy, this is Paul self testifying. Paul is the only one to use the phrase “gift of prophesy”, what does he mean?

 1 Corinthians 13:2 (KJV)
2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 Paul claims to have everything and has no need of the FATHER and then he is falsely modest.
What is Paul saying, is it this, “If you have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though you have all faith, so that you could remove mountains, and have not charity, are you nothing (without charity)?
 
So what the gift is of prophesy; is this where prophesy does not come directly from God but from men who understand all mysteries and does it require they do back somersaults?

 Suppose Paul’s epistles were not in the Bible; what other NT verses could be used to justify abrogating the Law; Might abrogating the Law require the authority of the Pope in place of the Father in heaven. What other authority besides the Pope or Paul is there for abrogating the covenant because the Ten Commandments are the covenant in which not one dit or dot may be changed.

2 Peter 3:16 (KJV)
16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I would suggest that these verses do not say what you think they say, although at this point Peter does not seem to suspect Paul; I have heard that there was tension later between the churches stated by the Apostles and the ones started by Paul.

I don’t know whether Peter is talking Paul’s epistles at all, but rather what is in Paul’s epistles.  In chapter 3 Peter is talking about the day of the Lord; and these things that Paul was writing about in the context of that day were: coming as a thief in the night, the heavens passing away with a great noise and the elements melting with fervent heat; these are what the unlearned and unstable wrest with.  Christ is the author of the thief in the night not Paul and Isaiah is the author of the heavens passing away not Paul, so what the unlearned were wrestling with was OT scripture, even Christ draws from the OT. When Paul regurgitates the OT and Christ as he does that does not make Paul’s epistles scripture. Peter does not call Paul’s epistles scripture. In 2 Peter, Chapter 3 Peter draws from at least 21 OT verses.

[johnm]

<<<Its not up to us to decide that parts of the Bible are not as 'important' as others, or that they are error.  I am seriously concerned about any believer who does this. >>>

Who is it up to?  Is it up to Jew hating men of tradition of the second centaury to decide and not be challenged?

[MeMyself]

<<<Its not up to us to decide that parts of the Bible are not as 'important' as others, or that they are error.  I am seriously concerned about any believer who does this. >>>

Who is it up to?  Is it up to Jew hating men of tradition of the second centaury to decide and not be challenged?

Since all scripture is God breathed...God is who gets to decide it.  Pauls words are scripture, God used him to be the vehicle through which He spoke...just like the prophets of the OT.

[fish153]

<<<"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction". (2 Peter 3:16)

This is clearly stating that Paul's writings are considered "scriptures" or he wouldn't refer to "the other scriptures".>>>

A prophet may not testify of himself; even in our courts one cannot give oneself a character reference. What Paul or any prophet says can be used against them. There is a verse that says test the prophet; but Peter said, “The prophets of old did not make it up, did not derive it by interpreting scripture but received prophesy directly from God”; God is the authority not the prophet. Paul said he had the gift of prophesy, this is Paul self testifying. Paul is the only one to use the phrase “gift of prophesy”, what does he mean?

 1 Corinthians 13:2 (KJV)
2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 Paul claims to have everything and has no need of the FATHER and then he is falsely modest.
What is Paul saying, is it this, “If you have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though you have all faith, so that you could remove mountains, and have not charity, are you nothing (without charity)?
 
So what the gift is of prophesy; is this where prophesy does not come directly from God but from men who understand all mysteries and does it require they do back somersaults?

 Suppose Paul’s epistles were not in the Bible; what other NT verses could be used to justify abrogating the Law; Might abrogating the Law require the authority of the Pope in place of the Father in heaven. What other authority besides the Pope or Paul is there for abrogating the covenant because the Ten Commandments are the covenant in which not one dit or dot may be changed.

2 Peter 3:16 (KJV)
16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I would suggest that these verses do not say what you think they say, although at this point Peter does not seem to suspect Paul; I have heard that there was tension later between the churches stated by the Apostles and the ones started by Paul.

I don’t know whether Peter is talking Paul’s epistles at all, but rather what is in Paul’s epistles.  In chapter 3 Peter is talking about the day of the Lord; and these things that Paul was writing about in the context of that day were: coming as a thief in the night, the heavens passing away with a great noise and the elements melting with fervent heat; these are what the unlearned and unstable wrest with.  Christ is the author of the thief in the night not Paul and Isaiah is the author of the heavens passing away not Paul, so what the unlearned were wrestling with was OT scripture, even Christ draws from the OT. When Paul regurgitates the OT and Christ as he does that does not make Paul’s epistles scripture. Peter does not call Paul’s epistles scripture. In 2 Peter, Chapter 3 Peter draws from at least 21 OT verses.

What you are doing is very dangerous. Instead of realizing and accepting that 2 Peter 3:16 is true, you are starting from a premise that you are correct, and "explaining away" the clear meaning of Peter's words.  You are rejecting a HUGE amount of Scripture if you believe Paul was a false Apostle. I find it fascinating (that one could be so foolish), and also quite blasphemous that you would attempt to do that.

[AVZ]

Why are Jews our brothers and sisters?

Because they are our fellow branches waiting to be grafted back into their own native tree along side all of us.

Yes. God's chosen people.  The fact that He says there is no distinction between us, means He loves Jews and Gentiles alike.

We should especially not thumb our noses to those that are Messianic!  We are joint heirs with Jesus and part of the family of God! We should be praising God that there are some who have recognized Messiah and turned to Him, not condemn them..and we should join in prayer for those still not seeing Him!

Well, lets be clear. Messianic Jews are not necessarily Jews. They are Christians who call themselves "Messianic Jews" as to point to the fact that they have Jewish ancestry before the became Christians, or simply because they are member of a Messianic Jewish community.
There are many people who call themselves Messianic Jew, but even their own congregation does not acknowledge them as such because they are gentiles...not Jews.
The term used here is "Messianic Gentile".

I can be a Jew, because my mother is Jewish. But I also can be an atheist Jew.
Of course atheist Jews are not grafted anywhere...because they are atheists.
And neither are they are brothers and sisters.

In fact there is not a single Jew alive who can still trace back his/her ancestry to the Old Testament.
Those records have been lost since.

Judaism is a religion, it is the religion of the Old Testament.
Jews reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but they do acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But then again, so do Muslims.
And we do not call them our brothers and sisters do we?

[johnm]

<<<Quote from: chosenone on August 12, 2014, 11:24:13 AM
Its not up to use to decide that parts of the Bible are not as 'important' as others, or that they are error.  I am seriously concerned about any believer who does this.

I don't think it's your nature to look for ulterior motives in what people post but you might want to start doing that.   There is more than one camp with the same mission but the mission is to change the mystery of Christ into something other than what the Apostle Paul taught.   Paul taught that before the foundation of the world God envisioned the Church.    The Church is all of mankind who have believed that Christ is the Son of God who has taken their deserved punishment upon Himself and paid the demand of the Law with His own life and shed Blood.   Some disagree that He died for a single people, the Church, and insist that His act was a continuation of God's relationship with His earthly people, Israel.   In their minds, the Gentiles are a secondary benefactor.    Paul says that there is one new man in Christ and there is no difference in Jew and Gentile.   Some are fighting that tooth and nail, so to speak.   They've lost the battle before they start because this was never God's plan.   God's plan is eternal and eternally He has sought after a single people with whom He has a relationship.   

The term "replacement theology" is thrown around a lot at this board.   That is a term manufactured by those who reject that there is no difference in Jew or Gentile.   A member here, who agrees with me, and whom I will leave nameless, believes that God's present covenant is with His Son.  A strong case may be made by that in the sense that we can come into a covenant relationship with God Almighty only through His Son, Jesus Christ.   God is no respecter of persons.   The racial heritage of a person has no bearing on who enters the family of God.   Instead of weeping and gnashing their teeth the Jews should be pleased that through Christ, who came through this "chosen" people, God has done what they were unable to do through their Law and Moses.   Instead they still seek a sign and still want notoriety for themselves when it is Christ Jesus whom they should be honoring and praising instead of their heritage.   >>>

Ulterior motive; I raised Paul’s credibility to support an argument and I don’t remember what it was now only that it was off topic but now Paul’s credibility is the topic. But this topic can be extended to discuss the possible consequences if Paul is a false prophet.

As a false prophet most of the time Paul will say right things such as Jesus is the Christ as though he was a genuine apostle and as prophesied by Christ; this doesn’t make Paul a false prophet yet if Paul didn’t say Jesus was the Christ then he couldn’t be a false prophet; so your argument about Paul preaching Christ doesn’t count.

Paul claims to have the gift of prophesy; he has invented this concept himself; a prophet is a mouth piece for God such that he can say, “The sovereign Lord has spoken”, whereas the gift of prophesy appears to be a skill.

In the process of going off topic you mention replacement theology. Replacement theology I believe  is when genetic Israel is replaced by Israel the church; but there is another replacement theology you never hear discussed is when the Law/covenant is abrogated at the cross and replaced by something else; fulfilling Daniel’s prophesy of changing Laws and times; I don’t know when this change took place but it was back dated to the cross. Abrogating the Law would be difficult justify without Paul’s epistles.

<<<< Because they are our fellow branches waiting to be grafted back into their own native tree alongside all of us. >>>>

This is definitely wrong, the new covenant went to the Jews first and continues to go to the Jews first today; each person Jew or otherwise has from his birth to his death to make himself right with God. There are two resurrections one to eternal life and one to damnation there is not a third resurrection giving Jews a second chance. The problem for Jews is Jesus is their stumbling block and according to Isaiah Jesus is then Law stretched tight. Paul hasn’t said what you are implying.

Romans 11:23 (KJV)
23  And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Paul is talking about in their own individual lifetime. 

[johnm]

<<<Since all scripture is God breathed...God is who gets to decide it.  Pauls words are scripture, God used him to be the vehicle through which He spoke...just like the prophets of the OT.>>>

Paul’s words are being disputed; you cannot use the disputed words to dispute the dispute. Of course all scripture is God breathed but God did not breathe Paul’s epistles and the only thing that can validate Paul is the two witnesses.

Jesus said to the disciples that he would not do anything unless He told them first; but Paul’s encounter with the angel of light came unannounced; that angel said, “I am Jesus”. Anyone who would believe that would believe in Santa Clause.  Jesus said that if He testifies of Himself only then His testimony is not true; only when His Father also testifies of Him is the testimony true. Paul needs the two witnesses Father and Son or else he is no different to Mohammad

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

1 Corinthians 13:2 (KJV)
2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Paul claims to have everything and has no need of the FATHER and then he is falsely modest.

Paul isn't claiming to have all these things right here.  This is a hypothetical he poses in the text.  Paul says, "even if you have X, Y & Z, and can do A, B, & C, without Love, you have failed."  The point here is to emphasize love, and to compare it to all those other things, and declare it to be superior to all of them.

So what the gift is of prophesy; is this where prophesy does not come directly from God but from men who understand all mysteries and does it require they do back somersaults?

Something like that.  The Bible in its various translations sometimes uses the same word for two things that are related but perhaps not exactly the same.  There are PROPHETS, and then there are prophets.

The former is a messenger of God, who receives supernatural revelation directly from the Almighty.  "The Word of the Lord came unto..." is present for these.  The Hebrew word is Nabiy or Nabu, behind the English text.  Sometimes they are called angels (Mal'ak) rather than prophets, although the other meaning of that word is most often understood.

The latter is someone whom God has gifted to perceive and decipher the signs and events in the world and heavens and figure out what's going to happen next.  This is the "gift of prophecy." Our society tends to call them "experts" or give them specific names tying them to their area of expertise, such as "meteorologist" or "financial planner."  In Hebrew they are Ra'ah (those who see - seers), although the other word (Nabiy) is also used.

In OT days, you might seek out such a person, probably living on a hill, where they engaged in the observation of the heavens, received the news along the circuit from ALL the adjacent towns, and practiced other forms of information-gathering, such as divination.  It would be common for a great king to employ some number of them.  They are occasionally called Magi or wise men, although that title belongs specifically to those wise-men employed by the king of Babylon, who are the most famous such practitioners in the Bronze Age.

1Sam 9:9 - Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.

Suppose Paul’s epistles were not in the Bible; what other NT verses could be used to justify abrogating the Law;

That's a big blanket statement from you, but I find that Paul is pretty technical on this subject.

First, Paul doesn't abrogate the Law for Jews who have already bound themselves to perform it. 

He does appear to call for new converts NOT to bind themselves to the Law, in the first place.  He then explains that The Way (Christianity) is tied into the converts' status within the covenant between God and Abraham, rather than the covenant between God and the tribes of Israel, which Moses witnessed and presided over.  Note that the whole message of the book of Hebrews (which is Paul-ish, if not conclusively Pauline), is that we have a better covenant, with a better mediator, and a better everything, generally.

What other authority besides Paul is there for abrogating the covenant because the Ten Commandments are the covenant in which not one dit or dot may be changed.

I don't see this happening.  Where exactly does Paul permit any breaking of the 10 commandments?
As I said above, Paul seems to advocate going back to an older way of doing things than the Mosaic Law.  The Noahide covenant is upheld as a standard for righteousness throughout Paul's books, and very specifically in Acts (written by Luke, who was clearly influenced heavily by Paul).  The covenant with Abraham is held up as THE seminal covenant, and re-interpreted to include all those who are spiritual children of Abraham, rather than simply the physical seed.  But this is not Paul's innovation - I can show you throughout the gospels where Jesus (and John) taught the same.

Jarrod

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Quick fact check:

Jews reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but they do acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But then again, so do Muslims.

Muslims do not acknowledge Isaac and Jacob.  They hold Ishmael to be the son of the covenant.

Jarrod

[johnm]

<<<What you are doing is very dangerous. Instead of realizing and accepting that 2 Peter 3:16 is true, you are starting from a premise that you are correct, and "explaining away" the clear meaning of Peter's words.  You are rejecting a HUGE amount of Scripture if you believe Paul was a false Apostle. I find it fascinating (that one could be so foolish), and also quite blasphemous that you would attempt to do that.>>>

I really don’t like being aggressive but it is four in the morning and I am getting irritable. What I am saying is for your benefit, I have no interest in hurting you. You have poor communication skills, poor debating skills and you wouldn’t know the truth if you fell over it.

Yes I start with the premise that I am correct; only an idiot would do otherwise. You obviously start with the premise that you are incorrect and I complement you on that.

It is only a couple of weeks since I heard a top notch evangelist say, “Paul wrote most of the NT”. Twenty five years ago a person who later became a Pastor told me that Paul wrote most of the NT; on that occasion I had in my pocket a pocket NT and the page edges were dirty from being handled but because I never read Paul Paul’s pages were white; so I held the NT and said, “see that thin white strip that is what Paul wrote”, which was probably about 1/6 of the NT.

You know that blasphemy is when God’s authority is usurped and this definition was established when Jesus said, “I am”, and the Pharisees cried Blasphemy.  The only people I known to have committed  blaspheme is Paul and the Popes.  The only place a man can lead you is into the ditch Paul is a man whom many worship; follow Jesus not Paul.