I have a question that I have to get of my mind now

[Talha777]

I don't think there is one teaching recorded in Paul's letters which is not also found somewhere else in the New Testament.

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, (Ephesians 2:13-15)

Of course, Jesus himself said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17)

How could Paul have missed this important teaching of Jesus? Oh right, Paul never met or heard Jesus.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by GraceSeeker
I don't think there is one teaching recorded in Paul's letters which is not also found somewhere else in the New Testament.

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, (Ephesians 2:13-15)

Of course, Jesus himself said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17)

How could Paul have missed this important teaching of Jesus? Oh right, Paul never met or heard Jesus.

Hebrews 10:1-18 contains similar teaching to what you underscored, as does James 2:8-13.


Now, in saying that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, it is not the same as saying that his sacrifice would not make surplant the Old Law. The Law still exists. The Law pointed out how God willed for us to live, in relation to him and in relation to each other. That is all still true. But Law doesn't have the value for us that some once perceived it to have. All the Law really accomplishes is to tell us just where we don't do a good job of living as God wills for us. It tells us where we fall short. Jesus in coming didn't change any of that. If you want to know where you fall short, look to the Law. But if you are already aware that you are a sinner and want to know how to get back to God, then the Law doesn't help you much. The way back to God is not through the Law, it is through Christ's offering. That is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians, and that is what Hebrews and James are talking about as well. Indeed it is this same message that lays behind Jesus' own teaching in John 7:25-58.

 

[Talha777]

Hebrews 10:1-18 contains similar teaching to what you underscored, as does James 2:8-13.

Now, in saying that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, it is not the same as saying that his sacrifice would not make surplant the Old Law. The Law still exists. The Law pointed out how God willed for us to live, in relation to him and in relation to each other. That is all still true. But Law doesn't have the value for us that some once perceived it to have. All the Law really accomplishes is to tell us just where we don't do a good job of living as God wills for us. It tells us where we fall short. Jesus in coming didn't change any of that. If you want to know where you fall short, look to the Law. But if you are already aware that you are a sinner and want to know how to get back to God, then the Law doesn't help you much. The way back to God is not through the Law, it is through Christ's offering. That is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians, and that is what Hebrews and James are talking about as well. Indeed it is this same message that lays behind Jesus' own teaching in John 7:25-58.

What you are saying completely contradicts what Jesus himself said according to your bible:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (matthew 5:18)

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (matthew 5:20)

Now read this passage from James's letter:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? as not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (james 2:14-26)

These verses from your bible clearly show that no one can be saved on faith alone (so much for the protestant reformation). in order to be saved, the new testament clearly says you have to obey the law intensely, be righteous not sin (which means not break a single law), to an extent that the Christian must be even more righteous than the pharisee with respect to obeying the law (matthew 5:20)

Paul, however, contradicted both James and Jesus on this fundamental principle of being saved by faith and deeds (Romans 3:28, galatians 2:16, etc.,)

Paul even went so far as to say that Jesus abolished even the rules and regulations of the law of moses!!! if this isn't a contradiction, than i don't know what is.

 

[A-Way-Of-Life]

I think I understand, I found this article about the origins of the "trinity" http://outstead.googlepages.com/ptc.htm Did paul really beileve in what he was claiming or did he claim the trinity just to have followers?

 

[Talha777]

Continuing on this note, let's see what John had to say:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known himDear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 john 3:4-10)

This is a radically different and fresh look at how some of the disciples, apostles, and authors of the new testament understood the concept of "redemption".

According to John, or the author of the First letter of John, sin is exclusively defined as breaking the law. Based on this, John writes that one who is saved is someone who does not sin. John writes that even if a person professes Jesus, and claims him as their saviour, etc., it does not matter. He writes: No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him So according to John, those who are truly saved by Jesus are the ones who don't sin, and are righteous. He writes that the way to identify the followers of Jesus is by judging their righteousness or lack of it. A righteous person is a true follower Jesus and is saved, whether he professes Jesus or not, according to John. Likewise, a follower of the devil is a sinner, whether he claims to be a Christian, believes in Jesus, etc., is irrelevant.

Furthermore, according to John, the reason Jesus appeared on Earth was to destroy the devil's work, by teaching against sin and teaching righteousness. In this light, Jesus is no different from any other of the Hebrew and Old Testament prophets who did the exact same thing!

in short, if you sin you have been expelled from the fold of christianity. Christianity, according to the new testament and in particular the author of 1 john is very similar to the kharijite heresy that appeared among Muslims

The epistle of James also identifies Paul as one of the false teachers:
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Free/ch13.pdf

 

[Grace Seeker]

What you are saying completely contradicts what Jesus himself said according to your bible:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Lawuntil everything is accomplished. (matthew 5:18)

Until every what is accomplished? What thing do you think that Jesus might possibly have been speaking of being accomplished that might be significant enough to change the nature of heaven and earth?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I think I understand, I found this article about the origins of the "trinity" http://outstead.googlepages.com/ptc.htm Did paul really beileve in what he was claiming or did he claim the trinity just to have followers?

Before you believe that Paul was the corrupter of Christianity and that he introduced paganism, take a moment to read the first half of Acts and compare the teaching of Peter and John there with what you have been told that Paul "invented". Peter and John talk much more about the concepts that influenced the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity than Paul ever did.