Curse of the Law

In the prefered book (your so called authentic boos) book of Galatians Paul writes: "For I through the law have died to the law that I might live to God." (Gal. 2:19) Paul speaks of his own personal experience here. In the realm of the resurrected, living and available Christ, Paul has "died to the law" .I submit that the phrases "died to the law" and "abolished the law in commandments and ordinances" basically the same thought. And this would make the "suspicioned" letter - Ephesians simple repeat the "prefered" letter Galatians. Whether he says for him Christ has abolished the law in His crucifixion or that Paul has died to the law through Christ's crucifixion the teaching is virtually the same.Furthermore, Paul, in the accepted unsuspicious Galatian epistle, explains how he scolded the senior apostle Peter for hypocrisy. Before some disciples came from James in Jerusalem, Peter ate with the Gentile believers (in violation to some ordinance, I assume). After these visiting brothers came from James Peter was embarressed to be caught disobeying the Jewish ordinance. He therefore withdrew from the Gentile believers.Paul called up on this hypocrisy. And Paul says "For if I build again the things which I have destroyed, I prove myself to bve a transgressor." (Gal. 2:18) What are the things which Paul or Peter have destroyed ?
The things destroyed are the binding Mosiac ordinances and probably the Oral Torah as well. In preaching the grace of Christ for salvation they "destroyed" the principle of justification through law keeping. Paul is saying that Peter's hypocrisy is building again those things which the Christian apostles "destroyed" .The Paul speaks for himself is he cannot speak completely for Peter - "For I through the law have died to the law that I might live to God."The dichotomy here is Live To God verses Living By the Law's Ordinances. Paul, as a representative believer in Jesus Christ, has died to the law for the express purpose that he might live to God.In the preferred book of Romans it is clear that Paul does not regard the law as evil in itself. It is holy and spiritual and good.
Now all things abolished in Christ are abolished because they are sinful. And not all things a Christian dies to he dies to because they are sinful.He dies to them because they are a distraction from Christ.
The entire letter of Galatians is about Paul trying to rescue the distracted believers in the Galatian churches back from law keeping to Christ living.Paul had died to the law. Paul was laboring to help the Galatians to realize that they too had died to the law, though it be spiritual and holy and good. "So then the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good." (Rom. 8:12) Purpledawn's list I will refer to the "prefered" letters of Paul. It really puzzles me why PD singles out this passage in such a way.
But some of the argument I have at least understood.The passage says that Christ is our peace - refering to Jewish and Gentile Christians - " For He Himself is our peace ..." Christ was certainly the peace between Peter and his six accompanying brothers and the seekers in the house of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Christ HIMSELF is the peace as He as the resurrected man breathed the Holy Spirit into the disciples in John 20 and said Peace be to you (John 20:19,21) "He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity .." In Acts 10 didn't Christ break down the middle wall of partition between the Jewish believers and the seeking Gentile believers? Of course He did or Peter would not have entered the house to preach to them.The question is what is Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14,15 which did not at least begin to occur, strongly, in Acts 10 ?The enmity which Paul says Christ broke down was broken down in the dream of Peter just before he entered Cornelius's house. I refer to the dream where God three times commanded Peter to rise and eat. And three times he protested that he never ate any unclean animals. God said that he had made them clean and he should no longer refer to them as unclean.This vision recorded in Acts 10:9-16. Please read those 8 verses. Obviously God was showing Peter the breaking down of the partition between Jews and Gentiles, symbolically portrayed by clean animals to eat verses unclean animals to eat.So what was Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14,15 which God had not already given the leading apostle Peter a clear indication of as to the divine intention?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

IF switching is his thought, any possible switching does not EXCLUDE the law of Moses.RcV - "For I through law have died to law that I might live to God." So you are saying that law THROUGH which Paul has died is not the same as law TO which he has died.You write below: So you believe that Paul died to the Code of Hammurabi through the Code of Hammurabi.But though Paul has died to the Code of Hammurabi Paul is still following the Torah.Does that make sense ?In Galatians 2:19 it makes far more sense that law THROUGH which Paul died is the same law TO which Paul died.
That has to be the law of Moses.I don't think it was "through" any OTHER law that Paul died to the law. Rather it was through the Law of Moses that Paul died TO the Law of Moses. All of the Levitical sacrifices were types and pointers to Christ. Therefore THROUGH the atonement of the antitype Christ, Paul died to the ordinances of the Torah.How anyone believe that it was through the Code of Hammurabi Paul died to law?Yet all the evidence is that he means through the Mosiac law he died to law.Paul writes also that Christ is the end of the law in the prefered book of Romans: "For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone who believes." (Rom. 10:4) "For Christ is the end of the law unto righeousness to eveyone who believes. (v.4)

​

For Moses writes concerning the righteousness which is out of the law, the man who does them shall live by them." (v.5) How could Christ be the end of the code of Hammurabi ?But Christ as the reality of all the typology of the Levitical sacrifices is the end of the law in that His atonement justifies man forever who come to God through Him. The believer is put in a righteous position before God as if he had never sinned.I do not believe Paul meant "through the law of the Hittites, I have died to the law of the Hittites."Nor do I believe Paul meant "through the law of the Assyrians, I have doed to the law of Moses."What makes most sense is "I through law [of Moses] have died to law of Moses". Paul followed the Spirit Who is Christ.In the book of Galatians it is a mistake to separate Christ from the Spirit.Concerning himself Paul says " ... it is Christ who lives in me ..." (Gal. 20) Concerning the Galatians he says "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you ... This only I wish to learn from you, Did you receive the Spirit out of the works of law or out of the hearing of faith ? (3:2) Paul's teaching was that Christ was the indwelling Holy Spirit and that Christians should "Walk by the Spirit" ( 5:16) To the extent that the Galatians walked more and more by the Spirit, Christ was formed in them. That is Christ was taking shape in them. "My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you." (Gal. 4:19) Learning to walk by the Spirit was learning to walk by and in Christ. And this way Christ whom they had already received, was being formed in them. I can go along with that.But the utterance given to the apostle is that Christ has abolished the law of the commandments in ordinances.In another post I demonstrated that Paul was accmodating toward "weaker" brethren who still clung to some of the dietary ordinances.Justification by law keeping was made obsolete through the redemption of Christ.Some were slow in realizing the new covenant of walking by the Spirit.And Paul said the saints should not judge one another but receive one another as Christ has received them. I don't know what this is suppose to mean.The issue in the house of Cornelius seems a matter of religion.But you believe whatever you want to believe. "Overall" may mean in the world. Paul is addressing the EKKLESIA, the church. He is not addressing the world that Jews and Gentiles will in the world be at peace with one another.The PEACE is in the church which is the one new man. That is a new humanity - a humanity with God in it.You are talking as if from the standpoint of being in the world.Where I meet there is the breaking down of the partition between Jewish and Gentile because we both as focused on Christ being all in all. What OUGHT to be and in many cases what WAS was not the same.We are talking about what the apostle taught.And not all of us have fallen into the degradation that you speak of.The problems in the churches in Galatia do not mean that there is no risen Christ and no Spirit of Christ to walk by.Rather some of the believers must overcome and rise to normalcy in Christ.So what Paul Johnson may have pointed out do not alter the truth of the Gospel.Nor will we dumb down the Gospel in order to accomodate for immature Christian living, much less worldly attitudes of unbelievers. And there is still tension between Jew and Gentile in the world.In the one new man we are learning to live in the new humanity of peace between Jewish believers and Gentile believers.We seek what is normal - "For as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

​

And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:17-19)The Christian should seek what OUGHT to be and rise to be an overcomer.A Christian should not dumb down the high revelation of God to accomodate for the world's degradation. So what in terms of what God has said ?
So what in terms of us following Christ ? "[YOU] ... follow Me" says Jesus.This tragedy does not make there no Christ, no Spirit, no one new man, no church, no new covenant and no ones who overcome.I do not make light of Jewish misfortune. But Israel and her covenant did not disappear because of the Babylonian Captivity. And whatever world history dealt the Jews it does not mean the disappearance of the New Testament. Predictions of the degradation of the church were found in both Peter's and Paul's epistles.As well, Jesus predicted apostasy.These things do not destroy the truth. They call some to overcome.Just as Elijah complained that he was the ONLY one left faithful to God, God told him that He had 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal.God reserves for Himself in every age those who overcome and rise to a level of the normal.And the church of Christ is glorious. Some of us Christians are overjoyed to be a part of her - Jew and non-Jew.Most of what you are writing here is subtle accusation against the Christian church.Maybe it is not so subtle.But though they try, the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church which Christ builds. I am considering the whole Bible - the plenary revelation of the Scripture as a whole.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn wrote: What Paul told us: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I only have time this morning to read this far and respond this far.I agree that justification to eternal life and practical regulation for daily ethics are not distinct.But Paul is writing that though there is some benefit to some regulation through law keeping it cannot help in the building up of the church. So his full attention is to walking by the Spirit and living in union with the indwelling Christ.It is a shame that you discard as suspicious certain letters of Paul because those very letters could be effectivly used to establish your own point.For example, the way Paul speaks of the law in First Timothy that it can be used "lawfully." "But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully and know this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly ..." (1 Tim. 1:8,9) Aha! The law of Moses is GOOD! And the law of Moses should be used lawfully. This is similar of course, to Paul saying in Romans 7:12 - "So then the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good." Now, aside from eternal justification, and pertaining to the daily walk that establishes a life useful for building up the church, it is still not law keeping but walking by the indwelling Holy Spirit - "But this I say, Walk by the Spirit and you shall by no means fulfill the lust of the flesh." (Gal. 5:16) This is not "Be JUSTIFIED forever by the Spirit". This is not a exhortation about how to be justified before God for eternal redemption. This is an exhortation about the daily WALK for the healthy church life.Step by step the believers must learn to WALK by the Spirit. The law of Moses is holy and spiritual and the commandment is good. And the law must be used lawfully. But the Christians in the churches in Galatia must learn to "Walk by the Spirit ..."Now, in your "suspicioned" letter of Colossians Paul speaks of ordinances as INEFFECTIVE in terms of God's economy. Right here:I am tempted to use CAPS as if shouting. But I am trusting that you get the point here: "If you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, WHY, as living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances:

​

Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch, ( Regarding things which are all to perish when used) according to the comandments and teachings of men ?

​

Such things indeed have a reputation of wisdom in self-imposed worship and lowliness and severe treatment of the body, but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:20-23) Ordinances have reputations. Laws such as, do not handle, touch, taste have a reputation of wisdom. But they are not effective for the level of rightoeusness that the normal church life needs for its building up.There is really no argument here. You can say "Well, we don't believe that Colossians is an authentic letter from Paul." Your problem and not mine. And I will probably come back to Colossians for other's sake.So we find pretty much the same concept in your "preferred" letter of Galatians. "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit." (Gal. 5:15) IE. If you were born again by the Spirit let us continue to WALK daily by the same Spirit.IE. If you were justified forever by the Spirit then let us continue WALK step by step in our daily lives by the same Spirit.The exact same thought is expressed in 3:2 - "This only I wish to learn from you, Did you receive the Spirit out of the works of law or out of the hearing of faith?

​

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (3:2) Without contraversy, those JUSTIFIED forever are perfect in position before God. God looks upon them and sees His Son Jesus Christ as their righteousness. But being forgiven is not an end in itself in the new covenant.To be "perfected" they must go on by the means of the same Spirit by which they were regenerated. "Having BEGUN by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?"The flesh being utilized to achieve Christian "perfection" in this context is Law Keeping - Moses style. Keeping the Law of Moses was not the way they were born again or redeemed or justified. And keeping the Law of Moses is NEITHER the way the disciples will be "perfected" .To attempt to be perfected in the flesh by fleshly adherence even to the GOOD law of Moses, was for the Galatian Christians to be "bewitched". "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, ... ?" (Gal. 3:1) Your other comments I will have to consider latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I agree that codes, laws, rules of vartious kinds are good to regulate people somewhat or a group of people.However, the church cannot be built up by any living except the living of walking by the Holy Spirit.Laws may regulate the outward action. But it is only the inward ruling of the Spirit of Christ which touches first the inner motive. You act because that is really now what you ARE. This is not a performance. This is Christ Himself living in you.Take this thought and compare it to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew. "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman to lust after her has already commmited adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27,28) Yes, the Torah commanded "You shall not commit adultery". And I am sure that other cultures had a similar law in some instances. But when the Son of God comes He makes His command more penetrating. It is not just the outward ACT of adultery God is concerned with. It is more so the inner motive which invisible to the world LED to the adultery to begin with - the hidden innermost lust in the imagination.Do you understand ? Christ made the moral law more penetrating, more subjective, more radical piercing beyond just the act and touching the inclination.This is a law changing what one IS. And it requires the Christ Himself in His divinely perfected humanity be made available to fuse with, blend with, mingle with the disciple.To touch now beyond the action and transform the imagination, the inclination, the leaning of the heart He must come and abide within His followers: "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) The Triune God - the Father and the Son as the mysterious divine "WE" will come INTO the lover of Jesus and make an abode with him.But HOW can the Father and the Son as the divine "WE" make an abode in the lover of Jesus ? The apostle Paul helps us to understand in his great chapter on resurrection - First Corinthians 15:45 " ... the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) As "life giving Spirit" Jesus with Whom is the Father, is in a form in which He can be imparted into man. He, in His resurrection state, can be dispensed into man, uniting with man's innermost being. He can literally make an abode with the believers.In this way, Christ Himself as the resurrected and living Person fuses and blends with the believer to be in her a law of His own life. "When Christ our life is manifested, then you also will be manifested with Him in glory." (Col. 3:4)

​

"For to me, to live is Christ ..." (Phil. 1:21)

​

Jesus - "Because I live [in resurrection] you also shall live." (John 14:19) Regulartion of an outward rule is inneffective. The believer needs Jesus Christ as her life. That is Jesus Christ as "life giving Spirit" GIVES Jesus to be our life.That is Jesus, in resurrection, in a form in which He is available is COMPOUNDED into man's life.Is this an instantaneous matter? No. It is a matter of gradual growth and transformation AFTER one has received Jesus Christ in His pneumatic form for being born again. I repeat your comment for emphasis.For a "good society" people can benefit by regulations. Religious regulations can be a pain. But they also can be a help at times to prevent society from sliding morally downhill completely.But Christ and His faithful apostles tought the need beyond regulations. Another life is needed. A perfect life that can be compounded with our life. This Jesus came to do and CAN do.Now, previously we discussed much from Romans and Ephesians. Paul died with Christ. Paul was raised with Christ. The old man is crucified with Christ. Through Christ the believer can put to death the practices of the body. The believers can be discharged from the law or from law. The believer can be died to the law, etc. etc. etc.Now I say that none of this can be possible if Christ is not raised from the dead.If Christ is not raised from the dead - we cannot be "crucified with Him." If Christ is not raised from the dead, we cannot be buried with Him. If no resurrection of Jesus, there is no death to the law, a law, law, etc. or any way you prefer to say it.If no resurrection of Christ there is not IDENTIFICATION with Christ in any way that could practically benefit us.The death of Christ which also kills off the germs in us - is IN the Spirit of the resurrected Christ.The co- crucifixion with Christ is IN the Holy Spirit who is given to those who believe the Lord Jesus has been raised.The co-burial, co-ascension, co-reigning, co-victory, co-overcoming, co-righteousness, co-glorification is only available to us in the resurrected Christ.If Christ is dead, buried, and gone then the Christian faith is TOTALLY, I say TOTALLY vain and a pitiful vanity.The rich contents of what Christ has done and obtained are available to us as "the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" - [color=ornage] "For I know that for me this will turn out to salvation though your petition and the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:19) The ingredients of the Spirit of Jesus Christ contains all the effective work that He has done. Paul needs the prayers of his fellow believers, for sure. But Paul needs the rich and bountiful supply that is the ingredients of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) You must understand "life giving Spirit" in this way:Life giving is God giving.
Life giving is Redemption giving.
Life giving is Death to the law - giving.
Life giving is co-death with Jesus - giving.Life giving is Jesus giving.
Life giving is "new creation" giving.
Life giving is "absoluteness to God" - giving.Life giving is oneness giving, consecration giving, even faith giving.
Life giving is endurance giving, divine love giving, brotherly love giving.Life giving is transformation giving, sanctification giving, conformation giving.Life giving Spirit means the man Jesus is made available to be GIVEN into man's very being. This is supernatural. This is beyond "religion." This is beyong any invention of human philosophical imagination.This is the Son and the Father as "life giving Spirit" coming to impart the divine "WE" (John 14:23) into man's being.This is not giving a regulation. This is giving God Himself, the Regulator into man's being. And it is accomplished through man's faith plus the faithfulness of Christ.Life giving Spirit is the giving of Christ in response to this: "That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith." (Eph. 3:17) By faith we can actually take the resurrected, living and available Jesus as our own life. We exercise faith to gradually let Him become everything to us. And God is FAITHFUL and to dispense Christ into every chamber of our hearts.Some may say all this is not the point. They might say that this is not the topic. But it is quite related.qs That doesn't mean that these laws or rules are not necessary to regulate a group's behavior. [/qs]For the fulfilling of God's purpose, God must dispense the resurrected and living Christ in His available form as "life giving Spirit" into our hearts - into ALL of our hearts.Yes, some religious regulation may help us to have a better society.But for the building up of the organic house of God, the habitation of God in spirit, some who are "called out" must be grounded and rooted in the resurrected living Jesus. They must be rooted - to draw up all the nutients as a plant. And they must be grounded - to be built up as a living building. And they must go from forgiveness, through dispensing, to being filled unto the fullness of God. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have exactly the same feeling about your posts.I am interested in the word of God.
If your theology refects that, I am certainly interested in what you have to write.But if it doesn't, that's another story.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Richh's post on the Wuest word study of "abolished" addressed that issue very well.I don't think you are really interested in Paul's theology.
That is why you have to exclude a large portion of what he wrote under a suspicious rational.You're interested in the "Paul" of your concoction.
And I think you are interested in that because you are interested in the "Jesus" of your concoction.

Show me where I wrote that Paul taught law or commands were totally not operative in regulating behavior.I have explained something of how it is walking by the Spirit of Christ / by the divine nature which alone can build up the Body of Christ. And that was Paul's chief concern.You are asking me to defend a position which I have not espoused.
If I am wrong then I expect you to quote me where I have been arguing from ANY prefered or suspicioned epistle of Paul that law of this or that kind is of no use to regulate in some sense human behavior.Quote me. Something like - "Paul taught that no laws can regulate behavior."I did quote Colossians 2 that "Such things have a reputation of wisdom in self-imposed worship and lowliness and severe treatment of the body, but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The point of law in Ephesians 2 is that it erected a barrier between Jews and Gentiles preventing them from being one.Christ has broken down that middle wall of enmity that God may fulfill His purpose of bringing into being one new man.So He abolished that law of commandments in ordinances. Richh pointed out that this was not to destroy but to render inoperative. Law is inoperative in eternal redemption AND in building up the one new man because the one new man is the old man who has received in addition now - the divine nature of God in Christ. Do you mean Paul talking about marriage in Ephesians ?If so then this seems self contradictory of you. First you say you are so sure Paul did NOT write the book of Ephesisans. Now it is useful for you to say Paul DID write the book of Ephesians when he is talking about marriage in chapter 5.If you mean Paul speaking of marriage in Romans, you previously made issue that Romans was written to Gentiles.(I could have you mixed up with Jazzns, but I think not here).Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Explain to your audience why Paul did not participate in having Titus circumcised.Why, when he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabus and Titus, did NOT the elder apostles insist that Titus the Greek be circumcised ?
(Gal. 2:1-3) In Galatians he says he did not submit to false brothers (counterfeit Chistian disciples) for one hour - "who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into slavery." (Gal. 2:4) What "freedom" is Paul speaking of ?What was the "slavery" he was saying the false brothers were trying to bring the disciples into?What does Paul mean by "freedom in Christ Jesus"?Paul says that he and Titus (a fellow apostle of Greek descent) did not subject themselves to these false brothers for one hour - "that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." What was the "truth of the gospel" which Paul wanted to "remain" with the believers ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : I forgot the word "NOT".Edited by jaywill, : Forgot the word "might".

The writing of "Timothy" was a typo on my part. I meant Titus and corrected it. The question was concerning what is written in Galatians about his trip to Jerusalem, that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. And Paul did not have Titus circumcised. Galatians you list in your so-called "authentic" letters of Paul.
Supposedly you trust that the Galatians then authentically represents the apostle Paul's thought, teaching, and actions.You make a case that Paul still sought to practice the Law of Moses because no such Law was abolished as in your so-called "un-authentic" Ephesian letter says in Eph. 2:14,15.But circumcision was a major pillar of the Mosiac law. And how did the senior apostles Peter, James, and John plus Paul and Barnabus think of having the Greek co-worker of Paul circumcised ?

quote:

---

"Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabus, taking Titus with me also.

​

And I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the gospel which I proclaimed among the Gentiles, but privately to those who who were of repute, lest perhaps I should be running, or had run, in vain.

​

But not even Titus, who was with me, though he is a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised;

​

And this because of false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into slavery.

​

To them we yielded with the subjection demanded not even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." (Galatians 2:1-5)

---

===============================
1.) Paul in Jerusalem had private meetings and more open encounters.2.) In his private meetings with the "founding" apostles there was no demand that the Greek Titus should be circumcised according to the Law of Moses. And Paul did not have Titus circumcised.This contradicts your belief that Paul still was interested in keeping the Law of Moses in his new covenant preaching.3.) In the more open encounters "false brothers" who were imposters of Gospel preachers, tried to bring Paul and Barnabus under their kind of authority and insist that the Greek believer Titus be circumcised.Paul and Barnabus did not submit themselves to these counterfeit gospel preachers for even one hour. They did NOT follow them to practice the Law of Moses and have Titus circumcised.4.) The refusal of Paul and Barnabus to circumcise Titus was for the purpose "that the TRUTH of the gospel might remain" among the Christians under Paul's ministry.5.) Paul speaks of the demand to practice the old covenant circumcision as bringing them into "bondage". He says that the false Christian brothers secretly came in to spy out just how much "freedom" from their legal bondage was being enjoyed by the apostles Paul, Barnabus and Titus.
================================All of these facts argue against your theory that the "authentic" Pauline thought was to continue to practice the Law of Moses, regardless of how it was not effective for Justification for salvation. Because Paul practiced to be all things towards all that he might gain some, I can see Paul doing this.His view here was ONLY what will facilitate more opportunity to preach the gospel of Christ. Rightly or wrongly, sometimes Paul used some wisdom as to how to approach unbelievers in order that he might gain some. First Corinthains 9:19 - That in preaching the gospel I may present the gospel ... For though I am free from all, I have enslaved myself to all that I might gain the more.

​

And to the Jews I became as a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under the law, as under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law.

​

To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law.

​

To the weak I became weak that I might gain the weak. To all men I have become all things that I might by all means save some.

​

And I do all things for the sake of the gospel that I may become a fellow partaker of it." Paul went out to preach the gospel just as Jesus instructed His twelve disciples. He told them to be as innocent as doves but as wise as serpents.Paul's only consideration was what would be most effective in gaining new believers. So he had Timothy circumcised in a hope that that would facilitate his preaching among the Jews at a certain place.In the case of Titus he refused to pervert the truth of the gospel.
He would not preach that the believers should now come under the bondage of the Law of Moses POST salvation, POST justification. Titus the Greek co-worker would remain uncircumcised. Paul would not appease those false Christian teachers who wanted to bring the churches under Mosiac Law bondage.Corinthians is also listed under your "authentic" letters of Paul. And to the Jews I became as a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under the law, as under law (though I myself am not under law), that I might gain those under law.

​

To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law.

​

To the weak I became weak that I might gain the weak. To all men I have become all things that I might by all means save some. This is not correct. The false brothers, the counterfeit gospel preachers tried to bring Paul and Barnabus under subjection to OBEY the law of the Old Testament that this Greek prosylyte (as they saw him) be circumcised. This was in accordance to the demand of some of the Pharisees who became believers in Jesus:

quote:

---

"And certain men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) ''

​

"But certain men from the sect of the Pharisees who had believed rose up from among them, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)

---

Circumcision as "the custom of Moses" we read about firstly in Genes 17:11, commanded by God to Abraham and his household of fellow Hebrews. We see it commanded by God in Exodus 12:44,48. I can go along with this in principle. But neither were the Jews required to take the full mantle of Judaism but to believe into Christ and walk by the Spirit of Christ.The Scriptures were good to feed thier spirit, sensatize their Christian consciences. All Scriptures is as the breath of God. But this taking in of the the Scripture was not coming under the bondage of law keeping.So the Christian today still benefits as then from the Old Testament Scriptures, not to mention even more so the New Testament Scriptures.I stop here. Your theory that aside from Justification by Faith Christians then (Jew or Gentile) and Christians now should understand that the Apostle Paul come under the bondage of the law keeping of Moses in ANY regard.And as I pointed out in the other thread effectively whether you received it or not, abolishing of the law of the commandments and ordinances did not mean making "anti law laws" forbidding the weaker ones among the Christians to still feel they had to do some laws.Paul did not forbid them to do some laws in ordinances. He ministered to enlighten them that they were both free and also had a more effective way to live righteously - walk by the Spirit of the indwelling Christ. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I read the article. Some comment is below.

quote:

---

What Paul did not teach was the man-made laws of the Rabbi’s of his day.

​

He did not teach people to offer animal sacrifices outside of the Temple, in fact, he offered animal sacrifices himself at the Temple 30 years after Yeshua (Acts 21.17-26).

---

Paul may have been an apostle of Christ. But he was human like Peter. And he had to GROW into maturity like any other normal Christian.Paul was strongly persuaded by James to revert back to Judiastic ritual in order to appease the thousands of Jewish followers of Jesus believers not clear about the transition from the old covenent to the new.James and some others said to Paul " ... You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. And they have been informed concerning you that you are teaching all the Jews throughout the nations apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs.

​

What then is to be done? THEREFORE DO THIS THAT WE TELL YOU: ..." (My Emphasis Acts 21:17-23) Paul had a reputation that he was an apostate from Moses. To neutralize the negative rumors they leaned upon him to act like a law keeping total devotee of Moses. Paul capitulated to their advice.The interpretation I find most reasonable is that the entire facade blew up in Paul's face. The scheme totally backfired. And I believe Paul learned a big lesson as a result. What God had shown him by revelation was not to be adjusted upon the well meaning advice of James and other men in Jerusalem.So the reasoning that Acts 21:17-23 proves Paul faithfully practicing Mosaic law keeping out of his own voluntary piety is only superficially accurate. In truth he was taking some bad advice which God did not honor nor allow to misrepresent the truth of the gospel.This was trying to put new wine into old wineskins as Jesus taught Luke 5:36-39 "And He also spoke a parable to them: No one tears a parch from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise, he will tear the new garment, and also the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the new wine will burst the wineskins, and it will be poured out and the wineskins will be ruined; But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins." I submit that this was an ill advized scheme from James to pour the new wine of the new covenant into old wineskins of the Mosiac law.Paul went along with it. He was human. He could make mistakes.The footnote of the Recovery Version New Testament says concerning this incident:

quote:

---

" The mixing of Judaic practices with God's New Testament economy was not only erroneous in relation to God's dispensation but also abominable in the eyes of God. This gross mixture was terminated by Him a mere ten years or so later with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the center of Judiasm, through Titus and his Roman army. This rescued and absolutely separated the church from the devastation of Judaism.

​

God might have tolerated Paul's carrying out of a private vow in 18:18, but He would not allow Paul, a vessel chosen by Him not only for the completing of His New Testament revelation (Col. 1:25) but also for the carrying out of His New Testament economy (Eph. 3:2,7-8), to participate in the Nazarite vow, a strict Judaic practice. In going to Jerusalem, Paul's intention might have been to clear up the Judaic influence on the church there ..., but God knew that the church there was incurable. Hence, in His sovereignty God allowed Paul to be arrested by the Jews and imprisoned by the Romans that he might write his last eight Epistles ... which completed the divine revelation (Col. 1:25) and gave the church a clearer and deeper view concerning God's New Testament economy (Eph. 3:3-4). Thus, God left the Judaism-influenced church in Jerusalem to remain as it was until the devastating mixture was terminated with the destruction of Jerusalem. For Paul to write his last eight Epistles to complete God's New Testament revelation was far more important and necessary than for him to accomplish some outward works for the church."

---

In the incident in Acts 21, I do see some process of Paul growing spiritually and in realization and also some human weakness.But I also see God's sovereignty and the positive outcome of the lesson that Paul learned and his subsequent clarity in understanding of the New Testament economy.We should also remember the prophecy of Jesus Christ towards the religionists who opposed Him in the name of Moses - " Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation producing its fruit ... And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking concerning them." (Matt. 21:43,45) .The nation is the "one new man" of the Christian church. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It puts him in the light of being human. Our eyes should be on the Perfect One Jesus.It puts Paul in not much worse light then the Scripture put Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or Peter or John and James. They too were men of God but human and prone to human error.I have mentioned Paul quite a lot in these threads. But we Christians do not worship Paul. We worship the Son of God as the perfect Man. I think he thought it was a good idea.
Abraham thought it was a good idea to try to have a son through Hagar the servant rather than Sarah his wife. It caused some trouble. We still regard Abraham and Sarah as exemplary patriarchs of God.As for Paul learning from the blow up ? I think the epistles he wrote speak for themselves in that regard. I have no problem of "authentic" verses "forgeries" in that department. And as I said before, Paul did not establish anti- Moses laws. The flexibility of the Apostle Paul seems to elude you.In the case with Titus, he was firm.
In the case of Timothy, he evidently did what he thought expedient for the furtherance of his gospel preaching in that area. The footnote mentioned that he did have that private vow.I think hunting for absolutism can be misleading.
Afterall, Life is a matter always of growth, development, and maturation.The weight of teaching of Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, and other epistles evidence his overall thought. I keep pointing it out because some people seem to have a myopic view of the matter.Paul wrote "be renewed in the spirit of your mind". Should we assume that he himself did not go through any process of renewing ?In the course of his on transformation we see him do different things. I don't follow the "authentic" verses "forgeries" scheme you follow.
And even in the Old Testament we are given some heads up that God at times was sick of the rituals when they were a facade to righteous living.It is not absolutely new that a servant of God exposed also the emptiness of religious rituals. And that even though they had been commanded by God.On one hand Paul was not that radical. In some of the OT prophets you see God's disgust with empty ritual.See Isaiah 66: "But to this kind of man will I look, to him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word.

​

He who kills an ox is like him who slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dog's neck;
He who offers a meal offering is like him who offers the blood of swine;
He who burns incense is like him who blesses an idol.

​

As surely as they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations; Just as surely Iwill choose twhat will trat them ill ..." (Isa. 66:2b-4a) God did not have to wait for the apostle Paul to speak His displeasure with some hypocritical ritual right out of the Mosiac law. But because Jesus and His followers represented the new wine and the disciples of John the Baptist the old, the parallel is appropriate latter as well.I was not interpreting the parable. I was applying the truth of the parable.James was a very spiritual man. But he still had one foot in the Old Testament law keeping.I think it is significant that God used Paul to author some 13 of the 27 New Testament books and James just 1.Historically it is crucial to see the transition. And James is important to that. He was the flesh brother of Jesus. It is very typical, and we would have done the same thing probably, to assume that the brother of Jesus should be elevated to take the new community on.This is quite understandable that the brother of Jesus was highly regarded as to his opinion. Paul was clearer about the nature of the new covenant revelation.But on the way, he also came under the enfluence of this highly regarded Christian leader - James. It actually is all very realistic as Luke the author of Acts tells us.The candidness, the frankness of the account of Acts suggests to me the truthfulness of it. Again, I was applying the principle of the parable more than interpreting it.In the case of verse 39, which you say messes up the application, I would regard the parallel to be that huge numbers of Jewish followers of Jesus failed to fully come forth into the new covenant way.Indeed to them the old wine was good enough. The important things is was it good enough for God's purpose ? No, it was not. And by application we can see why Paul was getting a bad reputation. And we can see that even the followers of Jesus by the thousands were still stuck in the old way.It is all very realistic. The transition from the old covenant into the new covenant was not easy for them.Take the example of God's instruction for them to go into all the world to preach the gospel. They would have probably remained forever in Jerusalem in disobedience unless God had allowed persecution to rise up and scatter them.Being scattered by sever persecution, they had no choice but to spread the Gospel where they went.So the distance between what believers are satisfied with and what God wants is often seen in the Bible. Many times the people of God were happy to remain just where they were. Their need was met. But was God's need met ?So the multitudes under James in Jerusalem were happy to have a mixture of the old covenant and the new. To a much lesser extent Paul was still wanting to utilize a private vow.So then. They were all in transition. And one of them, Paul, has authored some 13 or so books of the 27 books of the New Testament. To the degree that he was practicing a private vow from the Levitical instructions and was persuaded by James to act like a Torah observer, I agree.The same man wrote that Christ on the cross abolished the law of commandments in ordinances in order to create in Himself one new man so making peace.I don't think someone else came up with that. I believe the apostle Paul spoke that and that by revelation from God.In Romans he teaches that the disciples must utilize the Spirit to put to death the practices of the body. This is effective. And the just requirement of the law for daily righteous living is fulfilled in those believers, provided that they learn to walk by the Spirit indwelling their human spirit.Paul realized that this realm needed to be STRENGTHENED. That this realm should be made strong, consistent through practice, was what he taught in Ephesians. IE. the believers must log more time in the realm of union with Christ in their innerman - "That He would grant you ... to be strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man ..." (Eph. 3:16) They should not visit that realm. They should not occasionally be in that sphere. They should be strengthened to live continuously in the realm. Abiding in Christ where His death and resurrection could practically be applied to their soul.This was truly the new wine. And the wine skin was the normal new covenant church which Paul labored to establish in city after city.

So we speak of reality now.Is Christ risen from the dead part of your reality ?Is Christ being God incarnate, died, and resurrected from the dead reality ?A Yes or a No will let me know where you stand in your take on what is "reality". There is opposition from me because your preference list seems to be elaborately tailored to present some very dubious views what the apostles present.At best you had a little tempest in a teapot trying to erect a large theological invention based pretty much solely on your suspicion of two verses - Ephesians 2:14,15.The gymnatistic you present on these two verses to try to insist the mind behind them is different from the mind behind Romans, First Corinthians, and Galatians is not convincing to this Bible reader.In my case it has had an opposite effect. It leads me to believe that certainly the Spirit was speaking through Paul in all of the 13 some epistles attributed to him. The matter of "current religion" aside for the moment. The ideas in the writing itself you present are not convincing to me.If we wanted to discuss levels and depths of apostasy or abnormality of much of the Christiandom of today, I have no problem in a realistic evaluation.I might add that "current religion" ALSO consists of people attempting (like in older days) to preach "another Jesus". For example "another Jesus" in which, somehow, whether He rose or not is to be evaded rather than proclaimed.If Christ is not risen there is no "one new man".
If Christ is not risen there is no Body of Christ and no "abiding" in the true vine.If Christ is not God incarnate, died for our redemption, and resurrected there is no church. Some teachers seem to be constantly hijacking the New Testament to present their "dead and gone" unavailable Jesus of their Humanism. Paul's pioneering vision at its root, is not easy. It is quite challenging. It is quite faithful to the teaching of the Lord who sent him to be an apostle.If anyone thinks Romans, or Galatians, or First Corinthians is somehow an easy route, I question whether they have really comprehended what is there.Some people's book of Romans ends somewhere around chapter 5.
Some other people notice this and blame Paul for the deficiency.I think you are something like this. Personally, I think you look at Christiandom, notice that much mainstream Christianity seems to only have five chapters of the book of Romans. And your solution to the problem is perhaps to complain that Paul didn't write Ephesians!I am not sure how it works for you. But in some way you seem to think chopping books away from the apostle Paul as forgeries is some kind of remedy for believers.Me, I say we do not need to take Ephesians less seriously. We need to take Ephesians more seriously. Your way of suspicioning Christians that Ephesians is forgery and apochryphal sows the seeds of no confidence in an important book in the canon.Of course that is no accident. You need to do that to establish "another Jesus". I think that is what has been going on with you since I met you years ago on this board.I have heard you deny being "made alive" and pretty much cast doubts upon being born of the Spirit (born anew). It is only natural that accompanying these errors would be an attempt to believe large portions of the New Testament should be treated as apochryphal. And you have presented rules about what to call "authentic" and what to dismiss as forgeries.It is funny how it really takes one to know one. Sounds good. But I don't accept the decoded underlying intent of "Just take as much of the New Testament as is handy to establish another Jesus. And don't trust the rest."And haven't you heard Psalm 56:10 - "In God whose word I praise, In Jehovah whose word I praise ..." ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Then why do you write about what you believe about this or that matter touching Paul ?Unless you are infallible just about everything you have expressed concerns what you believe. It is only not about what you believe when you are are asked certain questions to see if you really understand what the New Testament is saying before you go off informing everyone as to what it means.I have not read the rest of your post yet. But this much does not surprise me. Just when I thought I have been way too hard on you, I have to honestly say your evasion appears as cowardice.Are you trying to hide something ?
Do you think your opinions may be better received if you conceal certain rather crucial aspects of the NT teaching ?