Pauls attitude towards the Mosaic Law

[Murad]

Jesus was a Jew (followed the teachings of Moses), no one will disagree with this.
So what are the first 2 laws of Moses(commandments)?

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. 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.

These 2 commandments give it away on why Paul had to abolish the Laws of Moses for Christianity to work out.


Jesus reflected in his belief:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The first line tells us: Jesus had not come to abolish the law of Moses (clearly inconsistant with the ideology of Paul)

Jesus then further tells us: "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"


Paul abolished the Laws of Moses, according to Jesus he will be least in the kingdom of heaven.

By Christ all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Gal. 2:16; 3:11; Acts 13:39)

Questions for debate:
1) Was Paul right to abolish the Laws Jesus believed and practiced?
2) Who gave Paul the authority to do something significant as "Abolishing Gods Law"?
3) What would Jesus think of Pauls attitude towards the Mosaic Law?

[therolanpen]

Jesus was a Jew (followed the teachings of Moses), no one will disagree with this.

I stringently disagree with that. Jesus was Jewish by birth, but as it is written, he did not practice the religion of his fathers, the Farsi's,
who worshipped Allah and stoned sinners to death, according to the Law of Moses. Jesus called their Father (Allah) the Devil, and them the sons of the devil.

Jesus reflected in his belief:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Do not think that I have come to destroy...Jesus is not the destroyer. He said, I came not to destroy but to save.

Do no think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets.....Jesus is talking about the two witnesses, or two laws. Moses called them the witness of heaven and the witness of earth. He called them the blessing and the curse. He set one witness on Mount Gerizim and the other he set upon mount Ebal. They are seperated by a great and deep chasm.

Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets, I have not come to destroy, but to BE DESTROYED, for...whoso breaks these commandments, and teaches men to do so, will be the least in the kingdom of heaven (babylon).

Jesus was considered the Least in the kingdom of the Farsi's, they called him the devil and crucified him. Upon saying this, Jesus immediately taught those gathered at his feet to break these commandments. Moses said kill sinners. Jesus says forgive them. Moses said divorce your wife. Jesus says cleave to your wife. Moses says blow a trumpet before your assemblies. Jesus says don't. Moses says swear your oaths to ALLAH. Jesus says swear not at all. Moses said keep the sabbath, Jesus said I work on the sabbath and my father works also. Jesus broke these laws, and taught men to break these laws, and he was the least in the kingdom of the heaven.

Jesus did not destroy the law. The law of Moses is alive and well in the earth being practiced in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc, where women are stoned in the streets, as it is written.

But Jesus gave us a new testimony of God, a God who is not ALA, who loves his enemies, forgives sinners, and wants us to love each other, and not kill one another. Moses also testified of this god, but said, I have given you the way of life and the way of death CHOOSE life. And the OLD testament is the story of those who made a covenant with death, and were cursed and destroyed.

Jesus is the life of whom Moses Testified men should choose.

[ChristShepherd]

Jesus was a Jew (followed the teachings of Moses), no one will disagree with this.
So what are the first 2 laws of Moses(commandments)?

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. 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.

These 2 commandments give it away on why Paul had to abolish the Laws of Moses for Christianity to work out.


Jesus reflected in his belief:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The first line tells us: Jesus had not come to abolish the law of Moses (clearly inconsistant with the ideology of Paul)

Jesus then further tells us: "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"


Paul abolished the Laws of Moses, according to Jesus he will be least in the kingdom of heaven.

By Christ all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Gal. 2:16; 3:11; Acts 13:39)

Questions for debate:
1) Was Paul right to abolish the Laws Jesus believed and practiced?
2) Who gave Paul the authority to do something significant as "Abolishing Gods Law"?
3) What would Jesus think of Pauls attitude towards the Mosaic Law?

Paul destroyed the Law, the Sabbath, and Circumcision; three pillars of Judaism.
And all anyome knows is that he claimed Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. Since he never met Jesus, how would he recognize his voice. Where are his 2 or 3 witnesses? Paul fabricated a story, and all the gentiles believed him.

[ScotS]

Paul destroyed the Law, the Sabbath, and Circumcision; three pillars of Judaism.
And all anyome knows is that he claimed Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. Since he never met Jesus, how would he recognize his voice. Where are his 2 or 3 witnesses? Paul fabricated a story, and all the gentiles believed him.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.

[McCulloch]

Paul destroyed the Law, the Sabbath, and Circumcision; three pillars of Judaism.
And all anyome knows is that he claimed Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. Since he never met Jesus, how would he recognize his voice. Where are his 2 or 3 witnesses? Paul fabricated a story, and all the gentiles believed him.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.

Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."

[ScotS]

Paul destroyed the Law, the Sabbath, and Circumcision; three pillars of Judaism.
And all anyome knows is that he claimed Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. Since he never met Jesus, how would he recognize his voice. Where are his 2 or 3 witnesses? Paul fabricated a story, and all the gentiles believed him.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.

Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."

An interesting contradiction. I was not aware of that. Thanks.

[ChristShepherd]

Paul destroyed the Law, the Sabbath, and Circumcision; three pillars of Judaism.
And all anyome knows is that he claimed Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. Since he never met Jesus, how would he recognize his voice. Where are his 2 or 3 witnesses? Paul fabricated a story, and all the gentiles believed him.

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.

""9"And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me."" Acts 22:9
Not really witnesses.
Christ Shepherd
BTW In Acts 9:7 .....""the men which journeyed with him stood speechless""
But at Acts 26:14 ...""And when we had all fallen to the ground,""
So were the men standing or fallen to the ground?
When the details don't match with each telling of the story it's a good clue that it's a lie.

[Joshua Patrick]

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.


Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."


An interesting contradiction. I was not aware of that. Thanks.

Thought this was quite funny! though quite interesting. I use the Douay-Rheims bible myself, believing it is the closest English translation available.



And they that were with me, saw indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke with me. (Acts 22:9)


Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)


"Heard not the voice"... That is, they distinguished not the words; though they heard the voice.


Although it is a pretty weak defence.

Take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear� and “understand.� Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound� and “voice.�

[ChristShepherd]

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.


Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."


An interesting contradiction. I was not aware of that. Thanks.[/quote


Thought this was quite funny! though quite interesting. I use the Douay-Rheims bible myself, believing it is the closest English translation available.



And they that were with me, saw indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke with me. (Acts 22:9)


Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)


"Heard not the voice"... That is, they distinguished not the words; though they heard the voice.


Although it is a pretty weak defence.

Take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear� and “understand.� Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound� and “voice.�

Here is an interesting exercise. Paul tells the story of his Damascus road experience three times in Acts in chapters 9. 22 and 26. Read what Jesus supposedly said to Paul in each version. See how he improves the story of what Jesus told him with each retelling.
I have a friend who is a police detective. They make a suspect tell and retell his story. If he improves his story with each retelling, they know he is lying.
Christ Shepherd

[Cathar1950]

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

There you go.


Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."


An interesting contradiction. I was not aware of that. Thanks.[/quote


Thought this was quite funny! though quite interesting. I use the Douay-Rheims bible myself, believing it is the closest English translation available.



And they that were with me, saw indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke with me. (Acts 22:9)


Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)


"Heard not the voice"... That is, they distinguished not the words; though they heard the voice.


Although it is a pretty weak defence.

Take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear� and “understand.� Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound� and “voice.�

Here is an interesting exercise. Paul tells the story of his Damascus road experience three times in Acts in chapters 9. 22 and 26. Read what Jesus supposedly said to Paul in each version. See how he improves the story of what Jesus told him with each retelling.
I have a friend who is a police detective. They make a suspect tell and retell his story. If he improves his story with each retelling, they know he is lying.
Christ Shepherd

I was reading about how every time we remember something we are changing the memory, ignoring something exaggerating another or finding one thing important then something else as we add meaning.

[ScotS]

"Heard not the voice"... That is, they distinguished not the words; though they heard the voice.


Although it is a pretty weak defence.

Take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear� and “understand.� Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound� and “voice.�

Yeah I thought about that and it's a possibility, but I agree that it's not a very strong argument (at least not on this forum )