The teachings of our Lord and the interpretations of Paul

Jake wrote:""Paul emphasizes the gift of salvation and sins being washed away by the blood sacrifice of Jesus. He sets the bar very low for the Gentiles and de-emphasizes our works and behaviors.""Paul did not set the bar low, man's doctrines of grace and mercy have been squewed to allow the flesh to live. It is not Paul's interpretation that is wrong. It is our understanding or interpretation of what Paul said that is wrong.Paul wrote,"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God...For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are let by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.." Romans 8Jesus says, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; ; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.." John 16:13-14Paul and Jesus are in complete agreement. It is only by the Spirit can we learn what Jesus want's us to do for Him. It is not by our flesh and carnal minds trying to follow just words in the Scripture. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can know His will. The Spirit will teach us the truth. God's righteousness will not be compromised by what the Spirit speaks to those that are His. Paul's teaching's are very clear on this matter. It is man's understanding that is in the dark.In Christ Jeff

The stories of the gospels show so delightfully the supernatural nature of our Christ and He also alludes to the supernatural nature of the believer (born of Spririt) and also that it is necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood Paul takes this and makes it more clear how to live that supernatural life distinguishing between flesh and spirit throughout and of the acts of the sinful nature are obvious so i'll not bother going any further with that. There cannot be any disagreement between paul's teachings and those of Jesus or Scripture would be errant and its not! you do agree don't you jake?Also it puzzles me how people look at Jesus and see a Man who is just a teacher of good morals or even principally that because the Gospels show much more than that like the fact that He worked miracles everywhere He went and then offered us salvation at calvary!

Saw the heading of this post and thought, O boy, here we go again...How long will this go on? This compartmentalizing of the faith, teachings and scripture."In my opinion" seems to be at the root of everything, with all due respect and love, your (or mine) opinion doesn't mean squat.I make a distinction between Christians and Paulians here. It is good to contemplate which group you belong to."I make a distinction ", go right ahead and contemplate, reject everything that doesn't 'fit' into your way of thinking. Just a few post's ago you rejected, who was it Matthew and his prophecy?It's impossible to keep up with your dissecting of the scriptures.Did it ever occur to you that you have much more in common with Paul than you think? That is before he was gloriously struck down and humbledin the Heavenly light. I pray that by God's grace the same happens to you.Little sense in going toe to toe with you over all the details, my puny intellect being squashed by your knowledge of a great deal of information and jumping into another circular debate will just leave me dizzy. But again you throw out a provocative statement like the one above as if it is fact. Beginning to think that your intelligence is a curse. Do you not see the pride in the statements you make?yet when I read the works of Paul I get uncomfortable and ill at ease.Good, may you become even more uncomfortable.His emphasis on blood sacrifice feels like a gross simplification and even a morbid fascination.Don't trust your feelings, they aren't worth trusting.Is it not strange that for all the trouble you have with Paul, why is it that none of the other disciples did? Even though he came in after the fact, surely if there was anyone that would have a case against Paul it would have been them.Wonder why I even bother with this, it just grieves me to see someone attempt to discredit God's word in this way as you often do. It's tired Jake. There is no sense in trying to reason with you...I will pray for a Damascus road type of intervention, for you and me both.

Come let us reason together. You pick the point of seperation between Paul and Jesus. I will respond on the Scripture selected and not on the one debating. In ChristJeff

Greetings Jake Once again you are picking and choosing scriptures putting them up side by side and then deciding they contridict each other, without taking into account, context, time of writing or reason for the scripture. If you read the whole of Jesus's teachings and Paul's teaching you will not find a single contridiction. However as Peter stated Pauls writings are hard to be understood and easy to stumble with (paraprased) I fear that you yourself stumble at Pauls teachings. Also reading your original post I noticed a lack of understanding regarding the blood of Christ as pertaining to salvation? May I post a question to you? What role, to you, did the blood of Christ play in our salvation? You will feel that we are attacking the messenger believe me when I say it is only because of the contridiction of your message with what is known as essential doctrines of salvation.LyndonPS Please have a look and think about my signature

Is it not strange that for all the trouble you have with Paul, why is it that none of the other disciples did? Even though he came in after the fact, surely if there was anyone that would have a case against Paul it would have been them.This is a good point. Jake, do you accept the authority of the apostles? They walked with Jesus, they could speak first hand on His teaching. Those same apostles authenticated Paul's teachings as being sound. We see this in Galatians 2. Paul received the right hand of fellowship, and it was demonstrated there that he had not run in vain, and God had indeed spoken to him and that he was preaching what was true. Peter even referred to Paul's writing as Scripture in 1 Peter 3. So you have this tight group of people close to Jesus that can authenticate what is true.In Christ,Ron

JakeIf your ears are not made of stone I would like to address again the issue which constantly rises to the surface in your posts.You raise an important question when you constrast the emphases in the gospel and the letters. But your position has preset your response. There is a difference which is right? This is a false dichotomy. Both are right. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring to the apostles' memory the things that He had said. He also said that the Spirit would 'teach you all things' John 14:26 He added that the Spirit, when He came, would 'guide you into all truth' and 'show you things to come' John 16:13. He had already said 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. John 16:13.If you haven't read John 14-16 recently I would recommend you do so with this thread in mind. The recurring theme is that there is more to come, more truth, more experience. It is important to realise that this is not referring to a general 'inward witness' for all believers but a special promise for the apostles. My own belief is that the pre-pentecost gift of the Spirit was with this in mind. John's account says 'Receive the Spirit' (John 20:21), Luke says 'he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45). The two accounts are telling the same story; John highlights the gift of the Spirit while Luke highlights the results.The Spirit came in Acts 2 in regenerating power and the men whose understadings had been opened were now new born and ready to go. Peter, in fulfillment of the promises in John expounded things that he had never understood during the earthly ministry of Christ. This was only the beginning. The Spirit continued to reveal 'truth' and 'things to come'. The link is those apostles. They were uniquely commissioned. You will know that the universal testimony of history has been that Mark's account has Peter's eyewitness behind it. The promise to the apostles mean that you have to add Peter's letters to your little canon. Peter, of course, in 2 Pet endorses the whole of Paul's writings referring to them as 'scripture'. You now have to add Paul's writings to your canon. John, one of those who were promised to be shown 'things to come' wrote the Revelation; you will have to add that to your canon too. Your Bible will become the same size as ours if you follow through these thoughts.You calmly reject sayings of Christ that do not fit into your theology; mistakes I think you called them. These writings have been accepted wholeheartedly by George Fox and Robert Barclay, although one of your recent posts debunked Barclay. This isolation and private interpretation of scripture is exactly what causes sects and heresies. I know that you like to regard yourself as a 'Christian'; I have never done so. This is not an accusation but a simple observation. You deride the source documents of the faith. You emasculate the canon. You add notions of your own, eg reincarnation, which are specifically denied by the scripture. You refuse to tell me who Christ's father was, if it was not God. You have cut the links with original Quakerism, which was a powerful and genuine movement of God's Spirit. I have been unable to deduce your exact views on substitutionary penal substitution. ( recall you don't like long words but these are technical is just means that Christ suffered God's wrath against sin in our place.) Your 'Christianity' fits only where it touches, and is your own personal definition.I don't think any the less of you for this. I only continue to try to point to the truth as it is in Christ. At present you stand on a bridge of entirely your own design and construction spanning a great chasm; we fear for you. There is a tested and tried bridge across this chasm which is testified to in the seamless revelation of the gospels and the remainder of the New Testament. To set yourself against the united testimony of the church of God through 2000 years is not only arrogant it is foolhardy.

JakeYou will see that First and Second Ron must have been working on their responses at the same time. His is more succinct than mine but if you examine them you will see we are singing in harmony. Why not take this as the independent testimony of two witnesses and reconsider your own stance?

Hi JakeYour ears are made of stone.That's not quite accurate, if you had said I had rocks in my head, that would have been better, but, close enough... :-) I do have to say that I am equally prideful to be judging on a personal level, something I usually will jump in to try and stop when it get's to that point in these posts. Forgive me for that. attacks the messenger and does not deal with message presentedLooks a little of both in my reply, I think your statement was provoking, but I could have responded differently.Still hold to the fact that scripture interept's scripture...all of it, I know, that's where everything get's off track, and I also hold to the fact that I have a long way to go in understanding how to do that in a comprehensive way.I am not backtracking on what I said, just the spirit it was said in was wrong and the barbs were unnecessary. Would rather "... build you up and not to tear you down".You just make it really difficult with these kind of statements."Stone Ears" :-)

Hi Simon,Did you read the first post?