did paul consider his letters as scripture?

[sincerly]

the only thing you have evidence for is for skepticism
but making statements like these:

with this as a follow up

sure looks like you are judging those that are skeptical with vein conceit...
so what? why do you care?
philippians 2:3

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

Great verse and true.
Eternal life was the GOAL GOD had for all of humanity. I'm not selfish enough not to want others there. That's what! Why shouldn't I Care? The more the merrier.

and it adds nothing to discussion as you constantly make comments about people by avoiding the point they are making.

When the "point" is shown to be in error---that isn't "avoiding". It is just pointing out a erroneous answer. I don't make comments about the poster, but it isn't against to rules to acknowledge that a person or that person's site or conclusions on the site are in error.

and it is a violation...of the RF rules.

Not to agree with you----isn't a violation of the Rules.---(yours , apparently.)

and it's annoying....thusly not making it easy to take what ever you say seriously.

Who said debating was to be agreement? or frivolous?

and it's self defeating

You have experienced that ???

 

[waitasec]

When the "point" is shown to be in error---

you mean disagreement...not an error...as in religious faith is nothing more than an opinion...get used to it...

 

[sincerly]

you mean disagreement...not an error...as in religious faith is nothing more than an opinion...get used to it...

No! I was clear in stating "point"---Which was in error when referring to the Scriptures.
Any other belief is, also, "nothing more than an opinion". Therefore, As Paul, noted in Acts 17:11; Gal.1:11-12, his teachings/principles were achored in the Scriptures.
I see you are exercising your freedom of choice/opinion---like all else---so you must be"used to it".
But why is it your above comment implies that others with a "religious faith" shouldn't express their "Opinions"?

 

[waitasec]

No! I was clear in stating "point"---Which was in error when referring to the Scriptures.
Any other belief is, also, "nothing more than an opinion". Therefore, As Paul, noted in Acts 17:11; Gal.1:11-12, his teachings/principles were achored in the Scriptures.
I see you are exercising your freedom of choice/opinion---like all else---so you must be"used to it".
But why is it your above comment implies that others with a "religious faith" shouldn't express their "Opinions"?

express away...just be aware others know exactly where their opinion stands and why they have them...in other words...not everyone who isn't a christian is lost as your basic religious tenant implies...jesus came for the lost...

 

[sincerly]

express away...just be aware others know exactly where their opinion stands and why they have them...in other words...not everyone who isn't a christian is lost as your basic religious tenant implies...jesus came for the lost...

Thank-you, I shall.
I am well aware of those others opinions and for the most part am aware of the why and where they hold those opinions.
Jesus is a Christian tenant, but while HE did/will come for the "Lost", it is those Opinions which are held that, according to the "Scriptures" determines who Jesus will gather as HIS own.

 

[Shermana]

determines who Jesus will gather as HIS own.

He's kinda clear in Matthew 7:22-23 that those who reject the Law (Doers of "Lawlessness") but claim that he is lord will not be gathered.

 

[sincerly]

Jesus is a Christian tenant, but while HE did/will come for the "Lost", it is those Opinions which are held that, according to the "Scriptures" determines who Jesus will gather as HIS own.

He's kinda clear in Matthew 7:22-23 that those who reject the Law (Doers of "Lawlessness") but claim that he is lord will not be gathered.

Yes, Shermana, that is "kinda clear" in that one isn't very well doing the WILL of the Father by rejecting the LAW HE HAS GIVEN; However, there is another aspect to consider as well, as Jesus stated, paraphrasing: Those who reject the ONE whom God the Father sent(JESUS), and confirmed as "MY SON" are, also, rejecting the FATHER.(Therefore, GOD's WILL.)

 

[waitasec]

Thank-you, I shall.
I am well aware of those others opinions and for the most part am aware of the why and where they hold those opinions.

:spit:

 

[sincerly]

Paul does affirm that he believes all things written in the Law and in the Prophets. Acts24:14' ;And in Gal.1:11-12 he certifies that what he is teachings came from Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, Shermana, that is "kinda clear" in that one isn't very well doing the WILL of the Father by rejecting the LAW HE HAS GIVEN; However, there is another aspect to consider as well, as Jesus stated, paraphrasing: Those who reject the ONE whom God the Father sent(JESUS), and confirmed as "MY SON" are, also, rejecting the FATHER.(Therefore, GOD's WILL.)

That's because Jesus was sent to teach the True way to follow the Mosaic Law, not the Pharisee version. Rejecting Jesus would mean following a false artificial doctrine established by the Sadducees and Pharisees which prevented one from truly fulfilling the Law. God's will is the Law. Those who reject the Law or change it to suit their liking are rejecting God's will. It's as simple as that. Those who interpret scripture to say that Jesus abolished the Law will get a first class ticket to a nice Lava Jacqouzi in other words.

 

[sincerly]

That's because Jesus was sent to teach the True way to follow the Mosaic Law, not the Pharisee version. Rejecting Jesus would mean following a false artificial doctrine established by the Sadducees and Pharisees which prevented one from truly fulfilling the Law. God's will is the Law. Those who reject the Law or change it to suit their liking are rejecting God's will. It's as simple as that. Those who interpret scripture to say that Jesus abolished the Law will get a first class ticket to a nice Lava Jacqouzi in other words.

That Jesus came and did. GOD'S WILL is seen in those Commandments, Judgments, Statutes, Ordinances, Laws, Precepts, etc.
Jesus fulfilled those "laws of divine service" which pertained to the Sanctuary service. The Priesthood, the method of the animal sacrifices and all things in referrence to them. Including the three special convocations a year.

 

[Shermana]

That Jesus came and did. GOD'S WILL is seen in those Commandments, Judgments, Statutes, Ordinances, Laws, Precepts, etc.
Jesus fulfilled those "laws of divine service" which pertained to the Sanctuary service. The Priesthood, the method of the animal sacrifices and all things in referrence to them. Including the three special convocations a year.

1. There is absolutely no scriptural basis for the dividing of the Law into Ceremonial and Moral, that is a nice cheap cop out developed by the Christian establishment when forced to address the concerns of the issues of the Law and their central focus when reading the NT objectively. Ideally they'd remove the Law altogether but since the last 300 years when people can actually read the Bible on their own, they've had to compromise, and they resorted to this idea that Jesus abolished the so-called "ceremonial" Law , even though he most clearly says that he came not to abolish the Law. There is not a single scriptural concept that divides the Law into categories. It is purely the doctrine of man.

2. The word "Fulfill" does not mean to do away with it. If you believe this is the case, then do away with the Law of Christ, for Paul exhorts you to "Fulfill the Law of Christ". It means quite the opposite. It means to uphold and perform. If I fulfill my duties for the day, that does not mean their resulting effect from finishing the work goes away. Likewise, to "fulfill" something does not mean to abolish anything.

3. Jesus specifically said "I have not come to abolish the Law'." Your interpretation would make Jesus a liar if any kind of abolishing goes on. To the "jot or tittle".

 

[waitasec]

Paul does affirm that he believes all things written in the Law and in the Prophets. Acts24:14' ;And in Gal.1:11-12 he certifies that what he is teachings came from Jesus.

but how can one verify it was ACTUALLY jesus' teachings

 

[sincerly]

but how can one verify it was ACTUALLY jesus' teachings

Paul, speaks to 1Cor.15:1-28 of many other witnesses to what was verifiable and written in the Gospels and epistles.

No one is forced to believe anything they choose not to believe.
1Cor.10:6, 11, says, that what was written by Paul and the Prophets were examples for our admonition----One's choice, again.

How can one ACTUALLY say it isn't Jesus teachings/The inspired by the Holy Spirits writings?? (By Paul).

 

[waitasec]

Paul, speaks to 1Cor.15:1-28 of many other witnesses to what was verifiable and written in the Gospels and epistles.

No one is forced to believe anything they choose not to believe.
1Cor.10:6, 11, says, that what was written by Paul and the Prophets were examples for our admonition----One's choice, again.

How can one ACTUALLY say it isn't Jesus teachings/The inspired by the Holy Spirits writings?? (By Paul).

and who is jesus...one of the many messiahs...

yup, there was choice indeed.

 

[sincerly]

and who is jesus...one of the many messiahs...

yup, there was choice indeed.

And who was Augustus Caesar? The same writers of the scriptures who acknowledged him, also, acknowledged Jesus.
Those other claimed "messiahs" didn't fulfill the prophetic writings.
"Scams"(identity thief) hasn't just begun.
Anyone can make themself a "god" and claim for it----the Scriptural living Creator GOD. (Neither is self-deception new.)

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
That Jesus came and did. GOD'S WILL is seen in those Commandments, Judgments, Statutes, Ordinances, Laws, Precepts, etc.
Jesus fulfilled those "laws of divine service" which pertained to the Sanctuary service. The Priesthood, the method of the animal sacrifices and all things in referrence to them. Including the three special convocations a year.

1. There is absolutely no scriptural basis for the dividing of the Law into Ceremonial and Moral, that is a nice cheap cop out developed by the Christian establishment when forced to address the concerns of the issues of the Law and their central focus when reading the NT objectively. Ideally they'd remove the Law altogether but since the last 300 years when people can actually read the Bible on their own, they've had to compromise, and they resorted to this idea that Jesus abolished the so-called "ceremonial" Law , even though he most clearly says that he came not to abolish the Law. There is not a single scriptural concept that divides the Law into categories. It is purely the doctrine of man.

Shermana, There was no "abolishing of the sacrificial law" in my statement above or implied. However Jesus Christ did as HE said HE came to do----Jesus "fulfilled every "jot and tittle" of those "Laws of divive service"---The Sacrificial laws by which one makes atonement with the GOD of ALL Things.
Jesus wasn't a "bull nor a ram" whose shed blood was never meant to satisfy the death penalty which Mankind was subject to as the requirement. Disobey and "Ye shall die". That "YE" was NOT an animal in the place of the offending person. From Gen,3:15 The savior of mankind would come forth from the seed of the woman without any imput by the male human. The GOD who created mankind would be the source of the Savior implanted in the woman.

2. The word "Fulfill" does not mean to do away with it. If you believe this is the case, then do away with the Law of Christ, for Paul exhorts you to "Fulfill the Law of Christ". It means quite the opposite. It means to uphold and perform. If I fulfill my duties for the day, that does not mean their resulting effect from finishing the work goes away. Likewise, to "fulfill" something does not mean to abolish anything.

And That Jesus did, once and for all.! The Blood of Jesus since that Sacrifice is a ready flow for all who come and apply the Atoning Blood to one's acts of disobedience in Repentance and grateful remorse. No one need be excluded. The invitation is open-ended---one's Choice.

3. Jesus specifically said "I have not come to abolish the Law'." Your interpretation would make Jesus a liar if any kind of abolishing goes on. To the "jot or tittle".

Jesus isn't a liar---And I do not make HIM such.

Shermana, Just as the Constitution is ONE LAW---So is the TORAH. However, there are laws which govern in the multiple categories of one's life. What is for the application in one section/category does not apply to ALL sections/categories. The health and sanitary laws do not all apply to the method for sacrificing and applying the Atoneing Blood upon the Altar and before the veil. Etc.
Are you claiming that one can substitute one of the Sanitary laws rather than slay the appropriate sacrifice for one's sins? It didn't work in Cain's efforts.

 

[Shermana]

That Jesus came and did. GOD'S WILL is seen in those Commandments, Judgments, Statutes, Ordinances, Laws, Precepts, etc.
Jesus fulfilled those "laws of divine service" which pertained to the Sanctuary service. The Priesthood, the method of the animal sacrifices and all things in referrence to them. Including the three special convocations a year.

And if you say that Jesus "Did away with them" you call Jesus a liar. Perhaps your problem is the definition of "Fulfill" like I mentioned earlier. Paul says to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", does that mean you do away with it? In your logic, yes, you'd be doing away with the Law of Christ. Thus, when Jesus says "I did not come to abolish the Law", he means what he said.

Shermana, There was no "abolishing of the sacrificial law" in my statement above or implied. However Jesus Christ did as HE said HE came to do----Jesus "fulfilled every "jot and tittle" of those "Laws of divive service"---The Sacrificial laws by which one makes atonement with the GOD of ALL Things.

You are saying that Fulfilled = Abolished. Again, Paul says to "Fulfill the Law of Christ". Along with Zechariah 14, which you insist is purely Metaphorical for some reason, it is clear that gentiles will be following the Law one day.

Jesus wasn't a "bull nor a ram" whose shed blood was never meant to satisfy the death penalty which Mankind was subject to as the requirement. Disobey and "Ye shall die". That "YE" was NOT an animal in the place of the offending person. From Gen,3:15 The savior of mankind would come forth from the seed of the woman without any imput by the male human. The GOD who created mankind would be the source of the Savior implanted in the woman.

I'll have to look back and see how this is accords with what I said. I think you're still stuck on the fact that you think Fulfilling means to do away with. It says there will be sacrifices in the end times, no matter how you try to call it a "Metaphor", so it doesn't mean what you think it means. Do you believe you don't have to obey the rest of the commandments? How do you conveniently decide which laws are ceremonial? Do you think Sabbath is ceremonial even though its in the 10?

And That Jesus did, once and for all.! The Blood of Jesus since that Sacrifice is a ready flow for all who come and apply the Atoning Blood to one's acts of disobedience in Repentance and grateful remorse. No one need be excluded. The invitation is open-ended---one's Choice.

I'll have to look back and see how that addresses what I said. It's as if you completely ignored what I said about the definition of "Fulfill".

Jesus isn't a liar---And I do not make HIM such.

Of course you do. By saying he abolished the Law when he said he didn't, you call him a liar.

Shermana, Just as the Constitution is ONE LAW---So is the TORAH. However, there are laws which govern in the multiple categories of one's life. What is for the application in one section/category does not apply to ALL sections/categories. The health and sanitary laws do not all apply to the method for sacrificing and applying the Atoneing Blood upon the Altar and before the veil. Etc.

Doesn't matter what applies to what. The Law is the Law. Jesus said that every commandment, every iota, every tittle would remain. You don't get to divide it and say what's what. Otherwise you're calling Jesus a liar by finding ways to get him to mean he actually abolished parts of the Law. Certain Laws don't apply, correct. I don't have to worry about menstrual cycle laws. But the gentiles will be obeying Succoth and offering Sacrifices in the future end times.

Are you claiming that one can substitute one of the Sanitary laws rather than slay the appropriate sacrifice for one's sins? It didn't work in Cain's efforts.[

Ummmm, how do you possibly derive that from what I said? Explain what you mean with the example of Cain, what did he substitute? What kind of substitution are you even referring to? You have presented nothing scriptural to back your claim that we can get Jesus to mean something other than what he says, or to divide the Law into sections.

 

[sincerly]

And if you say that Jesus "Did away with them" you call Jesus a liar. Perhaps your problem is the definition of "Fulfill" like I mentioned earlier. Paul says to "Fulfill the Law of Christ", does that mean you do away with it? In your logic, yes, you'd be doing away with the Law of Christ. Thus, when Jesus says "I did not come to abolish the Law", he means what he said.

Shermana, What part of my previous statement didn't you understand?

Shermana, There was no "abolishing of the sacrificial law" in my statement above or implied. However Jesus Christ did as HE said HE came to do----Jesus "fulfilled every "jot and tittle" of those "Laws of divive service"---The Sacrificial laws by which one makes atonement with the GOD of ALL Things.
Jesus wasn't a "bull nor a ram"---whose shed blood was never meant to satisfy the death penalty which Mankind was subject to as the requirement.
Disobey and "Ye shall die". That "YE" was NOT an animal in the place of the offending person. From Gen,3:15 The savior of mankind would come forth from the seed of the woman without any imput by the male human. The GOD who created mankind would be the source of the Savior implanted in the woman.

?????

You are saying that Fulfilled = Abolished. Again, Paul says to "Fulfill the Law of Christ". Along with Zechariah 14, which you insist is purely Metaphorical for some reason, it is clear that gentiles will be following the Law one day.

NO!!!! I am saying that Fulfilled means, """ to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise(and in this case)to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment""; ""to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)"" and that was the seeking and saving of the ones of mankind who had chosen to be contrary to the WILL of GOD. HIS life Blood for theirs---as they see their hopeless condition by their own merits.(which are lacking.)

GOD'S LAWS are still in effect. The Decalogue shows one where they have been condemned--- the sacrifice by Jesus (coming at the appointed time,)paid the Penalty Death( by substitution of HIS LIFE for the Sinners.)

I'll have to look back and see how this is accords with what I said. I think you're still stuck on the fact that you think Fulfilling means to do away with. It says there will be sacrifices in the end times, no matter how you try to call it a "Metaphor", so it doesn't mean what you think it means. Do you believe you don't have to obey the rest of the commandments? How do you conveniently decide which laws are ceremonial? Do you think Sabbath is ceremonial even though its in the 10?

I hope I have put to rest your erroneous belief/thinking that I believe the Laws of GOD have been aboragated. They are Alive and well.
What was "abolished in Colossians 2" by the Blood of Jesus was those SINS which the Ordinances had charged against one's name.(Nailing them to Jesus Christ's Cross.)

Shermana, You seem stuck on the designation of JEW and GENTILE---When GOD is not a respecter of persons. GOD'S Laws from Sinai have been for ALL peoples who Choose to have GOD---as their GOD.(Remember that was a mixed multitude at the foot of Sinai; and GOD repeatedly said "One Law for ALL".)

The Sabbath was given when there was only two members of the Human family, No "ethnic or racial or cultural or other "gods"". It is Still just as valid today as when GOD Blessed and Sanctified that Seventh Day of Creation Week.

It is the scriptures which designate what is valid and what was for "the time then present".

Of course you do. By saying he abolished the Law when he said he didn't, you call him a liar.

Jesus Christ didn't Abolish/destroy the Law, but did "complete/carry through to the end, accomplish, carry out, the intended purpose for which those Sacrificial Laws were intended to do----Make an Atonement and be the Mediator between the FATHER and the Sinner.

Shermana, Just as the Constitution is ONE LAW---So is the TORAH. However, there are laws which govern in the multiple categories of one's life. What is for the application in one section/category does not apply to ALL sections/categories. The health and sanitary laws do not all apply to the method for sacrificing and applying the Atoneing Blood upon the Altar and before the veil. Etc.

Doesn't matter what applies to what. The Law is the Law. Jesus said that every commandment, every iota, every tittle would remain. You don't get to divide it and say what's what. Otherwise you're calling Jesus a liar by finding ways to get him to mean he actually abolished parts of the Law. Certain Laws don't apply, correct. I don't have to worry about menstrual cycle laws. But the gentiles will be obeying Succoth and offering Sacrifices in the future end times.
Ummmm, how do you possibly derive that from what I said? Explain what you mean with the example of Cain, what did he substitute? What kind of substitution are you even referring to? You have presented nothing scriptural to back your claim that we can get Jesus to mean something other than what he says, or to divide the Law into sections.

Shermana, Cain knew of the specified "Sacrifice" which Adam and Eve had received by GOD "clothing them with the "skin""(= death) of an animal. They had SINNED---Blood is for the Atomement of Sins. Cain's sacrifice was the first fruits of his "tilling of the ground". Therefore, NO Blood.

Myth or "thus saith the LORD GOD"----Again, one's choice.