Dear Mr. Leo,
You see animate in debating the Christian belief, especially when it comes to the writings of Paul/Saul. Now I do admit that I have not read all of your past postings, so forgive me if I bring up something that you have already addressed. But I wanted to bring to you my knowledge and question some things you said so that an understanding can be found.
First of all, I believe you liken Paul to that of a false apostle in one of your other posts. I have wondered what biblical evidence you have to discredit Paul? Jesus tells us that Satan divided against himself cannot stand. And all I've seen the letters of Paul do is teach Christ Crucified for sins. As far as I've seen, Paul teaches the gospel of Jesus, that salvation is through Christ, for it does say in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." Is not Paul agreeing with this when he says, "If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord', and believe in your heart that God raised him fromthe dead, you will be saved." If Paul was a false voice from the devil, then he would not be teaching what Christ taught because the devil divided against himself cannot stand.
Yes. Paul was a murderer. And even he said in 1 Timothy 1:15, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–of whom I am the worst." And this seems to match Jesus's teachings who said in Matthew 9 : 12-13 "On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
You said, "the very reason Paul was so immensely popular -- he could tell people what they wanted to hear." But so far, all I've seen Paul do is share and correlate the gospel of Christ, and spread around the teachings and truths that Christ and his disciples did.
The Sermon of the Mount. Isn't that from Matthew 5 : 1 - Matthew 7 : 29? You said, "You might go over the Sermon of the Mount and itemize the instances where Our Lord expects us not only to obey the Law but to go beyond the Law. That we are expected to take Baptism and the Sacrament of the Body and the Blood if we are to expect Eternal Life." But I didn't see anything about baptism or the sacraments as requirements for Eternal Life. Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." And we as Christians believe and accept that. Jesus said, "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" Is this saying that even those who break commandments are going to be in heaven? But Jesus also said, "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven"
Here is what I understand the gospel of Christ to be. In the old testament, whenever the Israelites sinned, they had to attone for those sins by sacrifice so that they could be considered 'clean' again. Jesus gave us a guideline to live righteous lives, and He said that righteousness is what gets us into heaven. But can we be righteous enough? Can we live so righteous a life that no sin ever enters our mind or our heart at any time? Have you ever taken or 'borrowed' something that was not yours and without permission? Have you ever thought lustfully at the opposite sex, even as a teen or youth? Have you ever said even a small lie? Ever saw something a friend or neighbor (or even enemy) had and you desired to possess it? We have all sinned and broken the commandments in our lives. You notice that Jesus was brought to the cross and killed? You notice how Jesus is considered the Lamb of God, the sacrificial Lamb of God? It would seem that Jesus was the sacrifice that attoned for our sins so that we could live out righteousness in mercy, not in sacrifice. Even Jesus said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"
This is the gospel that I understand according to teachings of Christ and of his disciples in Acts. If you do find fault, please correct me scripturally.
It was James who said, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" Where he also says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?"
As a Christian, I do not refute this, but agree. If a man claims to have faith, but has no deeds to show for it, then is it real faith at all? Jesus says, "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Truth faith produces the fruit of action, action performed by the heart. If one claims to have faith, but has no fruit to prove it, then that faith can be called into question. I do not think the scripture is saying you are saved by works, but that your faith cannot be real faith if there is no works. Who will work on studying the laws of aerodynamics if they do not have faith that it will work? Who will jump off a sinking ship into a lifesaving raft if they do not have faith that the raft will save them? In the same way that works is proof of faith, works without faith is also dead. Wouldn't that seem to be true? Faith without the proof of works is dead, and works without faith is dead. They go hand in hand is what it sounds like, whereas the key factor is faith. You cannot do the works if you do not have the faith, and if you have the faith, then works are produced. So it sounds like it is faith that is the saving portion, not the works. Again, as Jesus said, "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" So salvation cannot be through works it seems.
"it is that every word in the Bible is equal to every other word" Where did you get this from? I am curious because I have never heard of this expression, nor of its implied meaning. I'm curious to hear their explaination behind this because words are nothing but vessels that attempt to convey the meaning of the message.
"the Words of Paul as a Murderer who spreads a Doctrine contrary to that which was taught by Christ, and who, in the Book of Acts is reported to have done exactly that -- to preach His own Doctrines."
Paul was a murderer, this is true and he confessed it. But which words of Paul are you speaking of that contract the words taught by Christ? And where in Acts is reported to have done this?
"HOW DOES PAUL CONTRADICT CHRIST?! You must be kidding! Protestant Doctrine could not exist without Paul. "
Even if we did not have Paul's writings to include in the bible, Christ's sacrifice does not change. Christ still teaches agape love as did his apostles. As far as I know, the center of the Protestant belief is Jesus Christ, not Paul. Yes, we see Paul's teachings to parallel Christ's and His disciples, plus, when Paul teaches, he doesn't just speak, but also uses examples and scriptures to back up what he is saying. Didn't Jesus do the same? Yes, even Satan knows the scripture, but Satan doesn't try to point people to Christ. Paul does.
"Christ NOWHERE talks about Salvation by Faith Alone. Christ NOWHERE renounces Jewish Law and Tradition " For God so loved the world that He gave is only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Whosoever believes, not whosoever works. The criminal who was crucified with Christ knew of his sins and knew he deserved his fate. Yet he rebuked the other criminal claiming that Christ had done nothing and then confessed to Christ his belief that He was going to His heavenly kingdom. By his words alone, Christ declared the criminal heavenbound. Cornelius was a "devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly" Yet despite his righteousness, an angel appeared before him telling him to 'Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved" (Acts 11:13-14) And the message that Peter gave was this, "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10 : 42 - 43) So it is not just Paul who speaks of salvation by faith, but it is found elsewhere in the new testament. And we do not renounce Jewish Law, but Jesus said this, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." So we are not dismissing the law, but we are living the law according to these two commands as best as we are able.
"If the Gospel was to be given to the Gentiles, then it would require their Conversion -- not just to Christianity, but to the New Judaism"
"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." And it says in Colossians 3:11 "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. " I see no contradictions here.
"There is also the Unique Paulian Doctrines of Predestination"
In regards to Predestination, I have determined this:
Where does God draw the line between predestination and free choice? How is it that we live by a measurable counter called time yet God is past, present, and future? Are there 3 Gods, or only one? What exactly is hell and what will we do in heaven? These are questions that have been answered by many people in many different ways. And as Icthus so truthfully put it, such questions have sometimes driven an axe between Christians. The bible only gives us vague answers and hints as to what is really going on in God's realm, but I like to think of it like this: Can an ant be an auto mechanic? Can a person actually tell an ant to go to a car and troubleshoot for the problem, and diagnose what tool and parts are needed to fix that problem? Of course not. An ant cannot understand human language nor can it understand the machine. All it knows is how to get food and defend its territory. In the same way, our minds are also very limited and cannot even picture, much less understand, the multi-dimensional realm that defines God. God and the God head, anti-time, spiritual heaven, even predestination are concepts that are literally beyond our understanding, and as such, it would be futile to try and seek out the exact answer. The bible supports one God, and the bible supports three. Knowing it to be a realm more broad than our own, we accept this as truth, even though it seems contradictary. The bible supports predestination, and the bible supports free choice. In the same way, we must accept that both are true, but maybe not in the exact definitions we know them to be. Remember, we are trying to put Earthly concepts to heavenly ones, and they're not going to exactly match up. So when it comes to the deep mysteries of the bible, as well as the mind of God, I confidently tell people, "I don't know, but whatever it is, I trust in God."
"If Paul did not create a separate Doctrine, then why would you ever need to quote him?"
Please give specific scriptures of Paul and of Christ that directly conflict.
"Jesus Prophecizes that False Teachers woud prophecize in His Name"
Jesus said, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." From all that I've read from Paul, isn't he trying to get people to go to Christ? I understand we must be cautious of false teachers, and the best way to detect them is to test their fruits, and to test their doctrine against the gospel of Christ. Is this a good way of detecting false teachers? Yet when I try these things with Paul, I see a flawed man who teaches Christ to the European churches. I see no falsehood in that.
"Now, every Christian needs to make the decision -- do we continue to allow Paul his Victory over Christ and the Church of the Pentacost?" Paul's original intent was to destroy Christ, this I will admit. But he repented and he sought to spread Christ. I do not see Paul trying to override Christ in any way, but to be a witness for Christ so that others may hear the good news.
Just some questions and some thoughts.
