I beg to differ that Paul's letters are not the word of God. Paul said in Galatians Chapter 1 Verses 8 and 9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which Paul preached, Paul says let him be accursed.
How could Paul make such a bold claim by saying if any man does not receive the gospel he preached, let that man be accused? That sounds like a pretty bold claim to make, wouldn't you say? Except for the fact that we know where Paul received his teaching and doctrine from.
Paul gives us his credentials in Galatians 11 through 24. If you look at Verse 11, Paul says, "But I certify, or more literally, I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after, or according to man. So it's not of man as you claim.
In Verse 12, Paul says "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Paul spent three years alone out in the Arabian Desert receiving his teaching from Christ Himself. If you read through all the way down to Verse 24, you will see that. I hope you have a good understanding of who Jesus Christ is, and who He claimed to be. That would be a starter at understanding who Paul's teachings came from, God or man!
In John 16:10 Jesus himself said that after his ascension to heaven you cannot see him anymore, and he even warned us in Matthew not to believed if someone says that he is in the desert,....But once again here comes Paul saying that he saw Jesus on his way to Damascus, is Paul guilty of fabrication because of his lies?...
No, Paul is not guilty of lying. Everything Paul taught lines up with the teachings of Christ. There is no contradiction between Paul's teachings and the teachings of Christ. If you take John 16:10 by itself, I can see how you would come to your conclusion. Jesus said in Verse 10, I go to my Father, and you see me no more. But you can't stop there and use that as your basis of claiming Paul is lying! Jesus was telling them that He would be leaving (His ascension into heaven, shortly after His resurrection), and they would no longer see Him here physically.
But then you go down to Verse 16, and Jesus says, "A little while and ye shall not see me: and the term "a little while" means a short time of space. Jesus says, and again, a little while, and (ye shall see me), because I go to the Father. So what is He talking about there? A little while you won't see me, but then a little while after that you will see me? How do explain that one, because they're probably thinking "That doesn't make sense! We understand a little while you will not see me. You've been telling us that for three years. But now you are saying, in a little while and (you will see me) because I'm going to the Father. Well, if you are going away, how are we about ready to see you again?"
Verse 17 would show you that they didn't understand what Jesus was telling them. They were discussing amongst themselves what this meant, and Jesus knew that, as we're told in Verse 19. And then you go down to Verse 22, and Jesus says And ye now, therefore, have sorrow: but (I will see you again), and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
Jesus is talking about His coming to them in the person of the Holy Spirit that He has been talking to them about since Chapter 14, where He says the Comforter will come to you, I will come to you, the Father and I will come to you, and we all will make our dwelling in you!
Jesse, a little while is his 2nd coming and it doesn't mean it only limited to Paul's vision.....If Jesus has something to say then why he didn't tell his disciples before his ascension?....Despite the fact that Paul's letter is the majority of the New Testament
And here's another proof of fabrication about his alleged vision, in Acts 9:19-29Acts 26-19-21 contradicted by Galatians 1:15-23 is quite obvious of contradiction, can you see the fabrications now?...
What an awesome provision for God's people! There are several places in scripture that tell us that the things of God are past finding out as far as human research goes. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 2, Paul says that only the Spirit of God reveals the things of God. He's the only one that knows the things of God. Again it is beyond human research ability to research spiritual things. But when God sends His Spirit, He guides us into all truth!
Again, there is no place in John Chapter 16 that speaks about the events of Christ's second coming, only the coming of His Spirit. I cannot agree with you that Paul was a liar or that he fabricated any truth. If you believe that Paul was a liar or fabricated truth, do you trust in Paul's teachings at all?
You've gone to far about my arguments, I've only qouting John 16:10 because Jesus said you can't see him no more but Paul suddenly saw him in his alleged vision on his way to Damascus....Now, in Acts 9:19-29 according to Paul he had preached at Damascus in the name of Jesus and he was with them (disciples) coming in and out at Jerusalem and continued in Acts 29:19-21 that he had shewed unto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem and throughout all the coast of Judea and to the Gentiles......and then contradicted by him in Galatians 1:15-23 it says " But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother...Can you see the lies of Paul now?...
I'm sorry, but I still don't see Paul lying about anything. I've read the accounts that you are referring to. Jesus did tell His disciples that they would not physically see Him again after His ascension. Paul, on the Damascus road never said that he physically saw Jesus. Paul said he saw a light from heaven, and he heard a voice from heaven. He never said he physically saw Jesus. So there is no contradiction there. I'm sorry that you view Paul as a liar and someone who fabricates the truth. I just don't see it, and I'm not going to agree to it.
If I can jump in and maybe shed some light on this. In Galatians 1:12, Paul says:
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
When John wrote the Revelation, He received it from Christ Himself. But if there is a question as to whether Paul met the qualifications to be an Apostle proper, we are told Paul went to Jerusalem, met with the Apostles and they, themselves, approved him as an Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter also refers to what Paul writes as "Scripture" 2 Peter 3:16.
Acts 9:5-7, "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."
This event is also recounted in Acts 22. So what are we to believe? Did Paul see Jesus? Well, He says he did. Others can attest to the fact that what Paul said on the Road to Damascus was True. Ananias was also a witness. And the Apostles confirmed it and appointed him Apostle to the Gentiles, as Christ told him. Furthermore, Pauls life, work, letters, sacrifice all testify to the fact that he did see Jesus and was taught by Him. In fact, the Bible says he was "told" by God and Jesus what to say.
If we doubt everything the Bible says, we have nowhere to go. If we doubt what Paul said, we have to doubt the entire New Testament.
There is nothing in John Chapter 16 that describes any of the events that take place at Christ's second coming. I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. All throughout Chapter 16, and in fact, beginning at Chapter 15 Verse 26, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit coming, not His second coming. He uses the word "Comforter" in Chapter 15, and then again in Chapter 16. This word comforter refers to the Holy Spirit coming, not Jesus' second coming. John 16:8 speaks of the comforter (Holy Spirit) coming.
In Verse 8, Jesus says "And when he is come, he will reprove, and it is literally the word convict. It is a judiciary term that means to present evidence to bring about conviction. That is what the Holy Spirit does. That is his ministry. He will convict the world of three things. He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Jesus is not talking about His second coming. He's talking about sending His Spirit.
You ask that "If Jesus has something to say then why he didn't tell his disciples before his ascension? Well, if you look at Verse 12, Jesus says "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. The word "cannot" is the word ability. You don't have the ability to bear what I'm about to tell you. And then you go down to Verse 13, and Jesus says, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Jesus is telling them that the Holy Spirit will reveal things that will later come. You see, Jesus knows our hearts. He knows what truth we can and cannot handle, and He only reveals to us the things He knows we are ready for. He knew that His disciples would not be able to handle what He had to say to them.
Paul an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
See ACTS chapter 9
After Paul hit the ground; he said, Who art thou, LORD?
The men traveling with Paul, heard an audible voice, but saw no man.
Saul stands up, but now he is blind. He is blind 3 days and does not eat or drink.
Keep reading; by verse 20 Paul is preaching Christ in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
By verse 23, the Jews are plotting to kill Saul.
We need the full account of Bible events without JUDGING them. Read the full account first; even the whole chapter.
Paul was struck blind but he and some other guys ALL HEARD with their ears, the VOICE of the risen Christ. Paul was a chosen vessel. Verse 15-16 (written in the red ink)
Why are the letters of Paul included in the gospel? when it was his personal letter intended for a different type of people...So I personally disagree that the letter of Paul included in the gospel because it is not a word of God but a word of man
Yasser, you are correct in your understanding of Isaiah 66:16, 17 & it's true that the eating of swine & many other animals (as in Leviticus chapter 11) are also included. So the explanation to what you are seeing & understanding can be explained as follows:
The laws given for not eating unclean animals were God's direct command to His people, Israel. They were given because He said that these were an abomination to Him & possibly also for maintaining good health. When the Gospel came to the Gentiles, this law (as other Laws of God) could not be imposed as then it would mean that Gentiles would then first have to become Jews to then be saved (see Galatians 2:3, 4: which gives an example of Paul's refusal to have Titus circumcised, as some insisted on doing, to be able to become a Christian). As well, the keeping of Jewish laws nullified the work & results of Jesus' sacrifice for mankind's sins (i.e. one cannot mix the obedience to the Law with the gift of Grace).
So what is correct now? Well, the Jews still observe the Laws & of course, the one you mentioned, but the Gentiles have no such command. Does God then reject all those who eat unclean animals? He doesn't, because that requirement no longer has application in the New Covenant of Grace. Gentiles can still choose to refrain from pork, horse, dog, etc., but we are not judged by what we eat but what comes out of our heart ( Mt 15:17-20 gives a similar example of the Jews & eating with unwashen hands which was sin, like eating an unclean animal).
And briefly, about Paul's letters: Paul & the apostles wrote according to what they had heard from Jesus or from special revelation from Heaven (maybe, like you giving instructions to children about what you learnt from your forefathers). So those letters from them are considered true & valid as they don't contradict Christ's teaching. Even Mohammed & others claimed such authority in their teaching. So this can't be argued, it's just a question of truth of the word.
God brought down those commandments not exclusively for the Jews, so you don't need to be a jew to follow the commandments...If you read the book of Genesis when God commanded Abraham to circumcise his household it includes even his gentile servants so it means that the law is not exclusively for the jews
You said, "so you don't need to be a Jew to follow the commandments". In one sense, you are correct, if you mean that God's Laws are good & very useful to all people (as even now some of those laws are incorporated in modern societies). But, we are talking here about, not just about doing the 'right things before God', but does God accept us (Jew & Gentile alike) if we try to maintain strict adherence to His Laws?
So if keeping of the Laws couldn't make us right before God, then He had to send Jesus, His Son, Who came as the complete fulfilment of all those Laws (He was the Word of God come in the flesh & without sin, to be the only acceptable Sacrifice that would be acceptable to God). So, if a person is now acceptable to God through Jesus' Sacrifice for their sins, where does the significance of the Law appear? A person cannot keep the Law & also come by faith in Jesus' Sacrifice to be acceptable to God: these two oppose each other, as self-effort & trust don't mix, as oil & water don't. So if we come by the Law, God judges us by it; if coming in faith, God accepts us because His Judgement was completed at the Cross of Jesus.
Chris, obeying the law or the commandments is the key to Paradise as Jesus said on Mark 10:17-19, Matthew 5:17-19....It is only Paul's teaching's of eliminating the law ( Romans 3:28) and relied only on the death and ressurection of Jesus because according to him without the crucifiction and resurection there is no salvation....But is it really true that the death of Jesus on the cross is the only way of salvation?....And if it is, where in the 4 canonical gospels did Jesus said that my death on the cross is the only way of salvation?..But if you can't find, I conclude that the theology of death and resurection is Paul's own theology and has nothing to do with the real teachings of Jesus.....See also Ezikiel 18:20-21
And a side note: I don't understand what your 'Paul's theology' reference is. Paul (then Saul), was devout Pharisee, a Jew of the Jews, believing he obeyed every Law. He hated Jesus & His followers & put many to death. He received a revelation from Heaven that would shake his being to the core. ( Acts 9:3-7). What was that revelation? That this Jesus Whom he persecuted (i.e. against his followers) was alive from the dead & speaking to him from Heaven. So Paul's letters to the Churches were not from his own private thoughts & interpretations; He was a strict Pharisee would couldn't divert from the Law - not until He met the risen Christ, the fulfilment of that Law.
b. Mt 5:17-19. Another clear Scripture showing that the Law was good but people, as sinners, could never keep it. So Jesus said that He came to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it. What do you make of that statement? Remembering that Jesus' coming was still in the period of the Old Covenant (i.e. of Law), so He could speak of the worth of the Law (v 19), but also to say (v 20), that "on top of it, your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (who were known to be sticklers for the Law plus adding many of their own)". Was this possible? Jesus knew that man could never gain acceptance to Heaven based on the obedience of the Law; so He said that He came to fulfil the Law. So how did He fulfil the Law? I'll let you give me your answer.
c. I will leave off quoting the Pauline epistles, as you have turned your ear against them & the other epistles. But you ask: "But is it really true that the death of Jesus on the cross is the only way of salvation?" Have a look at Jn 14:6; 10:11-18; Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45; Jn 6:33. All these passages speak of Jesus laying down His Life. But I hear you say that they don't have the words "way of salvation". Then it would show that you do not really want to understand Jesus' prime purpose of coming; all these verses show that He came to die so that man might have a new life in Heaven & not go to Hell.
Yasser, your comments are interesting to the point that it has me guessing as to your religious position. If you are part of the other two monotheistic faiths, I can understand your questions. But if you are of a Christian background, then please say so, as you seem to have knowledge of the Scriptures, but you appear to contradict everything that God had planned & set in motion from beginning of time to the coming of His Christ.
However, I will answer your last comment to me, but not quoting from the Epistles.
a. Mk 10:17-19. The man obviously obeyed all the Ten Commandments & Jesus was pleased about that. However, Jesus knew that the man actually trusted in his wealth more than God (v 24). So what is Jesus telling him here? The bottom line was that he actually broke the first Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". This man probably didn't have idols in his house, but his love & trust in his wealth proved otherwise. One reason for giving the Law to Israel was to show them that they could never obey it fully. This is a reason why the Jewish leaders hated Jesus so much: He exposed their sin (i.e. outwardly they showed obedience & piety, but inwardly they were wicked - they could fool the people, but couldn't fool God with their hypocrisy).
Yasser, your example of Abraham circumcising his Gentile servants is correct, as that was what was required to be done to become part of his household & observe any ceremonies. But it remains that the Law of God was not given to the non-Jew; the Law was one of the marks (circumcision, the other) signifying God choosing this particular people to be His Own to the exclusion of everyone else.
Then if you believe that a Gentile still needed to come under (obey) these Laws to be accepted by God, then of course, they would be judged by God under the same conditions the Jew was. So where does it leave those Gentiles? They would still have to obey them to the letter even to the performance of the sacrifices, etc. which they & the Jew could never do. The Law, at best, could only show them that they were incapable of total obedience to it & that God couldn't accept them on that basis, as even the breaking of one law, meant that they were guilty of all.
So the Law was given as a temporary measure until the perfect Sacrifice would be given by God Himself, that would only be fully acceptable to Him. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us".
The Bible is divinely inspired by God. Bible scholars assembled the writings of the Books, maps, etc. Google it.
You can tear the pages out of your Bible, but not mine.
If it doesn't make sense, then read the commentaries in this website as you come in. It even has a handy link to google the verse too.
If your Bible has center columns on each page...they correspond to a letter or number in the scripture; it points to another scripture that further explains the origins of that scripture; or gives more info.
I find studying more productive if you read slowly (no speed readers here).
Yes, I do not argue that the Bible is an inspired word of God but the letter of Paul because it was his own opinion and most of it contradicts the teachings of Jesus,.....Like for instance, Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 that he doesn't come to destroy the law of the prophets, but here comes Paul saying that obeying the law of the prophets is no need just by faith ( Romans 3:28)
Paul is not an apostle of Jesus, he doesn't even saw Jesus face to face, drink or ate with him...But he is a murderer since the beginning....The only way that linked him to Jesus was his alleged vision which also a big fabrication because of the inconsistency of his statement....Pls. read Acts 9:19-29, 26 :19-21 and Galatians 1:15-23 and see the inconsistency of his statement
Yasser so you are telling us the book of acts is wrong for telling us the story of Paul's conversion. The book of 2 peter that acknowledges Paul as a brother in the faith is wrong. That the Holy Spirit FAILED to warn the 11 apostles that Paul was a fake? Is that what you are telling us in your statement? I want to be sure I understand. If Paul is a fake then all the above would be true.
Bob Hilt, Peter is illiterate so how could he write a book?.....The most probable cause that Peter had a book is that Paul wrote those books to nullify his claim and serve as a badge of his apostleship.....Now, in Acts 22:9 Paul claims that when he spoke to Jesus, those traveling with him "saw the light," but "they heard not the voice." While in Acts 9:7 those who were with Paul are claimed to have "stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."....Can you see his lies now?...
Hello, why do you assume Paul is illiterate? The apparent contradiction of the word 'voice' of the these 2 verses of Acts doesn't mean automatically mean Paul is lying. The men heard a sound but didn't understand the words of the voice. 22:9 says "heard not the voice of him that spake to me" means the words were not understood. The original Greek word appears to be a flexible one that is sometimes translated to 'sound', like in John 3:8.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment to start a new comment thread.
Enter new comment
I beg to differ that Paul's letters are not the word of God. Paul said in Galatians Chapter 1 Verses 8 and 9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which Paul preached, Paul says let him be accursed.
How could Paul make such a bold claim by saying if any man does not receive the gospel he preached, let that man be accused? That sounds like a pretty bold claim to make, wouldn't you say? Except for the fact that we know where Paul received his teaching and doctrine from.
Paul gives us his credentials in Galatians 11 through 24. If you look at Verse 11, Paul says, "But I certify, or more literally, I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after, or according to man. So it's not of man as you claim.
In Verse 12, Paul says "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Paul spent three years alone out in the Arabian Desert receiving his teaching from Christ Himself. If you read through all the way down to Verse 24, you will see that. I hope you have a good understanding of who Jesus Christ is, and who He claimed to be. That would be a starter at understanding who Paul's teachings came from, God or man!
But then you go down to Verse 16, and Jesus says, "A little while and ye shall not see me: and the term "a little while" means a short time of space. Jesus says, and again, a little while, and (ye shall see me), because I go to the Father. So what is He talking about there? A little while you won't see me, but then a little while after that you will see me? How do explain that one, because they're probably thinking "That doesn't make sense! We understand a little while you will not see me. You've been telling us that for three years. But now you are saying, in a little while and (you will see me) because I'm going to the Father. Well, if you are going away, how are we about ready to see you again?"
Verse 17 would show you that they didn't understand what Jesus was telling them. They were discussing amongst themselves what this meant, and Jesus knew that, as we're told in Verse 19. And then you go down to Verse 22, and Jesus says And ye now, therefore, have sorrow: but (I will see you again), and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
Jesus is talking about His coming to them in the person of the Holy Spirit that He has been talking to them about since Chapter 14, where He says the Comforter will come to you, I will come to you, the Father and I will come to you, and we all will make our dwelling in you!
And here's another proof of fabrication about his alleged vision, in Acts 9:19-29 Acts 26-19-21 contradicted by Galatians 1:15-23 is quite obvious of contradiction, can you see the fabrications now?...
What an awesome provision for God's people! There are several places in scripture that tell us that the things of God are past finding out as far as human research goes. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 2, Paul says that only the Spirit of God reveals the things of God. He's the only one that knows the things of God. Again it is beyond human research ability to research spiritual things. But when God sends His Spirit, He guides us into all truth!
Again, there is no place in John Chapter 16 that speaks about the events of Christ's second coming, only the coming of His Spirit. I cannot agree with you that Paul was a liar or that he fabricated any truth. If you believe that Paul was a liar or fabricated truth, do you trust in Paul's teachings at all?
I'm sorry, but I still don't see Paul lying about anything. I've read the accounts that you are referring to. Jesus did tell His disciples that they would not physically see Him again after His ascension. Paul, on the Damascus road never said that he physically saw Jesus. Paul said he saw a light from heaven, and he heard a voice from heaven. He never said he physically saw Jesus. So there is no contradiction there. I'm sorry that you view Paul as a liar and someone who fabricates the truth. I just don't see it, and I'm not going to agree to it.
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
When John wrote the Revelation, He received it from Christ Himself. But if there is a question as to whether Paul met the qualifications to be an Apostle proper, we are told Paul went to Jerusalem, met with the Apostles and they, themselves, approved him as an Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter also refers to what Paul writes as "Scripture" 2 Peter 3:16.
Acts 9:5-7, "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."
This event is also recounted in Acts 22. So what are we to believe? Did Paul see Jesus? Well, He says he did. Others can attest to the fact that what Paul said on the Road to Damascus was True. Ananias was also a witness. And the Apostles confirmed it and appointed him Apostle to the Gentiles, as Christ told him. Furthermore, Pauls life, work, letters, sacrifice all testify to the fact that he did see Jesus and was taught by Him. In fact, the Bible says he was "told" by God and Jesus what to say.
If we doubt everything the Bible says, we have nowhere to go. If we doubt what Paul said, we have to doubt the entire New Testament.
2 Timothy 3:16
You know you are bored when you start calling people liars! In the Bible. Go take a walk. Get fresh air.
Yasser,
There is nothing in John Chapter 16 that describes any of the events that take place at Christ's second coming. I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. All throughout Chapter 16, and in fact, beginning at Chapter 15 Verse 26, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit coming, not His second coming. He uses the word "Comforter" in Chapter 15, and then again in Chapter 16. This word comforter refers to the Holy Spirit coming, not Jesus' second coming. John 16:8 speaks of the comforter (Holy Spirit) coming.
In Verse 8, Jesus says "And when he is come, he will reprove, and it is literally the word convict. It is a judiciary term that means to present evidence to bring about conviction. That is what the Holy Spirit does. That is his ministry. He will convict the world of three things. He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Jesus is not talking about His second coming. He's talking about sending His Spirit.
You ask that "If Jesus has something to say then why he didn't tell his disciples before his ascension? Well, if you look at Verse 12, Jesus says "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. The word "cannot" is the word ability. You don't have the ability to bear what I'm about to tell you. And then you go down to Verse 13, and Jesus says, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Jesus is telling them that the Holy Spirit will reveal things that will later come. You see, Jesus knows our hearts. He knows what truth we can and cannot handle, and He only reveals to us the things He knows we are ready for. He knew that His disciples would not be able to handle what He had to say to them.
Paul an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
See ACTS chapter 9
After Paul hit the ground; he said, Who art thou, LORD?
The men traveling with Paul, heard an audible voice, but saw no man.
Saul stands up, but now he is blind. He is blind 3 days and does not eat or drink.
Keep reading; by verse 20 Paul is preaching Christ in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
By verse 23, the Jews are plotting to kill Saul.
We need the full account of Bible events without JUDGING them. Read the full account first; even the whole chapter.
Paul was struck blind but he and some other guys ALL HEARD with their ears, the VOICE of the risen Christ. Paul was a chosen vessel. Verse 15-16 (written in the red ink)
The laws given for not eating unclean animals were God's direct command to His people, Israel. They were given because He said that these were an abomination to Him & possibly also for maintaining good health. When the Gospel came to the Gentiles, this law (as other Laws of God) could not be imposed as then it would mean that Gentiles would then first have to become Jews to then be saved (see Galatians 2:3, 4: which gives an example of Paul's refusal to have Titus circumcised, as some insisted on doing, to be able to become a Christian). As well, the keeping of Jewish laws nullified the work & results of Jesus' sacrifice for mankind's sins (i.e. one cannot mix the obedience to the Law with the gift of Grace).
So what is correct now? Well, the Jews still observe the Laws & of course, the one you mentioned, but the Gentiles have no such command. Does God then reject all those who eat unclean animals? He doesn't, because that requirement no longer has application in the New Covenant of Grace. Gentiles can still choose to refrain from pork, horse, dog, etc., but we are not judged by what we eat but what comes out of our heart ( Mt 15:17-20 gives a similar example of the Jews & eating with unwashen hands which was sin, like eating an unclean animal).
And briefly, about Paul's letters: Paul & the apostles wrote according to what they had heard from Jesus or from special revelation from Heaven (maybe, like you giving instructions to children about what you learnt from your forefathers). So those letters from them are considered true & valid as they don't contradict Christ's teaching. Even Mohammed & others claimed such authority in their teaching. So this can't be argued, it's just a question of truth of the word.
You said, "so you don't need to be a Jew to follow the commandments". In one sense, you are correct, if you mean that God's Laws are good & very useful to all people (as even now some of those laws are incorporated in modern societies). But, we are talking here about, not just about doing the 'right things before God', but does God accept us (Jew & Gentile alike) if we try to maintain strict adherence to His Laws?
So if keeping of the Laws couldn't make us right before God, then He had to send Jesus, His Son, Who came as the complete fulfilment of all those Laws (He was the Word of God come in the flesh & without sin, to be the only acceptable Sacrifice that would be acceptable to God). So, if a person is now acceptable to God through Jesus' Sacrifice for their sins, where does the significance of the Law appear? A person cannot keep the Law & also come by faith in Jesus' Sacrifice to be acceptable to God: these two oppose each other, as self-effort & trust don't mix, as oil & water don't. So if we come by the Law, God judges us by it; if coming in faith, God accepts us because His Judgement was completed at the Cross of Jesus.
And a side note: I don't understand what your 'Paul's theology' reference is. Paul (then Saul), was devout Pharisee, a Jew of the Jews, believing he obeyed every Law. He hated Jesus & His followers & put many to death. He received a revelation from Heaven that would shake his being to the core. ( Acts 9:3-7). What was that revelation? That this Jesus Whom he persecuted (i.e. against his followers) was alive from the dead & speaking to him from Heaven. So Paul's letters to the Churches were not from his own private thoughts & interpretations; He was a strict Pharisee would couldn't divert from the Law - not until He met the risen Christ, the fulfilment of that Law.
b. Mt 5:17-19. Another clear Scripture showing that the Law was good but people, as sinners, could never keep it. So Jesus said that He came to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it. What do you make of that statement? Remembering that Jesus' coming was still in the period of the Old Covenant (i.e. of Law), so He could speak of the worth of the Law (v 19), but also to say (v 20), that "on top of it, your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (who were known to be sticklers for the Law plus adding many of their own)". Was this possible? Jesus knew that man could never gain acceptance to Heaven based on the obedience of the Law; so He said that He came to fulfil the Law. So how did He fulfil the Law? I'll let you give me your answer.
c. I will leave off quoting the Pauline epistles, as you have turned your ear against them & the other epistles. But you ask: "But is it really true that the death of Jesus on the cross is the only way of salvation?" Have a look at Jn 14:6; 10:11-18; Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45; Jn 6:33. All these passages speak of Jesus laying down His Life. But I hear you say that they don't have the words "way of salvation". Then it would show that you do not really want to understand Jesus' prime purpose of coming; all these verses show that He came to die so that man might have a new life in Heaven & not go to Hell.
(onto Page 3)
Yasser, your comments are interesting to the point that it has me guessing as to your religious position. If you are part of the other two monotheistic faiths, I can understand your questions. But if you are of a Christian background, then please say so, as you seem to have knowledge of the Scriptures, but you appear to contradict everything that God had planned & set in motion from beginning of time to the coming of His Christ.
However, I will answer your last comment to me, but not quoting from the Epistles.
a. Mk 10:17-19. The man obviously obeyed all the Ten Commandments & Jesus was pleased about that. However, Jesus knew that the man actually trusted in his wealth more than God (v 24). So what is Jesus telling him here? The bottom line was that he actually broke the first Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". This man probably didn't have idols in his house, but his love & trust in his wealth proved otherwise. One reason for giving the Law to Israel was to show them that they could never obey it fully. This is a reason why the Jewish leaders hated Jesus so much: He exposed their sin (i.e. outwardly they showed obedience & piety, but inwardly they were wicked - they could fool the people, but couldn't fool God with their hypocrisy).
(onto Page 2)
Yasser, your example of Abraham circumcising his Gentile servants is correct, as that was what was required to be done to become part of his household & observe any ceremonies. But it remains that the Law of God was not given to the non-Jew; the Law was one of the marks (circumcision, the other) signifying God choosing this particular people to be His Own to the exclusion of everyone else.
Then if you believe that a Gentile still needed to come under (obey) these Laws to be accepted by God, then of course, they would be judged by God under the same conditions the Jew was. So where does it leave those Gentiles? They would still have to obey them to the letter even to the performance of the sacrifices, etc. which they & the Jew could never do. The Law, at best, could only show them that they were incapable of total obedience to it & that God couldn't accept them on that basis, as even the breaking of one law, meant that they were guilty of all.
So the Law was given as a temporary measure until the perfect Sacrifice would be given by God Himself, that would only be fully acceptable to Him. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us".
(onto Page 2)
You can tear the pages out of your Bible, but not mine.
If it doesn't make sense, then read the commentaries in this website as you come in. It even has a handy link to google the verse too.
If your Bible has center columns on each page...they correspond to a letter or number in the scripture; it points to another scripture that further explains the origins of that scripture; or gives more info.
I find studying more productive if you read slowly (no speed readers here).
All New Testament (Covenant). Given to men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ Jesus?
Is it just Paul the Apostle of Jesus you are having a problem with?
YOU please back up in Acts chapter 9:3-16. I hope you have red letter edition. Jesus was speaking in verses 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16.
Verse 15: Paul is a chosen vessel unto ME, to bear MY name...
Jesus audibly spoke because several people heard it; verse 7
You may as well give this up now. Jesus spoke. Paul was CHOSEN.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?