Jesus vs Paul (salvation doctrine)

[Yes]

Whaa? Circumcision was a inferior method of law adherence.

You are not making sense either.

That's why it was never required.

I can hardly believe you are saying that. Of course, circumcision was required. God was going to kill Moses because he wasn't going to circumcise his son.

Abraham received the promises from God because he obeyed everything that God said.

Christian belief adherence to Jesus didn't ""replace" physical circumcision, it's a totally different concept. apples & oranges.

Circumcision was a sign of faith, a separating of people unto God.
Jesus fulfilled the law, and the Holy Spirit circumcises our heart and is our sign of faith.

Jesus said, the only way to know the father was through Him. Not, the only way for gentiles to know the father is to replace physical circumcision with adherence to Him.

That is a ridiculous what you said. The Gentiles knew they were excluded from God and were called the unclean people.

 

[Yes]

Other people read your posts too. And I do know what you believe and it ain't 'Kosher' when subjected to what is written in the scriptures. Besides it is you who has voluntarily posted your defective beliefs in forum of debate.
The adage is "If you can't stand the heat git outta da kitchen."

You are one confused person who has nothing to rely on but insults.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

You are one confused person who has nothing to rely on but insults.

You are one confused person who has nothing to rely on but insults.

If you can't take da heat GIT outta da kitchen.

 

[Yes]

If you can't take da heat GIT outta da kitchen.

You cannot take the heat. You cannot even explain your beliefs. So don't try to explain mine. Just follow the rules...use the quote feature. Quote me and reply to what I say. Try to show me how and why what I said was wrong. Stop merely insulting. However, you cannot do those things, because Satan leaves people with no other way to defend his false doctrines. All you have are insults.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

GOD NAILED ALL THE CEREMONIAL WORKS OF THE LAW TO THE CROSS.

Colossians 2:14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

Ephesians 2:15
by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,

ALL THOSE CEREMONIAL WORKS were a TEACHING TOOL, they were a teaching tool about JESUS.
They were a SHADOW of Jesus Christ.

Jesus FULFILLED those ceremonial works.

Jesus fulfilled the prophets’ means all the prophets prophesied about Jesus, and everything they said about him, he fulfilled.

Jesus fulfilled the law means, all sins were paid for.

The Law said to circumcise the flesh for a sign of faith. Jesus fulfilled that Law to us we do not have to circumcise ourselves in the flesh, because the Holy Spirit circumcises our hearts, the Holy Spirit is the sign of our faith.


The Law commanded various external washings, to make ourselves clean. Jesus fulfilled that Law for us---his blood makes us clean, once and for all.

The Law commanded that we observe special days. Jesus fulfilled that Law, because ALL those special days are about Jesus, when we observe Jesus, we observe those special days---Jesus is our Sabbath rest. Jesus is our Passover, etc.

The Law said blood must be shed for the forgiveness of sins, we were told to give animal sacrifices. Jesus fulfilled that Law, because he is the Sacrificial Lamb of God.

See, Jesus fulfilled the law. Since we have salvation through Jesus, it is a greater salvation. Is it greater to observe the Son of God instead of special days? Is it better to be cleaned by the blood of God than by animals? Is it better to be circumcised in the heart by the Holy Spirit, than with a physical circumcision done by the hands of men? The Jews had to do certain ceremonial things, just to go to the temple to worship God. Through Jesus, we are made clean, and we become the temple of the Living God. Circumcision, special days, various external washings, and the sacrifice of animals...these were all teachings tools, a shadow of what was coming, Jesus Christ.

"Jesus fulfilled the law means all sins were paid for." Is your compound Error. Guilt relative to sin REMAINS outstanding AFTER Jesus' murder, burial, resurrection and ascension according to Him. Jn. 16:8 If your defective soteriological assumption is true then His statement prior to His murder is a falsehood, but that is an impossibility since God cannot lie.

The law was changed, fulfilled, by a word being added to it AFTER Jesus' Ascension. Heb. 7:12

You do not have the slightest idea of what the Way of salvation is that Jesus Christ perfected by obeying his father's will for Him to be crucified.
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 The law he references is not an item, part, of the Sinai code, but it is the only law of God you MUST have the faith to obey or perish and it was added. Since you can't stand the heat in the kitchen there is no possibility you can stand the heat in hell.

 

[Yes]

"Jesus fulfilled the law means all sins were paid for." Is your compound Error.

Everything I say is from the Bible. I just do not always post the scripture references.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

"
Guilt relative to sin REMAINS outstanding AFTER Jesus' murder, burial, resurrection and ascension according to Him.

Through the sacrifice of Jesus, he gives to all those that come to him freedom from the guilt, power, and punishment of sin. See Hebrews 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:56; See 2 Peter 2:9.

Jn. 16:8 If your defective soteriological assumption is true then His statement prior to His murder is a falsehood, but that is an impossibility since God cannot lie.

What in the world are you trying to say, and about what?

The law was changed, fulfilled, by a word being added to it AFTER Jesus' Ascension. Heb. 7:12

You do not make sense. What does it mean when you say by a word being added to it?


I will tell you something about the law.

True believers uphold the law. See Romans 3:31.
We are not without a law.
We are no longer UNDER the law, we have the law written on our hearts and minds, see Hebrews 10:16.
There was a change to that old law, see Hebrews 7:12.
That changed old law is our new law.
All those who are saved have to obey the law, the new law, the new law is in the New Covenant.
The new law is the law of the Spirit, see Romans 8:2, the perfect law, see James 1:25.
It is the law that gives freedom, see James 2:12.
It is the LAW that requires faith, see Romans 3:27.
It is the law of Christ, see 1 Corinthians 9:21, and Galatians 6:2.
We always have to obey God.

You do not have the slightest idea of what the Way of salvation is that Jesus Christ perfected by obeying his father's will for Him to be crucified.
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 The law he references is not an item, part, of the Sinai code, but it is the only law of God you MUST have the faith to obey or perish and it was added. Since you can't stand the heat in the kitchen there is no possibility you can stand the heat in hell.

You are one confused man. I think that you must just be copying and pasting the same prewritten stuff to me as you do other people here---WITHOUT even reading what I say.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Everything I say is from the Bible. I just do not always post the scripture references.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.



Through the sacrifice of Jesus, he gives to all those that come to him freedom from the guilt, power, and punishment of sin. See Hebrews 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:56; See 2 Peter 2:9.



What in the world are you trying to say, and about what?


You do not make sense. What does it mean when you say by a word being added to it?


I will tell you something about the law.

True believers uphold the law. See Romans 3:31.
We are not without a law.
We are no longer UNDER the law, we have the law written on our hearts and minds, see Hebrews 10:16.
There was a change to that old law, see Hebrews 7:12.
That changed old law is our new law.
All those who are saved have to obey the law, the new law, the new law is in the New Covenant.
The new law is the law of the Spirit, see Romans 8:2, the perfect law, see James 1:25.
It is the law that gives freedom, see James 2:12.
It is the LAW that requires faith, see Romans 3:27.
It is the law of Christ, see 1 Corinthians 9:21, and Galatians 6:2.
We always have to obey God.




You are one confused man. I think that you must just be copying and pasting the same prewritten stuff to me as you do other people here---WITHOUT even reading what I say.

No post I post has been pre- written.

The first point of your defense is an error.
1 Jn. 2:2 You are falsely assuming that the word atonement can only be relative to the resolvment of sins.
According to the Lord's quote PRIOR to his murder in Jn. 16:8 there is no possibility that guilt in regard to sin was resolved by murdering Him. The result of his murder did 'atone' for sins, but not in the way you believe and allege. You do what every pseudomorphic, i.e. false form, of 'christian' does. By not understanding the scriptures in the first place you use them to counter the direct statements of God that do not suborn your soteriological conjecture.

"What does it mean when you say by a word being added to it?" (the law) Your list of citations indicate that you are not unaware of it since they are texts that suborn that the law has been changed by Jesus Christ adding a word AFTER his murder, resurrection and ascension. That what I teach does not make sense to you is your problem since I really do not owe you the time of day. For Paul even says that for a gentile the truth about the murder of Jesus Christ is foolish to you and you do a good job of proving him to be right.

You have made the allegation that I do not know what you believe and disseminate. Every pseudomorph 'christian' believes and disseminates the core assumption of your belief system which is:
1. "It is impossible for anyone to have changed the law of God by adding a word to it."
2. "All my sins have been forgiven already by the sin of murdering Jesus Christ and I do not have to obey a law to become saved."
The outcome for you having the assumption of those two items being true is that you never find the gate into God's kingdom which is the law that has been added; the murder of Jesus Christ atoning for adding this law.
Have a good day for it is the same as mine. One of our last.

 

[Kolibri]

the murder of Jesus Christ

why the focus on it being an unjust applied death, when the scriptures highlight that it Jesus could have cried out for 12 legions of angels to save him?
the scriptures never focus on the murder, but on how Jesus and Jehovah let it happen for the greater good.

constantly focusing on the "murder" takes the focus off the fact that the death was totally preventable all the way up to the last breath from forces invisible to the material eye.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

why the focus on it being an unjust applied death, when the scriptures highlight that it Jesus could have cried out for 12 legions of angels to save him?
the scriptures never focus on the murder, but on how Jesus and Jehovah let it happen for the greater good.

constantly focusing on the "murder" takes the focus off the fact that the death was totally preventable all the way up to the last breath from forces invisible to the material eye.

why the focus on it being an unjust applied death, when the scriptures highlight that it Jesus could have cried out for 12 legions of angels to save him?
the scriptures never focus on the murder, but on how Jesus and Jehovah let it happen for the greater good.

constantly focusing on the "murder" takes the focus off the fact that the death was totally preventable all the way up to the last breath from forces invisible to the material eye.

Even if Jesus's murder was preventable it wasn't prevented. God's reason for Jesus Christ's murder was not for what you think.

 

[Simplelogic]

Not one person has debated the differences between Yeshua and Paul's salvation doctrines. I have listed numerous examples yet all I see is bickering and name calling. Lets just all calm down for a second and stick to the text.

I am waiting for anyone to challenge the examples I gave. Show me I am wrong!

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Not one person has debated the differences between Yeshua and Paul's salvation doctrines. I have listed numerous examples yet all I see is bickering and name calling. Lets just all calm down for a second and stick to the text.

I am waiting for anyone to challenge the examples I gave. Show me I am wrong!

Your OP's conjecture is based up the conjectures of the opinions of the commentator's that you've cited in red. All contemporary commentator's conjecture's are errors. The comparison of error against error only results in the replication of error. Actually the apostle Paul, whom you villify, does not teach what those commentators teach.

 

[Simplelogic]

Your OP's conjecture is based up the conjectures of the opinions of the commentator's that you've cited in red. All contemporary commentator's conjecture's are errors. The comparison of error against error only results in the replication of error. Actually the apostle Paul, whom you villify, does not teach what those commentators teach.

The people quoted are some of the leading voices in western Christianity. I think it would be imprudent to dismiss their comments in general. Please tell me exactly which verse you think is wrong concerning Paul's doctrine.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The people quoted are some of the leading voices in western Christianity. I think it would be imprudent to dismiss their comments in general. Please tell me exactly which verse you think is wrong concerning Paul's doctrine.

There are no statements made by the apostle Paul that are in error nor is the soteriological paradigm he was taught to instruct by the Holy Spirit in conflict with the theological, philosophical or religious practice taught by
Jesus Christ. You actually being illogical rather than logical have asserted that the apostle Paul has taught the illogical conjectures of contemporary theologians that are in error themselves.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

There are no statements made by the apostle Paul that are in error nor is the soteriological paradigm he was taught to instruct by the Holy Spirit in conflict with the theological, philosophical or religious practice taught by
Jesus Christ. You actually being illogical rather than logical have asserted that the apostle Paul has taught the illogical conjectures of the contemporay theologians that you have cited as your basis for a refutation of the apostle Pauls' verifiable theology and soteriology. If your procedure isn't insane I do not know what else could be.

 

[Simplelogic]

There are no statements made by the apostle Paul that are in error nor is the soteriological paradigm he was taught to instruct by the Holy Spirit in conflict with the theological, philosophical or religious practice taught by
Jesus Christ. You actually being illogical rather than logical have asserted that the apostle Paul has taught the illogical conjectures of contemporary theologians that are in error themselves.

Care to be more specific? I have highlighted many specific examples of Paul's flawed logic. Why not actually pick one and challenge it instead of making general statements?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Care to be more specific? I have highlighted many specific examples of Paul's flawed logic. Why not actually pick one and challenge it instead of making general statements?

The logic you have taken exception to is not the expressed thought of the apostle Paul. Rather it is the expressed thought of theologians who have misinterpreted the scriptures whom you are contesting. Paul wrote "where is the scholar?", did he not? He did not pen this question unaware of whom he is referencing. You have been caught coming out of a whore house with your pants down just like Jimmy S. was. Deal with it and git outta here.

 

[Simplelogic]

The logic you have taken exception to is not the expressed thought of the apostle Paul. Rather it is the expressed thought of theologians who have misinterpreted the scriptures whom you are contesting. Paul wrote "where is the scholar?", did he not? He did not pen this question unaware of whom he is referencing. You have been caught coming out of a whore house with your pants down just like Jimmy S. was. Deal with it and git outta here.

Was that you being specific? Let me know if you ever want to discuss the facts. Looks like you are only interested in saying I'm wrong without debating.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Was that you being specific? Let me know if you ever want to discuss the facts. Looks like you are only interested in saying I'm wrong without debating.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The basis of your conjecture are the quotes in red in your OP. But those whom you've quoted are not statements that have ever been made by the apostle Paul whom you have exceedingly vilified by false evidence. You are not going to get out of the clap trap you've set yourself in and I've sprung. A clap trap artist is a whore and you are indeed in that classification by your own redicioulous illogical false accusations against the apostle Paul by submitting entirely false evidence. Even though you sign under the moniker "Simple logic" that in and of itself is a falsehood since what you've actually done is prove you only have the logic of a simpleton. So then simpleton if you do have any direct objection against direct quotes made by Paul who has been elected by the Living God to be His postle to the gentiles. Let all of us see what your g\d simpleton arse has to complain about. Since you've been caught coming out of the whore house with your pants down anyhow!

 

[Simplelogic]

The basis of your conjecture are the quotes in red in your OP. But those whom you've quoted are not statements that have ever been made by the apostle Paul whom you have exceedingly vilified by false evidence. You are not going to get out of the clap trap you've set yourself in and I've sprung. A clap trap artist is a whore and you are indeed in that classification by your own redicioulous illogical false accusations against the apostle Paul by submitting entirely false evidence. Even though you sign under the moniker "Simple logic" that in and of itself is a falsehood since what you've actually done is prove you only have the logic of a simpleton. So then simpleton if you do have any direct objection against direct quotes made by Paul who has been elected by the Living God to be His postle to the gentiles. Let all of us see what your g\d simpleton arse has to complain about. Since you've been caught coming out of the whore house with your pants down anyhow!

Still waiting for a debate.