glorydaz
Well-known member
Who you talkin' to, Willis?
Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Who you talkin' to, Willis?
beloved57
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
Hard to do over the web.
beloved57
Well-known member
Talking to you !
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Luke wrote his Gospel, and Acts, with Paul's help. What if Paul always meant the Gospel of Luke, whenever he said 'my Gospel?'
Romans 2:16 KJV Romans 16:25 KJV 2nd Timothy 2:8 KJV 1st Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Does the Gospel of Luke fit all of those scriptures?
-idea taken from Eusebius, diocesan bishop of Caesarea, 300s
My post explains why you are continually accused of being a heretic.
fishrovmen
Active member
Robert,
Can we go back to post #7 and discuss what you wrote? Do you have any interest in explaining to any length possible what your interpretation was of what I wrote in post #3?
Do you understand that in order to have discussion, there has to be understanding of what is being said, regardless of which party (or both) are unclear?
Do you have the desire, the time, the ability, the patience to engage in this?
I am just looking for a simple yes or no.
Thanks
Can we go back to post #7 and discuss what you wrote? Do you have any interest in explaining to any length possible what your interpretation was of what I wrote in post #3?
Do you understand that in order to have discussion, there has to be understanding of what is being said, regardless of which party (or both) are unclear?
Do you have the desire, the time, the ability, the patience to engage in this?
I am just looking for a simple yes or no.
Thanks
Luke and the other apostles did not know or understand all that Jesus had accomplished in his life, death and resurrection until the day of Pentecost Acts chapter 2. Paul also taught the apostles the Gospel that he had received from Jesus, Galatians 1:11,12.
When Paul referred to "my Gospel" he meant the Gospel that he received from Jesus, Galatians 1:11,12.
Sure, I think that words "law" and "religion" basically mean the same thing. When one is doing the law they are doing their religion. When they are doing their religion they are doing the law.
All religions are law based. You cannot join the organized church and be free from their laws. Example. If you join the Baptist church you must be baptized and agree to abide by their laws and rules. The Catholic church is full of laws and rules. If you don't abide by them or their doctrine you are anathema.
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, Robert, the words are not synonyms, and as long as you continue to use them as such you are going to find yourself on the receiving end of much disagreement and rancor, especially when you use your personal definition of "religion" as a cudgel.
Beware of the appeal of being in the minority. It often tickles one's itching ears, leading to thinking one is in possession of some special knowledge the rest around them lack.
AMR
All religions have evolved from Judaism, Judaism was a religion of law. The Pharisees practiced law keeping. Some of them even tithed down to the mint in their gardens, Matthew 23:23. This was their religion, was it not?
All organized churches have by laws. When you join an organized church you are required to abide by their by laws, are you not? If you don't abide by their laws they will kick you out. In the Catholic church it is called anathema.
If I joined your Presbyterian Church and started to teach against predestination would they not kick me out? Of course they would. Whatever church you belong to you must abide by their laws and their doctrines. This is the exact thing that Paul taught against. Being subject to laws, rules and ordinances, Colossians 2:20-22.
fishrovmen
Active member
I am glad that you are interested in discussion.
When you posted your first post, you quote Romans 3:20 which includes the English word "law". Then you immediately make a comment using the word law that you say is "any religious thing that one might do".
So you seem to be implying that the Greek word "nomou" which is translated into English as "law" in Romans 3:20 can be replaced with the word "religion" per your comment in post #7 where you say "The scripture could also say, "Therefore by the deeds of religion there shall no flesh be justified in his sight".
Is this correct?
Paul asked why subjegate yourself to the laws “according to the commandments and doctrines OF MEN??”
He did NOT teach “do what thou whilst”...
It remains “here are they that keep the commandments of Yah and the faith of Yahushua”...jews are only keeping something close to that faith...
Your “lawlessness” is not advocated in the New Covenant...
Yes, by the deeds of the law or religion no flesh will be justified in his sight. Let me define the word religion. RELIGION: man's preoccupation with his own spirituality, which is himself. Paul used the word religion to describe his life as a Pharisee, Acts 26:5.
Religion is not of faith. Religious people usually have faith in their religion, this is why they join a religious church or a religious organization. When the Bible speaks of faith it is not faith in a religion, it is always faith in Christ. When Paul said, "The Just shall live by faith" Romans 1:17. He meant by faith in Christ and his Gospel.
Christians are not led by laws, rules or commandments. They are led by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not lead one into sin. Living by laws, rules and commandments will cause one to sin, Romans 7:8-11.
fishrovmen
Active member
The problem with this is that the word "nomou" (translated "law") already has a definition, of which there is no similarity to ANY KNOWN definition of religion.
In your mind, you equate law and religion as "basically the same thing" but that is a personal concept, not a defined, agreed on, widely accepted reality.
So what you are doing is replacing a word that has an acceptable, agreeable definition with a personal concept, which is changing the text of what was written.
Do you agree?
The Law is to reveal sin...but if the Law is abolished or is no longer necessary or binding the Holy Spirit would not need to lead at all...as there would be no sin without Law
fishrovmen
Active member
Yes, but Paul did NOT use YOUR definition of religion. He used the word "threskeias" which has an agreeable, acceptable non-negotiable definition.
Do you agree?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are not making sound sense here at all, Robert.
You belong to the church invisible of all the saints. To claim that that church has no laws, whether true or not, is to state a law that states there is no law. It is inescapable. The church militant was mandated from Scripture to assemble corporately and confess the truths from the sound patterns of Scripture.
Robert, law is a system of rules that a particular community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. To argue there is no law in Christianity is to argue chaos wherein we stand for nothing and believe in anything. This is manifest nonsense. We are commanded by Scripture to define what is in and what is out else we are but a rag tag band of wanderers seeking who knows what. The church militant is imperfect to be sure, for it is composed of imperfect saints.
Paul wrote to Timothy that he should “follow the pattern of the sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13). Here pattern, ὑποτύπωσις, is “the form of sound words.” Every discipline has its own set of specialist words. The Apostle Paul does not simply say, “memorize the Old Testament.” These patterns include what was taught in 2 Thess. 2:15, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions [παράδοσις] that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” Also 1 Cor. 11:2 “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions [παράδοσις] even as I delivered them to you.” See also 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 15:1-4.
If you want to argue the law (duty to God, duty to fellow man) delivered to Moses is abrogated, then do so. You have not. You cannot.
A person claiming to be a member of Our Lord's Bride who believes one can do or believe whatever he or she desires without consequence (penalties), is a very confused person.
For someone who argues as you do, the irony abounds. For, if one takes the time to assemble the basics of what you claim, one finds it replete with laws and rules, your rules, your laws, your way, or the highway.
Come down from the mountain, Robert, and tarry with us imperfect saints. Your face is not shining bright enough just yet. :AMR:
AMR