• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Paul misquote scripture on purpose?

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Paul abused Scripture by taking passages out of context and giving them meanings that were never intended!

To proof-text his doctrine, Paul lifted numerous Scripture passages out of their context and gave them meanings that were never intended. Some of these passages he gave a meaning that the context absolutely nullifies. The following is one classic example:

One of Paul’s unique and fundamental doctrines states that absolutely no one is righteous. To proof-text his doctrine Paul cuts and pastes together no less than 7 snippets of Scripture and presents them as one:

“There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18

Each of every one of these snippets Paul took out of context and gave a meaning that its author never intended. The first snippet is our example of how Paul gave a meaning to a passage that only a verse or two later the author says something that completely destroys what Paul said about it. It was taken from Psalm 14. David here begins by speaking specifically of “fools”, who say in their heart “there is no God”.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one. Psalm 14:1-3


David is in no way referring to every human being with the term “the children of men”. He is speaking of the fools who say there is no God and is referring specifically to them as the children of men. It is among these that he says there is none righteous. We know this because he goes on to contrast these children of men with those he calls the generation of the righteous!
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up MY people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is
with the generation of the righteous
. Psalm 14:4-5

Imagine that, ... “the generation of THE RIGHTEOUS”!! Paul didn’t tell us about this part of the Psalm! So much for his doctrine that no one is righteous.
I disagree. I believe that Pslam 14 is claiming that all the children of men had become filthy and none of them did good.

I believe that Paul was right on the money. He was claiming that no one is righteous simply for being a Jew. That both Jews and Gentiles labor under sin.

I believe that David, in Psalm 14, was claiming that God was not with Israel, because they were fools were rejected God. Therefore, God was not with Israel because He is only with the "generation of the righteous", which Israel was not.

This is what led him to end the psalm with the claim that "Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad" when "the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people", because they were not then living up to the covenant made to Abraham.
 
Welcome to the forum. :)
You might like to read a thread I posted about a year ago entitled How Paul changed the course of Christianity.

The section of the book I cited closes like this:

“This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century.”

I just checked it out. Very well articulated argument. Very comforting to find more people who are seeing the same issues in the Bible. It's one of those things where it's hard to see until you let yourself see it. We have all been conditioned to accept the 27 letter canon of Athenasius as if it was God's divine selection. So we have been trained to harmonize illogical contradictions in the scriptures and we have created very intricate arguments for those contradictions. Many use these contradictions to suggest that it's all a "spiritual mystery" and that we must accept them because "God's ways are higher than ours". This is nothing short of intellectual suicide in my view where we throw logic out the window under the guise of false humility. It's time we break free from this cage of mental slavery and we search diligently for the truth (whatever it may be).
 
Well, one thing I think of Paul trying to do here in this epistle -- he's writing to the Christians in Rome, and it's to both gentile and Jew, but especially to Jewish converts, because Paul knows from first hand experience that many Jews that have converted are still quite naturally tending to want to reestablish or continue their old habits of being good by willpower following the Law -- a self created righteousness. Soon, they may insist on circumcision for instance (just 1 example).

Contrast to Christ speaking of how we are able to bear good fruit, or true fruit -- the only fruit of any value -- in the key John chapter 15, verses 1-17 (reread if you haven't in a year or more): we are able to bear real fruit only if we are...remaining in Him, in faith, by virtue of His being in us, His word remaining in us, we remaining on the Vine, abiding in Him.

That's not a self-accomplishment on our own without Him, but a new kind of thing, fruit, that we have because and from and through Him -- very much like branches receiving nourishment through the main stem, the vine. The branches produce fruit because the Vine feeds them. The fruit is the outcome of the branches from the Vine, since they remained on the Vine. In Him.

This is very radically unlike the old Jewish covenant way, from which the converts Paul is really writing to are from. They need a total reset of their feeling/mind relationship to the Law.

Now, today in 2019, we see too much of a kind of opposite problem actually, doctrines based on bits of what Paul wrote, ignoring what Christ, James, John, Peter and Jude wrote (and...things Paul wrote even!). One way to aid them is to quote what Christ said -- for instance Matthew 7:24-27. Another is to get more interested in the powerful and valuable epistle 1rst John. James is so blunt, I don't alway think of it first, as the message they need, but it can help at times.
Well, one thing I think of Paul trying to do here in this epistle -- he's writing to the Christians in Rome, and it's to both gentile and Jew, but especially to Jewish converts, because Paul knows from first hand experience that many Jews that have converted are still quite naturally tending to want to reestablish or continue their old habits of being good by willpower following the Law -- a self created righteousness. Soon, they may insist on circumcision for instance (just 1 example).

Contrast to Christ speaking of how we are able to bear good fruit, or true fruit -- the only fruit of any value -- in the key John chapter 15, verses 1-17 (reread if you haven't in a year or more): we are able to bear real fruit only if we are...remaining in Him, in faith, by virtue of His being in us, His word remaining in us, we remaining on the Vine, abiding in Him.

That's not a self-accomplishment on our own without Him, but a new kind of thing, fruit, that we have because and from and through Him -- very much like branches receiving nourishment through the main stem, the vine. The branches produce fruit because the Vine feeds them. The fruit is the outcome of the branches from the Vine, since they remained on the Vine. In Him.

This is very radically unlike the old Jewish covenant way, from which the converts Paul is really writing to are from. They need a total reset of their feeling/mind relationship to the Law.

Now, today in 2019, we see too much of a kind of opposite problem actually, doctrines based on bits of what Paul wrote, ignoring what Christ, James, John, Peter and Jude wrote (and...things Paul wrote even!). One way to aid them is to quote what Christ said -- for instance Matthew 7:24-27. Another is to get more interested in the powerful and valuable epistle 1rst John. James is so blunt, I don't alway think of it first, as the message they need, but it can help at times.

This is actually the exact same concept Moses taught. It's never been about "doing it on our own". It's been about putting God's word into our lives (practice). It takes our free will choice to act on God's principals but He enables us once we start.

I guess I don't understand your point
 
I am not sure that I accept you as the person to determine what authors of scripture meant, but I will address pat of your post.

You do realize don't you that being "righteous" means different things at different times in the Bible;

One can appear to be righteous before men.

One can appear to be righteous by keeping the law

One can appear to be righteous by doing good deeds.

Paul is not speaking of any of these. He is addressing the fundamental inherent sinfulness of all people which makes them unacceptable in Gods eyes. Gods standard is perfect righteousness, anyone who has done anything wrong does not and cannot meet that standard,

In the OT there were a variety of rituals and sacrifices on a regular basis to deal with sinfulness, and David and all other Jews took part in these. If anyone were righteous as you seem to think David was, they would never have to participate in these services, yet the law said all must on a regular basis.

David was speaking of relative righteousness when compared to others, not perfect righteousness when compared to God.

Paul virtually always speaks about perfect righteousness, what God has and we do not.

Under the new covenant we have the means to be declared righteous through justification. Some of us may have even stopped sinning ( though I really and truly doubt it) yet we have sinned, making us unrighteous.

There will come a time when some are perfectly righteous, you can find out all about it in the book of Revelation.

Otherwise you have misjudged Paul through ignorance ( lack of knowledge).

You are really painting your own ideas into the text. You are talking about "different levels of righteousness" were the text does not say that. You said Paul is "always speaks about perfect righteousness" which isn't the case either. You are complicating a very simple issue because there is clearly a difference between what the Tanakh says and what Paul says.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You are really painting your own ideas into the text. You are talking about "different levels of righteousness" were the text does not say that. You said Paul is "always speaks about perfect righteousness" which isn't the case either. You are complicating a very simple issue because there is clearly a difference between what the Tanakh says and what Paul says.
Paul is speaking within the context of the new covenant, not the first covenant. They are not the same. The way to righteousness has changed. The law has changed.
Please quote Paul when he speaks of righteousness as something less than the what God demands.
 
Paul is speaking within the context of the new covenant, not the first covenant. They are not the same. The way to righteousness has changed. The law has changed.
Please quote Paul when he speaks of righteousness as something less than the what God demands.

Where in the Bible (Besides Paul's letters) does it say that the law has changed or that righteousness has changed?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
This is actually the exact same concept Moses taught. It's never been about "doing it on our own". It's been about putting God's word into our lives (practice). It takes our free will choice to act on God's principals but He enables us once we start.

I guess I don't understand your point
Interesting any think Moses taught something like Christ did in that regard: what we now call "Christ in us" -- doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves no matter how much will we apply. To get a better sense of this, one should truly listen to John chapter 15, verses 1-17.

It's not the old way.

I've read again recently through the first 1/2 of the Old Testament. So, Moses's teachings are not distant to me.

Now, if you meant instead David's Psalms, then you are a lot closer!

The Gospel is definitely foreshadowed in other places in the OT more fully. Especially Isaiah.

But in the letter to the Romans, Paul is writing to a particular audience, the Jewish converts that had themselves been under the Law in the Old Covenant, and who repeatedly (in Acts and the epistles) show they want to reimpose the old ways they grew up in.

Romans is therefore worded to help them (Old Covenant Jews) change their understanding of how they are relating to God. Romans is in many places worded especially for them.

We aren't like Old Covenant Jews, raised in the Law. We didn't start with a lifetime training (as they did) to strive to obey the law by willpower.
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
You may want to test that verse from 2 Peter.

Second Peter: Reference to Paul

Good article on the topic

I think it really doesn’t change what is said in the Bible, nor what I said. Even if Paul speaks by his own wisdom, what he says is useful and correct, if understood well. But obviously, if we are disciples of Jesus, Jesus is the King and we should remain in the teachings of Jesus, rather than in Paul’s wisdom.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

I just don’t like when Paul is judged wrongly.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The Tanakh disagrees with you. Psalm 119 disagrees with you. The scriptures describe many people as righteous.

Yes, many have been called righteous. But they have not become righteous because of obeying the law. Or can you show one scripture that tells person can become righteous by obeying the law? Obviously, if person is righteous, he does righteous things, but the actions are only a result of righteousness.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, many have been called righteous. But they have not become righteous because of obeying the law. Or can you show one scripture that tells person can become righteous by obeying the law? Obviously, if person is righteous, he does righteous things, but the actions are only a result of righteousness.
One is righteous by obeying G-d's Law. The whole of Psalm 119 is dedicated to this.

7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.

62 At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto thee because of thy righteous judgments.

106 I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.

138 Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful.

144 The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live.


In Deut:30:19 G-d says of the Torah,

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:"


The Torah is life.
 
Last edited:
Interesting any think Moses taught something like Christ did in that regard: what we now call "Christ in us" -- doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves no matter how much will we apply. To get a better sense of this, one should truly listen to John chapter 15, verses 1-17.

It's not the old way.

I've read again recently through the first 1/2 of the Old Testament. So, Moses's teachings are not distant to me.

Now, if you meant instead David's Psalms, then you are a lot closer!

The Gospel is definitely foreshadowed in other places in the OT more fully. Especially Isaiah.

But in the letter to the Romans, Paul is writing to a particular audience, the Jewish converts that had themselves been under the Law in the Old Covenant, and who repeatedly (in Acts and the epistles) show they want to reimpose the old ways they grew up in.

Romans is therefore worded to help them (Old Covenant Jews) change their understanding of how they are relating to God. Romans is in many places worded especially for them.

We aren't like Old Covenant Jews, raised in the Law. We didn't start with a lifetime training (as they did) to strive to obey the law by willpower.

I don't follow the logic. It's the same covenant based off of the same law of Moses. There is only ONE place in the Tanakh that literally mentions the "New" Covenant and it's in Jeremiah 31. Allow me to quote the prophet:

31“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law (lit Torah) within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.

1. The "New Covenant" is the exact same covenant based off of the same Torah.

2. What makes it different is that God Himself said He will "write it on our hearts". That's what makes it New.

3. Once this happens, nobody will teach anymore about God. Nobody will need it because we will all have direct revelation. Which also means THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.

So, in summary, your argument is based off of a incorrect view of the "New" Covenant and it is Paul himself that created this false idea. So you are using Paul's inaccurate definitions about the law and the covenant to defend Paul's doctrines that I am questioning. So this is quickly becoming circular logic in my opinion.

One other thing to consider. The idea that before Jesus people were rigorously keeping the law "on their own" trying to earn their salvation without God's help is a horrible misunderstanding of the Tanakh (Old Testament). God has always been working with us through His spirit and helping us along the way. This isn't a New Testament idea. It's always been about TEAMING with God in the salvation process. We have our part to do and so does God. It's not all God and it's certainly not all us.
 
Last edited:
Yes, many have been called righteous. But they have not become righteous because of obeying the law. Or can you show one scripture that tells person can become righteous by obeying the law? Obviously, if person is righteous, he does righteous things, but the actions are only a result of righteousness.

Let me take a crack at this one:

"And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that (for this purpose) He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us." Deuteronomy 6:24,25

So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them." But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:7-9

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, BECAUSE I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. Genesis 7:1

No one else on earth found grace or mercy from God except one man and his family because he was "just" and "righteous"! Contrary to Paul's doctrine, becoming a beneficiary of God's grace has everything to do with works. Grace and works are not mutually exclusive. They are inextricably connected to one another. There is more.

For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord will give grace and glory; no good thing will He withhold from those who walk uprightly. Psalm 84:11

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them. Psalm 103 17-18

And the list goes on. Paul's concept of the separation of grace and works is as unscriptural as it can be. Absolutely nothing concerning grace and Law has changed since Yeshua... or Adam for that matter. Men who lived before Yeshua were no less treated to God's wonderful grace and mercy, and man today is under no less obligation to obey God.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I don't follow the logic. It's the same covenant based off of the same law of Moses. There is only ONE place in the Tanakh that literally mentions the "New" Covenant and it's in Jeremiah 31. Allow me to quote the prophet:

31“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law (lit Torah) within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Jer 31:31-3431“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

1. The "New Covenant" is the exact same covenant based off of the same Torah.

2. What makes it different is that God Himself said He will "write it on our hearts". That's what makes it New.

3. Once this happens, nobody will teach anymore about God. Nobody will need it because we will all have direct revelation. Which also means THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.

So, in summary, your argument is based off of a incorrect view of the "New" Covenant and it is Paul himself that created this false idea. So you are using Paul's inaccurate definitions about the law and the covenant to defend Paul's doctrines that I am questioning. So this is quickly becoming circular logic in my opinion.

One other thing to consider. The idea that before Jesus people were rigorously keeping the law "on their own" trying to earn their salvation without God's help is a horrible misunderstanding of the Tanakh (Old Testament). God has always been working with us through His spirit and helping us along the way. This isn't a New Testament idea. It's always been about TEAMING with God in the salvation process. We have our part to do and so does God. It's not all God and it's certainly not all us.

I love that passage, even reading it the 20th time. It's so beautiful. It points powerfully to a key crucial difference between the Old and New Covenants.

I'm unsure what you have gotten about what my view of the New Covenant is. I know that typically on the internet people usually don't get precisely what the other person meant to say; that's the norm instead of the exception. Does it seem as if I said the New Covenant is entirely unconnected in all ways to the Old? I certainly would not think that! :) Did you happen to (re)read John chapter 15, v1-17, as I was emphasizing as the most helpful way to understand the New? Without a recent reading of that, I think what I said above would be even more opaque.

We do agree on this: "God has always been working with us through His spirit and helping us along the way. " -- that's right! But..it's different now! Things have changed! And we don't mean just that we no longer offer the proscribed sacrifices. A lot more change than only that one and circumcision and such. Much more fundamental change. But not in regard to all things! Not in all ways.

-- The Law certainly still applies, and it's been presented in it's most essential true form by Christ (in the gospels).

But there is real change in the relationship with God, in certain profound ways. As I understand it. So, see, the John chapter (above) is quite key. It helps illustrate just what Paul meant in that verse 10 of Ephesians 2:8-10.
 
I love that passage, even reading it the 20th time. It's so beautiful. It points powerfully to a key crucial difference between the Old and New Covenants.

I'm unsure what you have gotten about what my view of the New Covenant is. I know that typically on the internet people usually don't get precisely what the other person meant to say; that's the norm instead of the exception. Does it seem as if I said the New Covenant is entirely unconnected in all ways to the Old? I certainly would not think that! :) Did you happen to (re)read John chapter 15, v1-17, as I was emphasizing as the most helpful way to understand the New? Without a recent reading of that, I think what I said above would be even more opaque.

We do agree on this: "God has always been working with us through His spirit and helping us along the way. " -- that's right! But..it's different now! Things have changed! And we don't mean just that we no longer offer the proscribed sacrifices. A lot more change than only that one and circumcision and such. Much more fundamental change. But not in regard to all things! Not in all ways.

-- The Law certainly still applies, and it's been presented in it's most essential true form by Christ (in the gospels).

But there is real change in the relationship with God, in certain profound ways. As I understand it. So, see, the John chapter (above) is quite key. It helps illustrate just what Paul meant in that verse 10 of Ephesians 2:8-10.

Here's what you aren't getting my friend. According to the Torah and the prophets the law DOESN'T change. Not even the smallest "jot or tittle" to quote a famous rabbi .

The law has always been presented in its "truest form". To suggest it wasn't is to suggest the Father failed when communicating His law at Mt. Sinai.

Even the sacrificial system hasn't been abrogated! When the messiah comes he will rebuild the Temple and all the sacrifices will continue. Circumcision is still binding, kosher laws are still binding....NOTHING HAS CHANGED, PERIOD.

Remember Jesus himself kept all of these commands while on earth. He was circumcised, he kept animal sacrifices. He wore tzit tzit kept the Sabbath and celebrated Hanukkah. Jesus never taught that ANY of these things would go away in fact he taught that it would all remain until "heaven and earth" pass away.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Here's what you aren't getting my friend. According to the Torah and the prophets the law DOESN'T change. Not even the smallest "jot or tittle" to quote a famous rabbi .

The law has always been presented in its "truest form". To suggest it wasn't is to suggest the Father failed when communicating His law at Mt. Sinai.

Even the sacrificial system hasn't been abrogated! When the messiah comes he will rebuild the Temple and all the sacrifices will continue. Circumcision is still binding, kosher laws are still binding....NOTHING HAS CHANGED, PERIOD.

Remember Jesus himself kept all of these commands while on earth. He was circumcised, he kept animal sacrifices. He wore tzit tzit kept the Sabbath and celebrated Hanukkah. Jesus never taught that ANY of these things would go away in fact he taught that it would all remain until "heaven and earth" pass away.
The Law, as you see reading through the books, was laid down over time. Not all at once. It 'progresses' in revelation or establishment if you like.

You certainly needn't agree. I'm merely observing the fact of its presentation over time in the books.

But, on this most anyone would agree I think -- Christ knows the true meaning of all the Law better than you or I do, more perfectly and totally than any other person, and He summarizes it, as we can read. Into a more advanced statement of the same Law, unchanged, but now presented in a more completed -- all at once -- form, as humankind was ready or make new to be ready for: for the completed form.

The same Law.

Unchanged.

But now presented more in a total way (all at once).
 
The Law, as you see reading through the books, was laid down over time. Not all at once. It 'progresses' in revelation or establishment if you like.

You certainly needn't agree. I'm merely observing the fact of its presentation over time in the books.

But, on this most anyone would agree I think -- Christ knows the true meaning of all the Law better than you or I do, more perfectly and totally than any other person, and He summarizes it, as we can read. Into a more advanced statement of the same Law, unchanged, but now presented in a more completed -- all at once -- form, as humankind was ready or make new to be ready for: for the completed form.

The same Law.

Unchanged.

But now presented more in a total way (all at once).

I still don't follow. He taught the same law. What "advanced statement" are you referring to?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I still don't follow. He taught the same law. What "advanced statement" are you referring to?
Instead of isolating a verse or 3 from the gospels, I encourage everyone to discover the amazing things He said more fully, like you'd go on a journey, to find what is unexpected.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...No one else on earth found grace or mercy from God except one man and his family because he was "just" and "righteous"! Contrary to Paul's doctrine, becoming a beneficiary of God's grace has everything to do with works. Grace and works are not mutually exclusive. They are inextricably connected to one another. There is more....

Yes, I agree that righteous person does righteous works. But righteous works don’t make anyone righteous. Works are only like fruit. And if the “tree” produces good “fruit”, the “tree” is good tree.

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

You can recognize righteous person from his actions, but actions are only a result, not the cause. Righteous mind is the cause. And people with righteous mind are those who will live.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...One is righteous by obeying G-d's Law.....

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood that. If person is righteous, he obeys the Law. But even unrighteous person can obey the law outwardly, for example when he fears that he is punished if he does what he really wants. Evil person can also do what the Law says and it doesn’t make him righteous. Righteousness is wisdom of the just, like right understanding that makes person do right things, because person understands it is good. So, I would like to know, why do you obey the law, because you have to, or because you know it is good and right?
 
Sorry, I think you have misunderstood that. If person is righteous, he obeys the Law. But even unrighteous person can obey the law outwardly, for example when he fears that he is punished if he does what he really wants. Evil person can also do what the Law says and it doesn’t make him righteous. Righteousness is wisdom of the just, like right understanding that makes person do right things, because person understands it is good. So, I would like to know, why do you obey the law, because you have to, or because you know it is good and right?

yes...doing the right thing for the right reason is the point. Intentions and motives are crucial to pleasing the Father.
 
Top