My Gospel says Paul

[Artizan007]

malcolm ferris:
So even as the Law is commonly referred to as the Law of Moses.
Now Paul is given leave to call what God had revealed to him, Paul's gospel.

Hey Malcolm,

This is how I see your point above, not that I am right but it is how I see it:

It would be like if Moses brought the Law, a new commandment of God ways and dealings with his people and then Joshua went and added to this Law. The things he thought Moses had forgotten to deal with as well as what he thought was a good amended version of that Law and command from his perspective.

However when the Covenant, which was sealed in Jesus' blood was established; remembering whom Jesus is – the pivotal point in all of the history of mankind promised before and outlaying all that in history was yet to come, it is almost as if you are implying that there was a new gospel message – that of Paul’s.

That said, what I see in your above statement is that Jesus, the chosen Messiah, the Son of Man, did not manage to get into his message all that God intended to reveal to mankind and had to await Paul’s arrival to do so.

Jesus, the appointed Messiah comes along, teaches us and reinstates the truth about the Law, he does not do away with the Law but in walking this earth fulfils all that is written in the Law and the Prophets. He himself was circumcised and does not teach otherwise: He teaches the Gospel of the Kingdom message and tells the Disciples what to preach and teach. This they do and come back excited at the results of that message. SO my question is:

Why did Paul come along and change things that were not a part of the message of Jesus?

Just a thought, what do you think? NOW I must study… bye

[NickHassan]

Hi artizan 7
Jn 21.25
” And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written”

If you cannot hear the voice of Jesus in the words of Paul or any of the NT writers then you are yet to experience the full work of the Spirit in your heart.

[malcolm ferris]

John 16:12-13 Jesus said I still have MANY things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now…
John saw a great deal of things on the Isle of Patmos.
Paul also by the Spirit of God was privvy to many great things that help to further explain the plan and purpose of God in Christ…

[kenrch]

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What commandments are Jesus speaking in this scripture?
Jesus is saying not to teach _ I'm I the only one that wants to know what Jesus didn't want us to teach. And what He wanted us to teach.

Why worry about Paul's writings when Jesus' teachings are ignored.

Shouldn'd we know what our Lord wanted us to teach before we judge one of His students?

[Artizan007]

Hey Nick

I do hear Jesus' words in many instances within the writings of the NT but I am trying to piece things together as I see them.

I still cannot understand why Paul does away with circumcision when it was a “sign” of the “everlasting covernent” that God made to Abraham and his Seed. [that seed being Christ as far as I see and have been taught]

What does “Everlasting” mean to you Nick? or what do you see Everlasting to mean in the verse I supplied to you in the last post. (the promise to Abraham in Genesis)

So does God change his mind or fail to keep his promise – one made under oath of a covenant? In this case he evidently does if this “sign” is done away with.

I will share my understanding on Paul's reasoning on this subject when I have more time.

I know that God is at work in my heart – asking the hard questions has nothing to do with God not being at work in my heart. Just being a Berean like you always suggest to others… they checked out to see what Paul taught was correct and were commended by him… when I see conflict I ask why? It that wrong…? you tell me.

I may have lack of understanding in areas so if you could help me understand rather than make silly assumptions like “then you are yet to experience the full work of the Spirit in your heart.” What is that statement supposed to mean? Gosh you sound like Paul now…

I respect you Nick and most of your teaching, and that is why I bring my questions to this site.

My understanding is not at your level I am sure, so maybe you could answer some of my questions which I have laid out? That may be more helpful.

I am genuine in why I am questioning these things. It is not a trap… It is what I see, so if you have any insight to help me here it would be helpful. Reveal your wisdom instead of making assumptions.

In the mean time I will keep on looking…

Many thanks

[NickHassan]

Hi Artizan 7,
Truth is scripture. Scripture is truth as is Jesus. Jesus and his words spoken by himself or Paul or Peter or John etc, are all real food. All are of equal validity and value. Jesus is the bread of life unto eternity. Unless you know that all the words or scripture are true then how can you confidently ingest them and put your human reasoning to order?

That is what He will do. God will transform our hearts and mind and renew and restore us according to the truth of the Word. It is not all easy to understand but it is all pure truth. The conflicts are only in us and our ignorance of God's ways and not scripture.

But no one can teach you anything scriptural from without unless you have the inner teacher to show you that truth. Teachers can only confirm that inner work. That is why we need the Spirit of God, who wrote scripture through men, to be our true teacher and guide.

The everlasting promise to Israel is not broken. We have inherited the complete fulfillment of that promise in Christ by being grafted into that tree of promise. Those who are of true faith, who come to accept the Son as well as the Father as required, among the descendants of Abraham, will still inherit. They are as the older son of the parable of the prodigal son, who is/are the gentiles.

[NickHassan]

Hi A7,
True circumcision was always of the heart and not of the flesh.

[Cubes]

Quote (Artizan007 @ Mar. 30 2006,14:47)

I still cannot understand why Paul does away with circumcision when it was a “sign” of the “everlasting covernent” that God made to Abraham and his Seed. [that seed being Christ as far as I see and have been taught]

Hi Artizan, Do the following verses help?

[Cubes]

Hi Artizan:

Somehow, I think that the following verse lends itself to the topic.  Here, Paul deals w/ promises made prior to the law.  So as pertains to circumcision, God prefers circumcision of the heart to that of the flesh.  The latter is good but not as good as the first.  The law is good but not as good as the promises we hold through the SEED of Abraham, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Galatians 3:15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”* who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God *in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

[malcolm ferris]

You will also notice that Paul would not tolerate the Jewish converts imposing the circumcision upon a new Gentile convert, yet he still allowed the Jewish converts to be circumcised.
Showing as Jesus said – that the Law of Grace did not do away with the Law of Moses, rather it fulfilled it.

The circumcision was given to a natural people under a natural law, which was unto death. This was a shadow of a better Law to come. The fact that a better way existed is shown in the verses where the people are entreated to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts.

Also we need to consider that circumcision was not the critical factor in Egypt when God was about to strike the firstborn with death. He did not say, when I see the circumcision I will pass over that household. He said when I see the blood, so to me the blood is of far greater significance.

[Artizan007]

Hey Nick & Cubes,

Thanks for that. Few thoughts. What do you think?

If true circumcision was always of the heart why did God initiate circumcision of the flesh as the “sign” of the [everlasting covenant] in the first place. And then say it should be kept from generation to generation as a sign.

Abraham's Seed: Gen 17 states –
And I have established My covenant between Me and thee, and thy [seed] after thee, {to *their* generations}, for an everlasting covenant, to become God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; 8 and I have given to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, the whole land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I have become their God.' 9 And God saith unto Abraham, `And thou dost keep My covenant, thou and thy [seed] after thee, to {*their*} generations; 10 this is My covenant which ye keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee: {*Every male*} of you is to be circumcised;

Notice God says to thy seed and then qualifies it to be: and thy [seed after thee], {to their generations}…[not his]. Paul in Galations uses the seed arguement and states that is it to the One seed [Christ] and not to seeds being many peoples, but is that what God says here in Genesis – God qualifies who the [*Seed*] are, not is – see asterix above. It seems as if Paul interprets it to justify his thought and not the way it is stated in the scriptures. We are taught to use context – is Paul doing right in what he is saying… help me understand.

Read Gen 17:12-14 and explain how you see what is said here.  To me it is not saying what Paul is saying.

vs 12 – For the generations to come, every male MUST be circumcised, Jews and gentiles, slave and free… all peoples
vs 13 – God says “my covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant – does this mean everlasting or for a time?
vs 14 – no circumcision, no part of God's chosen

Also there is Moses' Son:
Why was God so angry with Moses when he had not circumcised his son, if true circumcision is of the heart, as you say, then surely this should not have been a big issue.

If it was not important, then why did God seek to kill Moses on the journey to meet with Pharaoh. That was until Zipporah stepped in, had her son circumcised and touched Moses feet with the skin. Sounds sick but it says when she had done this God let Moses alone. WHY was that?

In the Old Testament the term “circumcision of the heart” is used in the sense that God was wanting them to not only have the 'sign' but to live by the covenant it signified. It never implies that circumcision should be done away with… Jesus never brought this up and said it should be done away with. As initiator of the New Covenant, surely this would be a significant turning point as it was a new teaching. Jesus would have mentioned it at least. Why don't the other NT writers teach this? or do they and I have not seen it.

Jesus did mention the Sabboth and changes there. (why would he not mention the circumcision – after all he was made the “light to the Gentiles”, was he not and must have known this could have become an issue – Isaiah 49).

It is interesting to note that Paul claims this passage of himself… he said he was a light to the gentiles, as well as being chosen by God and set aside at birth. (the gentile part I can see, but the set aside at birth I cannot see)

What are your thoughts – I am learning as I go, so this is helpful for me.

Ps:
Also can you explain the differences in Paul's conversion accounts please. These are blatently different. How could Luke and Paul, both New Testament writers get the same account so different and it still be within God's writings to man… If you have some insight on this it will help me greatly.

[NickHassan]

Hi A7,
Would your accounts of events in your life always be exactly the same? Or would you sometimes mention some aspects and sometimes others depending on your specific detailed recollections at the time or the audience you were addressing? Would you give the same account of a car accident to your Mum and the police and your insurance company yet tell no lies?
Paul was the only one to hear the voice, scripture tells us, so Luke did not and is recounting what he remembered of what he heard from Paul. I have read the accounts in Acts 8,22 and 26 without finding any conflict but only differences in detail.
Must Paul be obliged always to quote exactly what he heard or can he not summarise? Is there only legalism and no freedom allowed in the Spirit?If you find conflict can you be specific?
Israelites who hope to inherit salvation according to the first promise must obey every detail unto perfection including circumcision yet they will fail because of sin. We were never under that promise but are under a new covenant. Jesus fulfilled it perfectly for all, Jew and Gentile.
In Galatians and Romans Paul was trying to convince new Jewish christian converts not to go back to wasting their time under the Old Law as that would negate the works of Jesus done for them. Paul had a hard time doing so for they were more familiar with legal observance and works, and grace was too foreign a concept.

[sandra]

I completely agree Nick with what you said regarding, what Paul was trying to say regarding a different gospel, meaning people were falling back into legalism.
Now I believe it was Dave who said, “The Bible says that no portion of scripture is written by man's will, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. If we use your reasoning then the Bible is not an authority at all, but rather man is. What you call “inconsistencies” has nothing to do with the Word of God, it is your insecurites and lack of understanding that is inconsistent. Please explain to me what you believe the Bible to be. The Word of God was given to change us, but we continually want to change God.”

Bearing this in mind, I ask someone to please answer me regarding the incongruency between Matthew 27:44,”The theives that were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth, cast the same?, the same, as those were saying, if thou be the son of god come down from the cross,and Mark 15:32, “And they that crucified with him reviled him. That is an extremely different version than Luke 23:43,”And Jesus saith unto him, I tell you the truth today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.” These incongruencies are not to be taken lightly. What does it mean? Do the dead in Christ go to heaven immediately? I thought they rise first? Did God actually provide redemption to both that reviled him? One who repented? Well one out of 2 gospels says otherwise. Please explain, and nothing like, well one later repented because, that is an additive, and not a scriptural explanation.

[Cubes]

Hi Artizan:

Off the top of my head, reading your reference of Gen 17, it seems to me that the fleshly circumcision is expressly for the Seed of Abraham (Isaac and all generations following him).  I realize that Ishmael got circumcised too and his descendants continue to do it because they identify w/ Abraham.  However the covenant of circumcision was to Abraham, his seed and descendants through the SEED Isaac; to them God gave the land of Canaan:  

Genesis 17:8 and I have given to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, the whole land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I have become their God.'

Non-Abraham descendants by faith identify w/ Abraham, however, God through Paul chose not to impose the Jewish ordinances upon these gentile nations because that had not been their way of life and they are ruled by leaders who do not know YHWH let alone have YHWH's laws at heart.  It took 40 years in the wilderness for Moses and Joshua to try and impart YHWH's laws to his people.  By the time Judges was written, many of them had completely turned away.  If memory serves me right, King David never celebrated passover… Kings Hezekiah and Josiah get some credit for making some effort towards that end… God allowed the people to remain in captivity long enough in order to fulfill the sabbaths of the land (Israel) because they had not been keeping the sabbaths…..

With all that in mind, Jesus appointed Paul to preach to the gentiles who had for the most part not known YHWH or his laws.  Just imagine the chaos and persecution that would have resulted in various nations if the gentile converts would have attempted to put those external laws into effect:  e.g. sabbath, dietary laws etc.  So I am thinking that, major laws apply to all humans, say the 10 commandments because it works by conscience from deep within (Romans 1 and 2), whereas I break a kosher law and it doesn't even register…. as such, seeing that the law didn't result in perfection but was more a way to govern the particular people of Israel and conform them into God's peculiar people, it would appear that God excused gentiles from jewish by-laws.

This last paragraph I might add, is largely speculative on my part and I submit it to the word of God.  Just trying to understand myself.

[NickHassan]

Quote (sandra @ Mar. 31 2006,01:54)

I completely agree Nick with what you said regarding, what Paul was trying to say regarding a different gospel, meaning people were falling back into legalism.  Now I believe it was Dave who said, “The Bible says that no portion of scripture is written by man's will, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. If we use your reasoning then the Bible is not an authority at all, but rather man is. What you call “inconsistencies” has nothing to do with the Word of God, it is your insecurites and lack of understanding that is inconsistent. Please explain to me what you believe the Bible to be. The Word of God was given to change us, but we continually want to change God.” Bearing this in mind, I ask someone to please answer me regarding the incongruency between Matthew 27:44,”The theives that were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth, cast the same?, the same, as those were saying, if thou be the son of god come down from the cross,and Mark 15:32, “And they that crucified with him reviled him.  That is an extremely different version than Luke 23:43,”And Jesus saith unto him, I tell you the truth today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  These incongruencies are not to be taken lightly.  What does it mean?  Do the dead in Christ go to heaven immediately?  I thought they rise first?  Did God actually provide redemption to both that reviled him? One who repented?  Well one out of 2 gospels says otherwise.  Please explain, and nothing like, well one later repented because, that is an additive, and not a scriptural explanation.

Hi Sandra,
Neither Matthew or Mark say ALL the robbers were casting abuse at Jesus. How many criminals were crucified with Jesus? Scripture does not say but at least two. Luke may suggest two is the number. What it does also not specify is whether or not “the good thief” initially hurled abuse and later changed his tune. That also is possible. There are no lies in scripture.
Nowhere does it say men go to heaven when they die before the resurrection or the judgement. A very popular myth. Neither does it either say they even go there after the judgement.

[kenrch]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 31 2006,02:16)

Quote (sandra @ Mar. 31 2006,01:54) I completely agree Nick with what you said regarding, what Paul was trying to say regarding a different gospel, meaning people were falling back into legalism.  Now I believe it was Dave who said, “The Bible says that no portion of scripture is written by man's will, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. If we use your reasoning then the Bible is not an authority at all, but rather man is. What you call “inconsistencies” has nothing to do with the Word of God, it is your insecurites and lack of understanding that is inconsistent. Please explain to me what you believe the Bible to be. The Word of God was given to change us, but we continually want to change God.” Bearing this in mind, I ask someone to please answer me regarding the incongruency between Matthew 27:44,”The theives that were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth, cast the same?, the same, as those were saying, if thou be the son of god come down from the cross,and Mark 15:32, “And they that crucified with him reviled him.  That is an extremely different version than Luke 23:43,”And Jesus saith unto him, I tell you the truth today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  These incongruencies are not to be taken lightly.  What does it mean?  Do the dead in Christ go to heaven immediately?  I thought they rise first?  Did God actually provide redemption to both that reviled him? One who repented?  Well one out of 2 gospels says otherwise.  Please explain, and nothing like, well one later repented because, that is an additive, and not a scriptural explanation. Hi Sandra, Neither Matthew or Mark say ALL the robbers were casting abuse at Jesus. How many criminals were crucified with Jesus? Scripture does not say but at least two. Luke may suggest two is the number. What it does also not specify is whether or not “the good thief” initially hurled abuse and later changed his tune. That also is possible. There are no lies in scripture. Nowhere does it say men go to heaven when they die before the resurrection or the judgement. A very popular myth. Neither does it either say they even go there after the judgement.

Hi Nick,

Thanks for telling me what the scripture doesn't say. That makes what it does say much more clearer.

[NickHassan]

Hi kenrch,
Presumption is the opposite and enemy of faith. It sees what is not written and proclaims it as true[like trinity] Scripture must be carefully studied to glean exactly what is meant. Rushing to conclusions is a fatal error.

[kenrch]

Hey Nick,

“It sees what is not written and proclaims it as true[like trinity”

You mean like Matt5:19?

[kenrch]

Nick,

I'm really joyful that you're back even though we seldom agree. You are a child of God and my brother!

GOOD to have you back! Don't do that again!

[Ramblinrose]

Artizan 007

I found the following article on the subject of circumcision very interesting.  Thought you might find it interesting also.

GALATIANS: Understanding the Issue of Circumcision

[Author]

Posts