...the one hearing the word and getting the sense of it .... really does bear fruit

[carib-jim]

Matthew 13:23- As for the one sown upon the fine soil, this is the one hearing the word and getting the sense of it, who really does bear fruit and produces, this one a hundredfold, that one sixty, the other thirty.

Stepping back and taking a broad expansive view of the bible has been invaluable to helping to discern the meaning of various scripture. Doing so helps to follow Jesus encouragement to his disciples, to seek to get the sense of these things so as to be productive and useful. Take for example to issue of apostasy. When I first took note of the way this term was used the in the Kingdom Halls and in the publications it sent chills down my spine, and raised the hair on my neck. An apostate seemed to be right up there with Satan. The worst of the worst. And if one wanted an example of an apostate one needs look no further than Judas Iscariot.
Therefore like any good witness I was determined to make sure that in no way what so ever would I ever come near to anything remotely resembling apostasy(2 Corinthians 6:17). Now look at me today. Just asking to be labeled an apostate. Interesting thing though is that when I began this journey of personal responsibility and began to question the things I was persuaded to believe; [even though I was somewhat afraid of what I was doing, fearing that by questioning the teachings of the WTBTS I was rejecting Jehovah's arrangement, I was non-the-less driven by an intense desire, a burning hunger for sensible answers to the nagging questions that I had], I never felt that I hated Jehovah or more importantly that he was displeased by what I was doing. Rather quite that opposite happened. I sensed that I was being nudged, even pushed in certain directions by what I considered to be Jehovah's spirit. No I didn't hear voices, and things didn't miraculously appear in odd places. Rather it was like a gut feeling that kept nagging at me to look in areas that I was quite frankly loath to try.
This was particularly true of the Internet. I had come to believe that the Internet was Satan's newest weapon to ensnare the foolish witness, a lurking place of demons, apostates and opposers. No doubt the Internet can readily put persons in touch with such influences if that is what they are partial to, but such fears though well founded should not cause one to cower in fear and become insular. The Internet has actually proven to be an invaluable resource. In a very short period of time I became aware of Perimeno, e-watchman, Timothy Kline and others. These have helped me to cover much ground very quickly, which has caused my to reflect, if these persons have such insights into the correct meanings of the scriptures, who really then is an apostate? This is what I've discerned.
An apostate is a spirit anointed Christian that has rebelled against Jehovah. An apostate is not just anybody who may know what Jehovah requires of him and is disobedient or even actively resisting Jehovah's purposes, rather the critical factor is being adopted into Jehovah's spiritual family, having been chosen for life in heavens. Its really important that one understands this principle because without this understanding certain scriptures will not make sense or more likely, they will be misunderstood and misapplied.
An good example of this is Jesus' words at Matt 25:31-46. Because of not understanding and appreciating that the Greek Scriptures are addressed to the Israel of God, and that only spirit anointed persons can be wicked in Jehovah's eyes, this passage is incorrectly applied to all but the ones its intended for.
Scriptures such as:
Luke 12:48-because of having been given so much;
Hebrews 11:1-because of having received the assured expectation of the things hoped for;
2 Corinthians 1:21-22- by means of the token;
Romans 8:26-the spirit that groans within;
Romans 8:14-17- adopted as God's children;
Philippians 3:20-21-whose citizenship is in heaven;
Ephesians 4:30- are the ones that can grieve the spirit;
Hebrews 10:26-29-till there are no more sacrifices left,
Hebrews 6:4-6- Christ exposed to shame
make the point that these ones are members of the spirit realm even while in the flesh and that more is expected of persons that receive the anointing of God's Holy Spirit because so much more has been given these ones. However Jehovah continues to be mindful of the fact that they are still flesh and is ever patient with these ones (Psalm 103:14-14; 2Peter 3:9).
We can look at this from another aspect. The original rebellion was a heavenly or spiritual rebellion, that is it was of the spirit realm. Satan being the spirit being that instigated the first and only rebellion against Jehovah, one that has been ongoing since the event in the garden makes this rebellion a heavenly rebellion. Satan is the original apostate, later being joined by other angels that aid him in his fight to thwart Jehovah's purposes and overthrow Jehovah's rule. Because spirit anointed humans are members of the spirit realm they are subject to the judgment of spirit beings and are to be judged at the end of the system of things.
With this in mind we can then see the judgment process even clearer. The first to be judged was Satan and his ruler-ship. These were judged at Jesus' resurrection and found guilty of shedding the blood of the only righteous person on earth. Jesus' shed blood cries out for justice but there is no way to satisfy the debt, no ransom can be paid so Satan and his demons are awaiting their death sentence(Hebrews 12:24;Psalm 49:7-8). Next to be judged, at the end of the system of things to see whose side its members chose, is the spirit anointed congregation. Those not found on Jehovah's side are considered wicked and subject to destruction (Matthew 12:30; Isaiah 26:10). Thus, it is rebellious spirit anointed Christians that are the goats of Matt 25.
The world of humankind is lastly judged at the end of the thousand year reign. Having come to appreciate this principle then can help us to understand what will happen to the billions of persons on earth during Armageddon who have not qualified for salvation. Because Jehovah views these as unrighteous and not wicked they are not destroyed but are killed with the assured prospect of a future resurrection(Romans 6:23; Revelation 9:20-21). The watchtower came so close to shining the light on this truth some time back in a study that talked about the fate of Korah and the other rebels in Moses' day (W05 5/1 Who will Be Resurrected). But for reasons that should not surprise or disappoint, it wasn't allowed to. All humans that have ever lived including Adam and Eve but excluding spirit anointed humans, will be brought to life on earth and given an opportunity to chose sides. Please note that the bible does not teach that Adam and Eve were rebels, there is no record of them engaging in a life course of rebellion or of resisting Jehovah's purposes.
Adam and Eve and their descendants are really hapless pawns in Satan's scheme. Humans are not the primary actors or do we have a say nor with the exception of the original pair were we ever given the opportunity to chose sides. Without being asked humans are consigned to sinfulness and must cope with their circumstances. To hold humans to account while imperfect and under imperfect conditions screams injustice, and Jehovah is just and loving. So humans because we have no say are not subject to judgment at this time. However we do face the consequences of our circumstances, but like any loving parent Jehovah only disciplines to the proper degree and humans are allowed to experience death because death is fully reversible by Jehovah. Indeed any and all human suffering is only allowed by Jehovah because he can and will reverse its effects and totally banish suffering as a cause for concern. The suffering that we will undoubtedly be able to remember will serve as a protection to those that will allow it, to remind us of the only alternative to Jehovah's rulership.

[Gilligan]

"I sensed that I was being nudged, even pushed in certain directions by what I considered to be Jehovah's spirit. No I didn't hear voices, and things didn't miraculously appear in odd places. Rather it was like a gut feeling that kept nagging at me to look in areas that I was quite frankly loath to try."


A few months ago I labeled this sense as "The Prodding".
It's an undeniable sense of direction one should take and, one that should not to be taken lightly.
But do be prepared to "hear/see" things that might be aligned with the Spirit.
And please, keep us informed as to your experiences, if you don't mind,
seems too many shy sheep around.

Keep the light on Caribbean Jim,
Yer Brother Gills

[mrgalleria]

Alo ha,
I have seen that many are beginning to believe philosophies
associated with the beliefs that you have mentioned.
A popular one, is that Adam and Eve will be resurrected.
I don't see how this can be possible.
Many supporting this argument never mention that Adam and Eve were not sons of men.
They were sons of God. And they were perfect.

We have neither benefit. We were born imperfect, and never had God as our personal Father.
If we had, I believe there would be no excuse for disobedience.
And if this is not true, it contradicts the scriptural teaching that Jesus was a ransom, for Adam.

From your interpretation of chosen ones only being capable of apostasy,
do you believe that you do not have a spirit?

Jesus told us all that we must be perfect as His Father is perfect.
So even if we cannot be perfect in flesh, we must be perfect in spirit,
and it is not a matter of being chosen.
Because chosen ones are imperfect to, and your understanding
somehow suggests that chosen ones are judged differently.
Look at the elders, they are not chosen by God.
But does not the Bible give a strong warning to those with authority over others,
that they will be judged more critically?

We all are spirits and flesh. We all must keep our spirits "desirable" to God.
Apostasy can be committed by anyone who knows God, but turns against Him,
for any of many, many reasons. Otherwise, God promises have little real weight.
Bill

[Utuna]

Dear carib-jim and Bill,

Nice posts indeed (even if CJ, I don't agree with everything you wrote) and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S'il m'a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c'est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

[carib-jim]

Alo ha,
I have seen that many are beginning to believe philosophies
associated with the beliefs that you have mentioned.
A popular one, is that Adam and Eve will be resurrected.
I don't see how this can be possible.
Many supporting this argument never mention that Adam and Eve were not sons of men.
They were sons of God. And they were perfect.

We have neither benefit. We were born imperfect, and never had God as our personal Father.
If we had, I believe there would be no excuse for disobedience.
And if this is not true, it contradicts the scriptural teaching that Jesus was a ransom, for Adam.

From your interpretation of chosen ones only being capable of apostasy,
do you believe that you do not have a spirit?

Jesus told us all that we must be perfect as His Father is perfect.
So even if we cannot be perfect in flesh, we must be perfect in spirit,
and it is not a matter of being chosen.
Because chosen ones are imperfect to, and your understanding
somehow suggests that chosen ones are judged differently.
Look at the elders, they are not chosen by God.
But does not the Bible give a strong warning to those with authority over others,
that they will be judged more critically?

We all are spirits and flesh. We all must keep our spirits "desirable" to God.
Apostasy can be committed by anyone who knows God, but turns against Him,
for any of many, many reasons. Otherwise, God promises have little real weight.
Bill

The comments about Adam and Eve were made as a corollary to the reasoning presented regarding Apostasy. I will readily concede that it was rather presumptuous to think that the those statements would be seen as an obvious conclusion to be drawn from the reasoning presented on Apostasy. If permitted I will attempt to flesh out the assertions on Adam and Eve in a later post.

[Molly]

Hello Carib-Jim-

First of all, let me say welcome to the forum. It's nice to have you aboard! It's obvious you are a thought driven student of the Bible. The "nudging" you have experienced has been felt by many here at this site. It's really a desire to know from one's own research, rather than be spoon-fed by someone else.

That being said, I would have to make a note that while those in the first century are said to be anointed, the New Testament does not refer to those at the end times as being anointed. It refers to them as the chosen. In fact, it warns us against being misled into following those who claim to be anointed ones (Matt. 24:4,23-26). I don't believe that anyone will be anointed until the outpouring of holy spirit (Jer. 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32).

Then, we have the only one in the NT who is actually charged with preaching apostacy, that is, Paul (Acts 21:20,21). This is ignored by the WTS and treated as if it did not matter, but it was a serious problem to the first century disciples in Jerusalem to the extent that Paul was almost beaten to death by those at the temple. What must be understood is that "many myriads" of the Jewish disciples of the first century continued to worship at the temple and to follow the Mosaic Law until they were dispersed and the temple destroyed. Or, why would Jesus say that they should pray that they didn't have to exit Jerusalem on the Sabbath if they were no longer required to observe the Sabbath? As far as the first century Jewish Christians were concerned, the Law of Moses was never set aside. Jesus certainly never taught that it would be. Otherwise, why was Paul asked to ceremonially cleanse himself and pay the expenses of those who had taken a vow? These are things upon which you should ponder. To grasp this simple point changes much in our understanding of the Bible. For a Jew to teach another Jew that the Law of Moses was abrogated was a crime deserving of death, but that is exactly what Paul had been doing. Probably you consider Paul anointed, but I do not. I think that he simply decided that if he couldn't destroy the Christians from the outside then he would do it from the inside. I regard Paul as just what he was accused of - apostacy. I say this because your quotes were primarily Paul's.

The result is that much of what you have come to understand would change radically if one took Paul's words with a grain of salt. We are not required to listen to Paul at all, but we are instructed to listen to Jesus' words, which are from the Father (2John 9). In fact, it is a warning that if Christ didn't teach it, don't accept it as truth. Remember, we were promised false prophets.

As a result, I think that much of what you have said does have merit, but much is based on some misinformation.

Molly

[Anthony]

Probably you consider Paul anointed, but I do not. I think that he simply decided that if he couldn't destroy the Christians from the outside then he would do it from the inside. I regard Paul as just what he was accused of - apostacy. I say this because your quotes were primarily Paul's.

The result is that much of what you have come to understand would change radically if one took Paul's words with a grain of salt. We are not required to listen to Paul at all, but we are instructed to listen to Jesus' words, which are from the Father (2John 9). In fact, it is a warning that if Christ didn't teach it, don't accept it as truth. Remember, we were promised false prophets.

Molly

Wow....It's amazing the stuff different ones can come up with....

If you truly believe what you wrote, I really feel sorry for you...

[Utuna]

Hello Carib-Jim-

First of all, let me say welcome to the forum. It's nice to have you aboard! It's obvious you are a thought driven student of the Bible. The "nudging" you have experienced has been felt by many here at this site. It's really a desire to know from one's own research, rather than be spoon-fed by someone else.

That being said, I would have to make a note that while those in the first century are said to be anointed, the New Testament does not refer to those at the end times as being anointed. It refers to them as the chosen. In fact, it warns us against being misled into following those who claim to be anointed ones (Matt. 24:4,23-26). I don't believe that anyone will be anointed until the outpouring of holy spirit (Jer. 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32).

Then, we have the only one in the NT who is actually charged with preaching apostacy, that is, Paul (Acts 21:20,21). This is ignored by the WTS and treated as if it did not matter, but it was a serious problem to the first century disciples in Jerusalem to the extent that Paul was almost beaten to death by those at the temple. What must be understood is that "many myriads" of the Jewish disciples of the first century continued to worship at the temple and to follow the Mosaic Law until they were dispersed and the temple destroyed. Or, why would Jesus say that they should pray that they didn't have to exit Jerusalem on the Sabbath if they were no longer required to observe the Sabbath? As far as the first century Jewish Christians were concerned, the Law of Moses was never set aside. Jesus certainly never taught that it would be. Otherwise, why was Paul asked to ceremonially cleanse himself and pay the expenses of those who had taken a vow? These are things upon which you should ponder. To grasp this simple point changes much in our understanding of the Bible. For a Jew to teach another Jew that the Law of Moses was abrogated was a crime deserving of death, but that is exactly what Paul had been doing. Probably you consider Paul anointed, but I do not. I think that he simply decided that if he couldn't destroy the Christians from the outside then he would do it from the inside. I regard Paul as just what he was accused of - apostacy. I say this because your quotes were primarily Paul's.

The result is that much of what you have come to understand would change radically if one took Paul's words with a grain of salt. We are not required to listen to Paul at all, but we are instructed to listen to Jesus' words, which are from the Father (2John 9). In fact, it is a warning that if Christ didn't teach it, don't accept it as truth. Remember, we were promised false prophets.

As a result, I think that much of what you have said does have merit, but much is based on some misinformation.

Molly

Dear Molly,

Please, could you make comments about the following verses :

“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li´cia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar´na·bas and Paul, men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” - (Acts15:23-29)

How was the apostle Paul considered by his peers ?

Did the wicked Paul himself write the "necessary things" quoted above ? or was it all "the apostles and the older men" who, according to you, were determined to follow the Law till death ? Where is the commandment about the Sabbath ?

And I won't quote 2Pe3:15-16 because I know you distrust Peter's letters...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S'il m'a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c'est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

[greymourning]

" Probably you consider Paul anointed, but I do not. I think that he simply decided that if he couldn't destroy the Christians from the outside then he would do it from the inside. I regard Paul as just what he was accused of - apostacy. I say this because your quotes were primarily Paul's."


How can you consider the bible inspired by God and believe that Paul was an apostate? It would be neither honest nor loving for our heavenly father to allow a person 'seeking to destroy Christians from the inside' to have such a large part in the inspired writings. We cannot partake of the table of demons and the table of God. The bible is the one pure thing we have, a directive from our Creator, a Creator who contains no deceit.

[truthseeker]

" Probably you consider Paul anointed, but I do not. I think that he simply decided that if he couldn't destroy the Christians from the outside then he would do it from the inside. I regard Paul as just what he was accused of - apostacy. I say this because your quotes were primarily Paul's."


How can you consider the bible inspired by God and believe that Paul was an apostate? It would be neither honest nor loving for our heavenly father to allow a person 'seeking to destroy Christians from the inside' to have such a large part in the inspired writings. We cannot partake of the table of demons and the table of God. The bible is the one pure thing we have, a directive from our Creator, a Creator who contains no deceit.

UH HO
Now it's gone to Sheol in a Hand Basket
I'm overwelmed! Damm I hate this feeling!!!
:confused:

[mrgalleria]

Alo ha,
For me, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John's books of Jesus account are THE final word.
Later writings had the effect of adding more rules and understandings, explanations, etc.
Too often, it is these other writings and opinions that have caused some divisions within Christianity.
But I do believe the experiences in the other books are of great value,
and contain info from God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Still, there should be nothing there that in any way distorts Jesus example and teachings.

I understand Molly's opinion, and agree to a degree.
Although, Paul was a Jew, so I doubt he was intentionally subverting Jesus teaching.
As a former Pharisee, it seems a rather dangerous occupation to become an apostate Christian,
especially if pleasing God had any value.

I seem to have observed here a trend in thinking that there are no anointed,
though there may be some who are now among the chosen.
Those with that opinion are entitled to such, but it only has basis in fact
in that these same one's are not in a position to speak from any personal experience.
But if there are anointed among us, then this fact will escape their notice.

Bill

[Molly]

Dear Molly,

Please, could you make comments about the following verses :

“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li´cia who are from the nations: Greetings! Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar´na·bas and Paul, men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” - (Acts15:23-29)

How was the apostle Paul considered by his peers ?

Did the wicked Paul himself write the "necessary things" quoted above ? or was it all "the apostles and the older men" who, according to you, were determined to follow the Law till death ? Where is the commandment about the Sabbath ?

And I won't quote 2Pe3:15-16 because I know you distrust Peter's letters...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S'il m'a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c'est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

Hi Utuna-

Initially after Paul's vision he had a hard time joining himself to the brothers in Jerusalem, but Barnabas came to his aid and recounted how Paul had been boldly preaching Christ in Damascus (Acts 9). He continued preaching in Jerusalem. So, if the brothers in Jerusalem gave Paul the benefit of the doubt after Barnabas introduced him, why does that seem hard to comprehend. Later, Barnabas traveled with Paul but had a dispute with him (Acts 15:36-41) and they parted company. As he continued to preach he tells us (Romans 15:20) that he "made it my aim not to declare the good news where Christ had already been named, in order that I might not be building on another man's foundation." This is convenient for one who was going to preach a message that was different than Christ's.

Obviously, if we are going to follow Christ, we have to accept his teaching which is in the gospels and Revelation. If we remember the rich young ruler, then we have to accept that Jesus told him to continue observing the law covenant and he would get life. It is just that simple. If they had to flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath, they wouldn't be able to go very far. For the Gentiles, the decision in Acts 15 made only four requirements necessary beyond what Jesus preached, that is, to keep free of fornication, things strangled, from blood and from things sacrificed to idols. Although Paul was in attendance for this decision, he later taught that it was only necessary to avoid things sacrifice to idols if it were likely to stumble someone (1Cor.8:4; 10:23-30). This was a blatant lie and perhaps it is the reason Peter (Cephas) and Barnabas separated themselves from the brothers at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). Since Paul was not preaching where others had preached, they only got Paul's version of the story, but as brothers, such as those who came from James arrived, they may have seen some things that were not correct teachings. In verse 4 Paul refers to false brothers (false, that is, from Paul's perspective) that were sent to spy on him. So, it is evident that Paul is teaching lies about about what is required and certain ones were sent to check it out. By Acts 21, rumors had reached Jerusalem and Paul was being tested. Either God wants us to keep free from things sacrificed to idols or he doesn't. Each one must decide for himself where he stands.

Molly

[Anthony]

Quote Molly-“I think that he simply decided that if he couldn't destroy the Christians from the outside then he would do it from the inside.”

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threat and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, in order that he might bring bound to Jerusalem any whom he found who belonged to The Way, both men and women.3 Now as he was traveling he approached Damascus, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 He said: “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 Nevertheless, rise and enter into the city, and what you must do will be told you.”

13 But An·a·ni´as answered: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him: “Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.”17 So An·a·ni´as went off and entered into the house, and he laid his hands upon him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord, the Jesus that appeared to you on the road over which you were coming, has sent me forth, in order that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.”18 And immediately there fell from his eyes what looked like scales, and he recovered sight; and he rose and was baptized, 19 and he took food and gained strength.


According to the first part of you quote, verse 1 and 2 show that Saul was content in destroying Christians the way that he had been doing, as you say from the outside, and verse 13 and 14 shows that he was successful in doing so.

As for the second part of your quote, it is very clear that Jesus was the one who decided that Saul/Paul was to come to be in the inside.

[Utuna]

Hi Utuna-

Initially after Paul's vision he had a hard time joining himself to the brothers in Jerusalem, but Barnabas came to his aid and recounted how Paul had been boldly preaching Christ in Damascus (Acts 9). He continued preaching in Jerusalem. So, if the brothers in Jerusalem gave Paul the benefit of the doubt after Barnabas introduced him, why does that seem hard to comprehend. Later, Barnabas traveled with Paul but had a dispute with him (Acts 15:36-41) and they parted company. As he continued to preach he tells us (Romans 15:20) that he "made it my aim not to declare the good news where Christ had already been named, in order that I might not be building on another man's foundation." This is convenient for one who was going to preach a message that was different than Christ's.

Obviously, if we are going to follow Christ, we have to accept his teaching which is in the gospels and Revelation. If we remember the rich young ruler, then we have to accept that Jesus told him to continue observing the law covenant and he would get life. It is just that simple. If they had to flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath, they wouldn't be able to go very far. For the Gentiles, the decision in Acts 15 made only four requirements necessary beyond what Jesus preached, that is, to keep free of fornication, things strangled, from blood and from things sacrificed to idols. Although Paul was in attendance for this decision, he later taught that it was only necessary to avoid things sacrifice to idols if it were likely to stumble someone (1Cor.8:4; 10:23-30). This was a blatant lie and perhaps it is the reason Peter (Cephas) and Barnabas separated themselves from the brothers at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). Since Paul was not preaching where others had preached, they only got Paul's version of the story, but as brothers, such as those who came from James arrived, they may have seen some things that were not correct teachings. In verse 4 Paul refers to false brothers (false, that is, from Paul's perspective) that were sent to spy on him. So, it is evident that Paul is teaching lies about about what is required and certain ones were sent to check it out. By Acts 21, rumors had reached Jerusalem and Paul was being tested. Either God wants us to keep free from things sacrificed to idols or he doesn't. Each one must decide for himself where he stands.

Molly

Hi Molly,

You said :


For the Gentiles, the decision in Acts 15 made only four requirements necessary beyond what Jesus preached, that is, to keep free of fornication, things strangled, from blood and from things sacrificed to idols.and


As far as the first century Jewish Christians were concerned, the Law of Moses was never set aside. Jesus certainly never taught that it would be.There's something that I don't understand in your reasoning.

You say that Jesus never said that the Law was to be set aside and that, as a consequence, all Christians should follow the Law as the Jews still do. So why did the apostles have to add four "necessary things" whereas the Law already stipulated such things ? Why didn't they just say to follow the commandments that were already written in the Law ?

Jesus came to fulfill the Law and he would never have exhorted others to cease following it. His death did it, putting the basis of a new covenant. The Law is no longer written on stone tablets or on rolls but within the heart of God's chosen ones. The Law was a shadow of the things to come and such was the Sabbath. Since Jesus' death, God's purpose is being unraveled and what the Sabbath meant will soon be revealed. Many features of the Law aren't fulfilled yet and so is what the Sabbath symbolized. Trying to follow the Law as Moses wrote it doesn't mean anything anymore to anyone excepted to those who are misled and blinded by Satan or those who have nothing else to do in their lives.

Love is a more important path on which all Christians should walk instead of trying to resurrect ancient and outdated religious features and traditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S'il m'a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c'est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

[Molly]

Hi Anthony-

You quoted from Paul's explanation of the vision in Acts 9. There are two other versions of this vision, one in Acts 22 and another in Acts 26. They are quite different. In one the men that were with him were standing and heard the voice but did not see a man. In 22 the men saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one speaking. In 26 the men as well as Paul fell to the ground.

In any case, while Paul may have had a vision, it is one of rebuke from Christ. Jesus did not assigned him a role as an apostle. In the first account Paul receives no instructions from Jesus on what he is to do. He is merely led to Damascus. In Acts 22 account, he expands his version saying that Jesus told him to "Rise, go your way into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything, it is appointed for you to do." In chapter 26, he really gets carried away saying: ""Nevertheless, rise and stand on your feet. For to this end I have made myself visible to you, in order to choose you as an attendant and a witness both of things you have seen and things I shall make you see respecting me; while I deliver you from[this]people and from the nations, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, in order for them to receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by [their] faith in me." In chapter 26 Ananias' role is forgotten and words attributed to Ananias in chapter 9 are now attributed to Jesus. Where is the truth is all this?

Whether the vision happened, judge for yourself, but be aware that Jesus' words were not kindly spoken, but as an accusation of Paul's atrocious conduct. If Jesus intended for Paul to be a witness for him then, Paul failed him miserably, as his message is not the same as Jesus'.

Molly

[Molly]

Hi Molly,

You said :

and

There's something that I don't understand in your reasoning.

You say that Jesus never said that the Law was to be set aside and that, as a consequence, all Christians should follow the Law as the Jews still do. So why did the apostles have to add four "necessary things" whereas the Law already stipulated such things ? Why didn't they just say to follow the commandments that were already written in the Law ?

Jesus came to fulfill the Law and he would never have exhorted others to cease following it. His death did it, putting the basis of a new covenant. The Law is no longer written on stone tablets or on rolls but within the heart of God's chosen ones. The Law was a shadow of the things to come and such was the Sabbath. Since Jesus' death, God's purpose is being unraveled and what the Sabbath meant will soon be revealed. Many features of the Law aren't fulfilled yet and so is what the Sabbath symbolized. Trying to follow the Law as Moses wrote it doesn't mean anything anymore to anyone excepted to those who are misled and blinded by Satan or those who have nothing else to do in their lives.

Love is a more important path on which all Christians should walk instead of trying to resurrect ancient and outdated religious features and traditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S'il m'a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c'est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

Hello Utuna-

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you say the Law was eliminated by Christ's death. What did Jesus ever say that would make you think it? The Jewish believers continued to observe the entire Law Code, but gentiles were require to follow the Law Covenant (the Ten Words) from Moses and the four requirement determined from Acts chapter 15.

As for having them written on their heart, that has always been the case. It is not something that began in the first century.

Molly

[mrgalleria]

Alo ha,
Molly, I think you are going to like this.
Today in the news, a minister in El Salvador has created quite a disturbance.
He has been teaching that the four gospels are a story, and need to be discarded.
He is telling people that they should only follow the writings of Paul.
It turns out that many ministers are leaning in this teaching,
especially Jewish Christian ministers. They always refer to Paul's writings for authority.

Here is the fantastic part.
This is only for Molly, everyone else has to close there eye's
Saturday night my wife was having a dream, I assumed was bad, I put my hand on her head.
Sunday night I reminded her of it. At first she could not remember anything.
Then she started asking me questions like "did you tell me " this or that.
Then she started remembering the dream.
She had heard a soft, gentle voice telling her things,
most of which she is still trying to remember.
The first was that "the first Jehovah is not Jehovah".
This reminded me of how Jesus had warned that when people
are saying "look, over here, or there"- do not believe them.

The next thing he told her was why she was making so much noise,
because she was saying "no, it's not true, it cannot be".
But the voice was telling her what the opened small scroll was, and where it came from.
Remember, this was the open scroll in the hand of the Lord of the earth,
or strong angel in Rev. Chapter 10. The Angel told John to eat the scroll,
which was sweet in the mouth, but bitter in the belly. The voice told my wife
the scroll was from Satan.
The scroll was...
(We know)
Bill

[elihu]

As for having them written on their heart, that has always been the case. It is not something that began in the first century.

Molly


i was going to quote from Hebrews 8 :7-13

but then i realised that you do not accept Pauls words as being partie to Gods word.

i just find that amazing , because Pauls letters give us so much information about the New covenant
the very thing that he was unkowingly opposed to when he was persecuting Christians.

so it seems to me that you believe that the whole of the Law is still to be used rather than what Christ said
"No one sews a piece of unshrunkcloth on an old garment or it will tear away from the old and the tear is made worse"
he also said
" new wine must be put in new wine skins"

and of course he said this in response to the question as to why the pharisees and Johns disciples fasted but those belonging to Jesus did not.
so the question had connotations attatched about the Mosaic law and who obeyed it and why Christ did not

returning to the apostle Paul,
if Paul was a saboteur and a pharisee, then surely he would be preaching that the law was to be upheld rather than replaced by the NC, he would be advocating the old law as still totally active and not as he did teach that the old law was replaced with the law of love as the centre piece written on hearts rather than tablets of stone.
hebrews 8:7-13

paul speaks of the NC and concludes by sayiong
v13
" in that he says "A New Covenant" He has made the first obsolete Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

so paul agrees with Jesus " new wine into new wineskins"

elihu

[Gilligan]

The voice told my wife
the scroll was from Satan.
The scroll was...
(We know)
Bill

Awww, Billy, we JUST have to wait on this cliffhanger for the next seasons' show.
I wish I was more in "Tune" like you on these matters,,,can you help me attain to your level of enlightment?

[Molly]

Gilligan-

Shame on you! You weren't supposed to read that!


Hi mrgalleria-

I really don't know why you said that it was only for me to read, because I still am of the opinion that the 2 Witnesses are the Law and the Prophets. You have not convinced me that the angel with the scroll in Revelation 10 is from Satan. The thing that I do appreciate is when ideas come from a new or different perspective, but they still have to fit in to the whole context. For me, I don't think that your explanation did that, but I did give it some consideration. When the idea comes from a dream, you need to be extra careful. Maybe it was just that - a dream and nothing more than a dream.

As for the people in El Salvador, I am not surprised by that at all.

Molly

[elihu]

" the law and the prophets were until John, since that time the Kingdom of God has been preached and everyone is pressing into it"
" and it is easier for heaven and eart to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail"

What is he talking about?
how can he say that the first that these things were until John and then the second in which the law cannot FAIL

that is it, the law cannot fail because it superceeded by, by the new laws of the kingdom, these laws are for access to the Kingdom of God, not Just eternal life

what laws matt 5

v27

" you have heard that it was said to those of old " you shall not commit adultery"
BUT I SAY TO YOU that whovere looks at a woman to lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his HEART"

v38

you have heard that it was said an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, but I TELL yoy not to resist an evil person. but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also"

v 43

"you have heard that it was said " you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy"

" but I SAY to you love your enemies bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you"

and this is where i agree with you Molly at least about the law not Paul

the reason Christ ups the standard of the laws he quoted is for good reason

" that you may be Sons of your Father in heaven..." v45

" therefore you shall be perfect just as your Father in Heaven is perfect" v48

elihu

[LonelySheep]

Molly,

I have sparred with you before, when you insist in subjecting members of this board with your farcical nonsense, which at the very best is naive and at worst is subversive calumny.

Any case in the spirit of free speech, please back up your statements with scriptural facts and not just banal statements which are dished up as if they have come from some theological school espousing higher criticism, because that’s exactly what it sounds like.

So please enlighten everybody on this board exactly how we have missed the point - you state that the Law was never banished. So the next time I sin should I endeavour to find ashes of a red heifer or some turtle doves to cover my error?

Molly, please tell me how as JW's we should worship God? Since you only believe in the red letters (where Jesus is quoted directly what he speaks) as having the only merit worthy of consideration, then what are we to make of biblical truths such as paradise earth, because unless I'm mistaken he did not talk about that except for a passing reference in the Sermon on the Mount. This is one of many beliefs that Jesus did not speak of much or elaborate upon and so again on the basis of your reasoning we should not believe such teachings.

Also you flippantly replied to the quote regarding Jehovah writing the Law in their hearts. I quote your reply
As for having them written on their heart, that has always been the case. It is not something that began in the first century.
Well Molly if escaped your notice Jehovah gave this pronouncement. So by you saying "it was always in their hearts" are you correcting Jehovah, who saw fit to make such a statement?

Lastly, by you insisting that Paul was a subversive (but I think you, not Paul is the subversive) basically undermines any trust that one could place in the bible. If God allowed such HUGE apostasy in his writings as you claim, then what can we trust? It is just a short step to making claims as the higher critics do, that most of the bible is junk. David didn't really have such a big Kingdom, he was just a jumped regional leader who was invented to give the Israelites a sense of pride. The men in the bible didn't really live for hundreds of years. That’s just ridiculous because nobody lives that long these days. And so on and so on. So Molly why stop at Paul at being a charlatan. Why not all the bible writers; they were all liars at best or just prone to gross exaggeration and got all their facts missed up. Why even Jesus was just an invention by his earlier followers to gain more popularity and he went to England with Mary and fathered children. Why don’t we believe all these things? Well you should Molly as these are the arguments put forward by your true bed fellows, the so called 'higher critics' of the bible.

If I sound annoyed with you Molly, it is because I am. I for one am in search for truth and if that means uncomfortable reading so be it, I think this is true for most here on this board. But there is one thing making valid biblical criticisms of beliefs held and what you do which is just to say.. “I don't agree with that. Paul was a wicked man”. Give us some REAL proof, with cross references etc. Prove to us that the Law is still in effect. Show us how we should live by the Law. Prove that Paul was a rabid apostate an enemy of Christ. Prove it with biblical cross-references. PROOF. PROOF. PROOF!!!! If you can’t do that Molly...SHUT UP!!

[Molly]

i was going to quote from Hebrews 8 :7-13

but then i realised that you do not accept Pauls words as being partie to Gods word.

i just find that amazing , because Pauls letters give us so much information about the New covenant
the very thing that he was unkowingly opposed to when he was persecuting Christians.

so it seems to me that you believe that the whole of the Law is still to be used rather than what Christ said
"No one sews a piece of unshrunkcloth on an old garment or it will tear away from the old and the tear is made worse"
he also said
" new wine must be put in new wine skins"

and of course he said this in response to the question as to why the pharisees and Johns disciples fasted but those belonging to Jesus did not.
so the question had connotations attatched about the Mosaic law and who obeyed it and why Christ did not

returning to the apostle Paul,
if Paul was a saboteur and a pharisee, then surely he would be preaching that the law was to be upheld rather than replaced by the NC, he would be advocating the old law as still totally active and not as he did teach that the old law was replaced with the law of love as the centre piece written on hearts rather than tablets of stone.
hebrews 8:7-13

paul speaks of the NC and concludes by sayiong
v13
" in that he says "A New Covenant" He has made the first obsolete Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

so paul agrees with Jesus " new wine into new wineskins"

elihu


elihu-

I have been considering what you have said here. The only thing that I could come up with is that sometimes you don't know what another person thinks till you ask them. The reason I say this is that we might assume that others think just because we have all been JWs that we now understand things the same way other JWs do. That is not the case. In particular, I probably don't understand the New Covenant the same way you do because I don't accept Paul's version of it. I accept Jesus' version.

Jesus made a covenant with his disciples for a kingdom. (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 12:22-25; Luke 22:14-20,28-30) Sometimes this new covenant is called the kingdom covenant. Luke verse 20 says: " Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: 'This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.'" Verse 28-30 says, "However, you are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials, and I make a covenant with you , just as my Father has made a covenant wih me for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel." I see no reason why the the "old" covenant would become obsolete by the introduction of this new covenant. In fact, there would need to be a standard (the old covenant) by which to judge.

As to whether the patch on the old garment or the wineskins comments refer to the new covenant, I don't know. I think that the patch part has more to do with the Pharisees making all their own laws to patch up what they see as problems with the Law, and the patches only made things worse.

With regard to Paul's assertion that the Law became obsolete at Christ's death, we have to ask why Jesus never warned his apostle about this. Even after his death, he said nothing about any changes to the observation of the Law. Why would Jesus spend over 3 years preaching obedience to the Law if it were to be done away with at his death. The reason is simple - his death didn't do away with the Law, it didn't become obsolete, it wasn't nailed to the torture stake! How can I be so sure? Because Christ told us so at Matthew 28:18-20: "And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: 'All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go, therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of the things.'" In other words, all the writings that would be in red in a red letter Bible were still valid and were to be taught to everyone.

Molly

[LonelySheep]

Well Molly has decided to ignore me and answer Utunu instead. Fair do.But her silence is damming. She can't offer an explanation as to how we are meant to carry on the Law with no Temple, High Preist etc. Not to mention the inconvenience of slaughtering bulls, rams etc for our sins. And if we were to do that, what does it say about Jesus' sacrifice? He may as well not have bothered.

Anycase more questions for Molly, or whoever would like to come to her defense.


Luke wrote Acts - Luke was inspired. No argument - Therefore Lukes account about how Paul became a Christian must be true. But Molly who is not inspired, 2000 years later knows the account as it actually happend. Interesting. :confused:
Peter was given a vision of animal flesh to eat that was PROHIBITED by the Law - Peter was told to eat - how come if Law still in force? :confused::confused::confused:
Peter - a foundation pillar of the spiritual temple was reprimanded by a FRAUD (ie Paul) on the occasion he pretended that he did not know his gentile brothers (Galatians 2:13)? The same Peter that by means of Holy Spirt healed a sick man and exposed the fraudsters Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3-10) ? I don't think so.:confused::confused::confused::confused::




to whether the patch on the old garment or the wineskins comments refer to the new covenant, I don't know. I think that the patch part has more to do with the Pharisees making all their own laws to patch up what they see as problems with the Law, and the patches only made things worse. - PROVE IT BY SCRIPTURE. YOUR OPINION DOESN'T COUNT. ONLY JEHOVAH'S DOES. SO SAYING "I THINK"....does not cut it.


regard to Paul's assertion that the Law became obsolete at Christ's death, we have to ask why Jesus never warned his apostle about this.
I suggest you read this...http://www.perimeno.ca/BornAgain.htm. The brother here makes a very clear argument that Jesus did exactly what you don't think he did. Read it, you might learn something.

[Molly]

Well Molly has decided to ignore me and answer Utunu instead. Fair do.But her silence is damming. She can't offer an explanation as to how we are meant to carry on the Law with no Temple, High Preist etc. Not to mention the inconvenience of slaughtering bulls, rams etc for our sins. And if we were to do that, what does it say about Jesus' sacrifice? He may as well not have bothered.

Anycase more questions for Molly, or whoever would like to come to her defense.


Luke wrote Acts - Luke was inspired. No argument - Therefore Lukes account about how Paul became a Christian must be true. But Molly who is not inspired, 2000 years later knows the account as it actually happend. Interesting. :confused:
Peter was given a vision of animal flesh to eat that was PROHIBITED by the Law - Peter was told to eat - how come if Law still in force? :confused::confused::confused:
Peter - a foundation pillar of the spiritual temple was reprimanded by a FRAUD (ie Paul) on the occasion he pretended that he did not know his gentile brothers (Galatians 2:13)? The same Peter that by means of Holy Spirt healed a sick man and exposed the fraudsters Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3-10) ? I don't think so.:confused::confused::confused::confused::


- PROVE IT BY SCRIPTURE. YOUR OPINION DOESN'T COUNT. ONLY JEHOVAH'S DOES. SO SAYING "I THINK"....does not cut it.


I suggest you read this...http://www.perimeno.ca/BornAgain.htm. The brother here makes a very clear argument that Jesus did exactly what you don't think he did. Read it, you might learn something.

LonelySheep-

The Temple is not necessary for us to follow the Law Covenant. It is as simple as that. There is no requirement to slaughter bulls, Jesus was the sacrifice.

I don't think that Luke was necessarily inspired. Certainly in his gospel he does not make that claim. He just tells us that he got his information from information that was handed down to him. Of course, he wasn't an eye witness of Jesus' ministry. Acts is much like a continuation of the account to Theophilus of the events after the ascension. He does not claim that it is by inspiration. Paul is the one that claims scripture is inspired, but for the first century Jewish person, that would only mean the "old" testament, that is, the books from Genesis to Malachi. Additionally there is some information (Josephus) that says that the inspired books were the Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy), the Prophets (which did not include Daniel) and some Psalms that deal with Jesus. The rest belonged in a third category called Other Writings. So, I am not at all sure that Luke's Acts was inspired.

If you want to eat pork or shrimp or crab or rabbitor or even gator or frog legs, I won't stop you.

"Peter - a foundation pillar of the spiritual temple was reprimanded by a FRAUD (ie Paul) on the occasion he pretended that he did not know his gentile brothers (Galatians 2:13)? The same Peter that by means of Holy Spirt healed a sick man and exposed the fraudsters Ananias and Sapphira." Yes, that's correct, but you are entitled to your opinion. Rumors had been reaching Jerusalem by this time over some of Paul's teachings. Peter had to separate himself from the brothers as a result of something that was going on in Paul's congregations. Perhaps they were eating foods sacrificed to idols. It doesn't say. Paul's ideas on the good news are not the same as Jesus'. A better question is why are you not insulted that Paul has the audacity to ridicule James and Cephas and John as "the ones who seemed to be pillars."

I have read Perimeno and I respect him, but I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say. I, too, am entitled to my opinion.

Molly

[elihu]

LonelySheep-

The Temple is not necessary for us to follow the Law Covenant. It is as simple as that. There is no requirement to slaughter bulls, Jesus was the sacrifice.

I don't think that Luke was necessarily inspired. Certainly in his gospel he does not make that claim. He just tells us that he got his information from information that was handed down to him. Of course, he wasn't an eye witness of Jesus' ministry. Acts is much like a continuation of the account to Theophilus of the events after the ascension. He does not claim that it is by inspiration. Paul is the one that claims scripture is inspired, but for the first century Jewish person, that would only mean the "old" testament, that is, the books from Genesis to Malachi. Additionally there is some information (Josephus) that says that the inspired books were the Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy), the Prophets (which did not include Daniel) and some Psalms that deal with Jesus. The rest belonged in a third category called Other Writings. So, I am not at all sure that Luke's Acts was inspired.

If you want to eat pork or shrimp or crab or rabbitor or even gator or frog legs, I won't stop you.

"Peter - a foundation pillar of the spiritual temple was reprimanded by a FRAUD (ie Paul) on the occasion he pretended that he did not know his gentile brothers (Galatians 2:13)? The same Peter that by means of Holy Spirt healed a sick man and exposed the fraudsters Ananias and Sapphira." Yes, that's correct, but you are entitled to your opinion. Rumors had been reaching Jerusalem by this time over some of Paul's teachings. Peter had to separate himself from the brothers as a result of something that was going on in Paul's congregations. Perhaps they were eating foods sacrificed to idols. It doesn't say. Paul's ideas on the good news are not the same as Jesus'. A better question is why are you not insulted that Paul has the audacity to ridicule James and Cephas and John as "the ones who seemed to be pillars."

I have read Perimeno and I respect him, but I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say. I, too, am entitled to my opinion.

Molly

to some extent you i agree with you that the law of Moses is valid today , but ony with regard to the ten commandments.
these are the foundation of Christs laws that is why he said that not one tittle would be lost.
he built upon those laws in the manner that my previous post explained.
and this was the access to the kingdom of the heavens.

why does this make sense?
because there are lot more people going to inherit eternal life that those who follow the lamb wherever he goes and become rulers with him.
Christ came to call those, and he will come again to collect them from the four corners of the earth. to rule with HIm as kings and priests. And those persons are Christians or christ like or brothers of Christ, Sons of God
luke 13 :27

the rest of mankind who express faith in Christ but are not of that flock look to Christ for salvation,he is the ransom for mankind but not their direct purchaser, as he is for the sons of God
they have the ten commandments as a basis for their lives.
that is why Christ said to the young man Keep the commandments and you will live
but to live with Christ in heaven much more was required.

with regard to Paul i just cannot see how anyone can believe that he is a saboteur of Gods word
he provides so much information about the resurrection, etc

John says of Him

" and considering the longsuffering of our lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother PAUL according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you
as also in all his epistles speaking in them of things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures."

so it would seem that John the one whom Christ "loved" approves of Paul

elihu

[Molly]

elihu-

Deut. 4:13: "And he proceeded to state to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform - the Ten Words, after which he wrote them upon two tablets of stone."

The Ten Words are the Ten Commandment, which means they are the "old" covenant. I have not been saying that all the 613 commands in the law code need to be followed. That would be impossible.

The Gentiles were required at Acts to observe the Ten Commandments because that is what Jesus taught his followers, plus the four extra requirements as decided by James. Those four things were to abstain from blood, from fornication, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from things strangled. That is it. Not too complicated.

As for Paul being a sabateur, all I can say is that his message is not the same as Jesus. He contradicts Jesus and adds his own stuff. (2John 9) With all that he has added, how can one know what is true and what is not. I'm sure that not everything he says is a lie, but if even a tenth of it is, how can he be reliable?

Molly

[mrgalleria]

"PROOF. PROOF. PROOF!!!! If you can’t do that Molly...SHUT UP!!"

Should we help widows? Which ones?
Paul said that we should only help widows which are 60+ years,
only had one husband, righteous, washed the feet of holy ones. (1 Tim. 5:9-10)
Do you believe that Jesus would agree?

How may women act?
Paul said "I do not permit to teach,... but to be in silence". (1 Tim. 11-12)
Do you believe Jesus would agree?

(Paul) "said with a loud voice: "Stand up erect on your feet"". (Acts 14:10)
Do you believe Jesus healed with a loud voice?

Paul said Jesus was an apostle. (Heb. 3:1)
Do you believe Jesus would agree?

Paul said "we have left the primary doctrine about the Christ" (Heb. 6:1)
Do you believe Jesus would agree?

Paul said he was an apostle, the 13th (Acts 1:21-22)
Do you believe Jesus would agree?

Paul said he was a liar. (Rom. 3:7)
Do you believe Jesus would agree?

Matt. 28:19 (to the apostles) "Go therefore and make disciples...baptizing them..."
1 Cor. 1:17 (Paul said) "For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring good news..."

Matt. 27:14 "Yet he did not answer him, no, not a word, so that the governor (Pilate) wondered..."
1 Tim. 6:13 "...Jesus...made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate..."

1 Tim. 6:13 "(Paul) I give you orders..."
Phileman 8 "(Paul) I...order you to do what is proper,".
Phileman 22 "...get lodging ready for me...".
2 Tim. 4:1 "(Paul) I solemnly charge you..."
1 Tim. 1:20 "(Paul) I have handed them over to Satan..."
2 Thess. 3:14 "But if anyone is not obedient to our word..."

1 Tim. 1:4 "nor to pay attention to false stories (gospels) and to genealogies (gospels),
which end up in nothing..."

There are likely hundreds more, all that is required is clean, open eyes-
"buy from me ...eyesalve to rub in your eyes that you may see." (Jesus)