:first:Great work, Ya'nar! POTD!:thumb:
Thanks, Ya'nar, for a wonderful dose of the truth where it's needed most! :ha: (Crow copies and saves Ya'nar's post and ponders on how to best plagarize this in the future)
CONTEXT:bannana:
Originally posted by Ya'nar#1
Duder, one thing for you to consider:
1) Paul spent three years in Arabia AFTER his conversion. What was he doing? According to his testimony, he was receiving visions from God--probably showing him Christ's ministry and life, and how He fulfilled OT law and prophecy.
So, considering this, it is safe to say that Paul did "see" Jesus--after the fact. And even more importantly, he was able to understand exactly HOW Jesus was the "reality" of the types and shadows represented in the OT festivals and sabbaths, thus putting an end to the need of these, since Christ had come and died, putting an end to the need for sacrifices for sin. Now mankind would be saved only BY FAITH in the fulfilled Redeemer.
In effect, Paul was able to filter his Pharisetical understanding through the lense of genuine Christology (no more clouded understanding of Christ's mission here), so that he came away with the first true version of Christianity--as God would have him know and understand it. And have us Gentiles know and understand it, as a result of Paul's theology. Thus, we can be confident in his interpretation of Christiainity, because it interweaves both Old and New Testament truths in such a way as to give us a COMPLETE PICTURE of the conflict between good and evil, from the very beginning to the very end, when Jesus comes again to redeem mankind.
It is worth noting here, that in my personal view I have recognized very little difference in Paul's theology and the rest of the disciples. Paul was very much the intellectual of the group, and thus tended to have a lot to say, which is one reason Jesus must have felt he was an excellent candidate to fill this New Covenant role. Also, he brought to the table an excellent understanding of OT scripture. So it wasn't as if Jesus was having to start with a "blank slate."
And as for you, Duder,
You say,
You do not find this anywhere else in scripture? Duder, have you read the OT? Paul takes this idea STRAIGHT out of OT teaching:
GENESIS 2:17 "thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" --disobedience to God (sin) results in death.
LEV 28:43 ". . . that they bear not iniquity [sin], and die." Aaron and his sons were to wear sanctified garments when they ministered before God in the holy place. This demonstrates how abhorant is sin in God's eyes. No person can come into the presence of God with unconfessed, unforgiven sin; he will be instantly consumed by the holiness of a righteous God.
JEREMIAH 28:11 "Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year THOU SHALT DIE, because thou hast taught rebellion against the Lord."
Man is deserving of death for rebelling (being disobedient) against God.
EZEKIEL 3:19 ". . . if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."
Paul did not simply "invent" the idea that humans deserve death as a result of their rebellion (disobedience) against God. It is taught all the way through OT scripture. Why didn't Jesus preach this? Why should He, when it was understood so well by Jews? His audience was primarily Jews. And He was the salvation of the world; He came to bring light and life, not death. Time enough later for His apostles to teach the world THE MEANING of His death on the cross.
Without Christ humans ARE worthless:
ISA 64:6 ". . . and all our righteousness are as FILTHY RAGS [in God's sight]."
JOB 15:16 "how much more abominable and filthy is man."
EZE 36:25 "from all your filthiness . . . will I clease you."
ISA 4:4 "washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion."
And just to show this is NOT unique to Paul in the NT:
1 PETER 3:21 "putting away the filth of the flesh."
"Sin" is defined in the moral law, or ten commandments. Sin is rebellion against God--and rebellion is deserving of death. Yes, the law of God condemns all those who refuse the gracious offer of life through His Son, Jesus Christ. It is ONLY BELIEF in Christ's righteousness which saves us from eternal death. Faith saved Abraham, and it saves us today. We are no longer under the Old Covenant, because Jesus has come. We now have access directly into the holy of holies, where Jesus officiates as our great High Priest for the forgiveness of sins. When God's hand tore the curtain in the sanctuary after Christ's death, that act revealed the way INTO the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary, which represents the heavenly sanctuary, where Jesus now ministers in our behalf. It is no longer necessary that we, as God's spiritual Israel, remain in the "outer court," observing the civil and health laws with the same puntilious effort laid down in the old days, when the children of Israel first exited Egypt. They knew little of God then, and had to be taught reforms and ways of liviing that were foreign to them.
Paul is not a founder of a "distinct" religion. The task fell to Paul to be the REVEALER of ulltimate Biblical truth regarding Christ and His mission. But Paul is misunderstood by a great many Christians today. While Paul taught and rejoiced in the knowledge that salvation does NOT come by "works of the law" as he had formerly come to believe, he NEVER repudiated the moral law of God--for IT is the standard of right and wrong. Yes, even the 4th commandment is regarded BY GOD as something that is EVIL to break! Why then didn't these apostles talk more about keeping the Sabbath holy? Simple! Because everyone was ALREADY keeping the Sabbath holy--even the Gentile converts. They were being taught by Jewish friends of the sacredness of this day.
Jesus' mission and Paul's mission were different. This is why you notice a small change in their message . . . or do you? I'll tell you, the more I study these two men, the more I realize how close their messages really are to one another. But while Jesus IS the revelation of God, Paul's message is INTERPRETATING that revelation for us. And he does that by combining both Testaments, so that both Jew and Gentile are reprented as equals in the New Covenant--just as God would have it. Only now, instead of Jews coming into their own, having fully accepted Christ when he came and being converted, then deliviering His message to the world after his death just as God would have had us Gentiles understand it, the Gentiles have had to be taught by the apostles, and thus the gospel of Jesus has gone to out to the world through THEM. Because of this, it has somewhat been distorted, until today we have (to a big extent) this erroneous belief that Paul made up his own gospel, and that the moral law is a thing of the distant past.
May God Bless!
--Ya'narrincess:
Thanks, Ya'nar, for a wonderful dose of the truth where it's needed most! :ha: (Crow copies and saves Ya'nar's post and ponders on how to best plagarize this in the future)
CONTEXT:bannana:
Last edited: