How To Get To Heaven When You Die (1 Viewer)

[Paddington]

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS. IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU COULD EVER DO AND IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES
ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN? (CLICK 'READ MORE')

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

It all began when the first humans, Adam and Eve were created and God put them in the garden of Eden. God created them perfect to live in fellowship with Him. There was no death or sorrow. God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed God and as a result, sin entered into the world. The pain, which this world sees, is the result of sin.

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically, but God sent His Son to die so that you can have a chance not to have to go to hell by accepting what He did on the cross:

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not righteous because we do bad things. A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store, it is punishable by going to jail. It's the same thing with sin. Lying, stealing, sex before marriage, pride, hatred, ect. are all sins. Hell is a prison for those who commit crimes against God. That's because you must be perfect in order to get to heaven. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already sinned, which will be punished if you are not pardoned. If you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for the crime you committed. Right? Just as the President can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die. You won't have to pay for your own sins because Jesus already did that for you, But if you reject the pardon that He offers, you will have to pay for your own sins by going to hell. He is the only one qualified because He is the only one ever to live a sinless, perfect life.

3. If you will confess Jesus Christ as Your Lord, place your Faith in Him and Believe in your heart that He died, shed His blood and rose again as a sacrifice for your sins, you will be saved (from hell).

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church, baptism or any other way other than by turning to Jesus, believing in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins and placing your Faith in Him. While these are good things to do, some people believe that they will get to heaven, but your Faith must be in Christ and His sacrifice alone and nothing else, giving your life to Him.

Eph 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Ro 10:9,10;13 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

4. You must submit your life to Jesus Christ and His will in Faith, believing in your heart that He died and rose again shedding His blood to pay for your sins as a sacrifice to God. If you want to accept Jesus free gift of salvation, or if you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as a Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post, then discuss this topic and or ask any honest questions.

 

[Paddington]

Happy Sunday. What Church do you plan to attend tomorrow?

 

[Paddington]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

 

[Dezbelief]

Thread 'How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here!'

Jan 5, 2022

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS. IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU COULD EVER DO AND IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES
ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN? (CLICK 'READ MORE')

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

It all began when the first humans, Adam and Eve were created and God put them in the garden of Eden. God created them perfect to live in...

• Paddington
• Replies: 2,020
• Forum: Footballguys Free For All

• 

 

[dgreen]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

God's wisdom is hidden (or at best not obvious) and its revealed through the Holy Spirit (not man). Your faith and trust are essential to understanding/seeing that wisdom through the Holy Spirit. It also links the OT and NT teachings.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

I think with lots of scripture, it helps to have a bit more context and include more of the passage.

I also prefer a more modern translation that helps me sometimes with the understanding.

New Living Translation:

6 Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. 7 No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God[c]—his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began. 8 But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord. 9 That is what the Scriptures mean when they say,

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard,
and no mind has imagined
what God has prepared
for those who love him.”[d]

10 But[e] it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. 11 No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. 12 And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

Eugene Peterson has a good version with The Message:

6-10 We, of course, have plenty of wisdom to pass on to you once you get your feet on firm spiritual ground, but it’s not popular wisdom, the fashionable wisdom of high-priced experts that will be out-of-date in a year or so. God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes. You don’t find it lying around on the surface. It’s not the latest message, but more like the oldest—what God determined as the way to bring out his best in us, long before we ever arrived on the scene. The experts of our day haven’t a clue about what this eternal plan is. If they had, they wouldn’t have killed the Master of the God-designed life on a cross. That’s why we have this Scripture text:

No one’s ever seen or heard anything like this,
Never so much as imagined anything quite like it—
What God has arranged for those who love him.
But you’ve seen and heard it because God by his Spirit has brought it all out into the open before you.

I think it means God, through the Holy Spirit, is helping us to understand what awaits us and it's difficult for us to imagine how good it will be.

I will say this seems to be a general area where I maybe I differ some in focus from @Paddington . Yes, Heaven is obviously an important thing for Christians. But it's not my primary focus. I'm much more concerned with how I reflect Jesus while I'm alive here on earth. And in this forum. And in my everyday real life at work and at home.

 

[dgreen]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Eugene Peterson has a good version with The Message:

It’s not the latest message, but more like the oldest—

Great phrasing by Peterson.

 

[Mister CIA]

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

God's wisdom is hidden (or at best not obvious) and its revealed through the Holy Spirit (not man). Your faith and trust are essential to understanding/seeing that wisdom through the Holy Spirit. It also links the OT and NT teachings.

I can get on board with "Gods wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit," I'd frame it as Contemplation. And this is exactly where I am, firmly planted in Contemplation; which means I have choices - and I ask, "Why Christianity?" I've never come up with a good answer besides comfort and convenience (edit: AND FEAR, let's not forget fear). Honestly, if I really worked on this for every remaining moment of my life, I'd likely discover that Contemplation is about as far as I can take this ride. ... gonna stop here, before before what little context I'm gripping slips away. Not trying to be disagreeable, in case I sound that way.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

God's wisdom is hidden (or at best not obvious) and its revealed through the Holy Spirit (not man). Your faith and trust are essential to understanding/seeing that wisdom through the Holy Spirit. It also links the OT and NT teachings.

I can get on board with "Gods wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit," I'd frame it as Contemplation. And this is exactly where I am, firmly planted in Contemplation; which means I have choices - and I ask, "Why Christianity?" I've never come up with a good answer besides comfort and convenience (edit: AND FEAR, let's not forget fear). Honestly, if I really worked on this for every remaining moment of my life, I'd likely discover that Contemplation is about as far as I can take this ride. ... gonna stop here, before before what little context I'm gripping slips away. Not trying to be disagreeable, in case I sound that way.

Thanks GB. That doesn't sound disagreeable at all. Thanks for the insights.

I'll also say I feel more and more strongly about being ok with the "mystery" part. Which I think is sort of what you're saying with the Contemplation and not being able to go further. I think that's true. I think there is an element of this that isn't an equation to be "solved" completely. There will be parts that I don't understand or don't seem to make sense. And I'm ok with that.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

God's wisdom is hidden (or at best not obvious) and its revealed through the Holy Spirit (not man). Your faith and trust are essential to understanding/seeing that wisdom through the Holy Spirit. It also links the OT and NT teachings.

I can get on board with "Gods wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit," I'd frame it as Contemplation. And this is exactly where I am, firmly planted in Contemplation; which means I have choices - and I ask, "Why Christianity?" I've never come up with a good answer besides comfort and convenience (edit: AND FEAR, let's not forget fear). Honestly, if I really worked on this for every remaining moment of my life, I'd likely discover that Contemplation is about as far as I can take this ride. ... gonna stop here, before before what little context I'm gripping slips away. Not trying to be disagreeable, in case I sound that way.

Disagreeable? Don't think so. You are where you are in your journey. Not my place to judge you. My post above, while probably not clear since I replied to the wrong one, was answering what the passage meant. The only way you get an answer to "Why Christianity?" is to continue interacting with whatever you think "God" is right now. Call it prayer, meditation, whatever. That's the adventure a great many miss out on as they turn to religion rather than relationship with "God".

 

[Paddington]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

Paul's writings are actually to be separated from the rest of Scripture. They are wriiten to the grace age, primaily Gentile Church that those alive today are under. The other Books are written to the Jews who were under the Law. If you try to mix them together, you will be confused. While all Scripture is the Word of God, it's not all written to the same people. It's a different set of instructions fot each.

This verse does reveal that the Holy Spirit teaches the believer all things, I could be wrong, but I can't help thinking that it could also be referring to the place of the believer in eternity. No one can concieve what God has planned for those who love God. I see this as a profound statement.

 

[Paddington]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

God's wisdom is hidden (or at best not obvious) and its revealed through the Holy Spirit (not man). Your faith and trust are essential to understanding/seeing that wisdom through the Holy Spirit. It also links the OT and NT teachings.

Insightful remarks

 

[Paddington]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

I think with lots of scripture, it helps to have a bit more context and include more of the passage.

I also prefer a more modern translation that helps me sometimes with the understanding.

New Living Translation:

6 Yet when I am among mature believers, I do speak with words of wisdom, but not the kind of wisdom that belongs to this world or to the rulers of this world, who are soon forgotten. 7 No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God[c]—his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began. 8 But the rulers of this world have not understood it; if they had, they would not have crucified our glorious Lord. 9 That is what the Scriptures mean when they say,

“No eye has seen, no ear has heard,
and no mind has imagined
what God has prepared
for those who love him.”[d]

10 But[e] it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. 11 No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. 12 And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.

Eugene Peterson has a good version with The Message:

6-10 We, of course, have plenty of wisdom to pass on to you once you get your feet on firm spiritual ground, but it’s not popular wisdom, the fashionable wisdom of high-priced experts that will be out-of-date in a year or so. God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes. You don’t find it lying around on the surface. It’s not the latest message, but more like the oldest—what God determined as the way to bring out his best in us, long before we ever arrived on the scene. The experts of our day haven’t a clue about what this eternal plan is. If they had, they wouldn’t have killed the Master of the God-designed life on a cross. That’s why we have this Scripture text:

No one’s ever seen or heard anything like this,
Never so much as imagined anything quite like it—
What God has arranged for those who love him.
But you’ve seen and heard it because God by his Spirit has brought it all out into the open before you.

I think it means God, through the Holy Spirit, is helping us to understand what awaits us and it's difficult for us to imagine how good it will be.

I will say this seems to be a general area where I maybe I differ some in focus from @Paddington . Yes, Heaven is obviously an important thing for Christians. But it's not my primary focus. I'm much more concerned with how I reflect Jesus while I'm alive here on earth. And in this forum. And in my everyday real life at work and at home.

I am focused on obeying & pleasing the Lord, but my primary focus is not on heaven as much as it is to lead others to salvation through Christ and ultimately them going to heaven and enlarging the Kingdom of Heaven.

The verse I listed is one of my favorites because it seems to indicate to me that whatever heaven and the Spirit realm is like with God, it's going to be so great that we cannot even imagine the wonders that our Lord has for us.

 

[Paddington]

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

God's wisdom is hidden (or at best not obvious) and its revealed through the Holy Spirit (not man). Your faith and trust are essential to understanding/seeing that wisdom through the Holy Spirit. It also links the OT and NT teachings.

I can get on board with "Gods wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit," I'd frame it as Contemplation. And this is exactly where I am, firmly planted in Contemplation; which means I have choices - and I ask, "Why Christianity?" I've never come up with a good answer besides comfort and convenience (edit: AND FEAR, let's not forget fear). Honestly, if I really worked on this for every remaining moment of my life, I'd likely discover that Contemplation is about as far as I can take this ride. ... gonna stop here, before before what little context I'm gripping slips away. Not trying to be disagreeable, in case I sound that way.

Well the Bible certainly did say that God reveals these things through the Holy Spirit. Thanks for your insight.

 

[dgreen]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

Paul's writings are actually to be separated from the rest of Scripture. They are wriiten to the grace age, primaily Gentile Church that those alive today are under. The other Books are written to the Jews who were under the Law. If you try to mix them together, you will be confused. While all Scripture is the Word of God, it's not all written to the same people. It's a different set of instructions fot each.

This verse does reveal that the Holy Spirit teaches the believer all things, I could be wrong, but I can't help thinking that it could also be referring to the place of the believer in eternity. No one can concieve what God has planned for those who love God. I see this as a profound statement.

Yeah, I agree it is really helpful to understand who Paul is talking to. For a long time, I saw a separation between Christian and Jew. However, the Bible's primary separation is Jew and Gentile. (A separation that should no longer exist in Christ.) It's better to see Paul as addressing Jews and Gentiles living out the Word differently rather than creating a separation between Jews and Christians. My understanding is, while predominantly Gentile, the churches Paul writes to would have had a good number of Jews, too. So, at times, while he's the Apostle to the Gentiles, he does address the Jewish crowd.

I like how one Messianic Jewish Rabbi author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles." A Jewish Jesus and his Jewish Apostles kicked the door wide open to Gentiles joining in on the mission of God to bless the nations and redeem creation. That's Christianity.

 

[Paddington]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

Paul's writings are actually to be separated from the rest of Scripture. They are wriiten to the grace age, primaily Gentile Church that those alive today are under. The other Books are written to the Jews who were under the Law. If you try to mix them together, you will be confused. While all Scripture is the Word of God, it's not all written to the same people. It's a different set of instructions fot each.

This verse does reveal that the Holy Spirit teaches the believer all things, I could be wrong, but I can't help thinking that it could also be referring to the place of the believer in eternity. No one can concieve what God has planned for those who love God. I see this as a profound statement.

Yeah, I agree it is really helpful to understand who Paul is talking to. For a long time, I saw a separation between Christian and Jew. However, the Bible's primary separation is Jew and Gentile. (A separation that should no longer exist in Christ.) It's better to see Paul as addressing Jews and Gentiles living out the Word differently rather than creating a separation between Jews and Christians. My understanding is, while predominantly Gentile, the churches Paul writes to would have had a good number of Jews, too. So, at times, while he's the Apostle to the Gentiles, he does address the Jewish crowd.

I like how one Messianic Jewish Rabbi author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles." A Jewish Jesus and his Jewish Apostles kicked the door wide open to Gentiles joining in on the mission of God to bless the nations and redeem creation. That's Christianity.

I would agree with much of what you said except that I don't believe that Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles. It completely does away with the Mosaic Law and it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

 

[dgreen]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

Paul's writings are actually to be separated from the rest of Scripture. They are wriiten to the grace age, primaily Gentile Church that those alive today are under. The other Books are written to the Jews who were under the Law. If you try to mix them together, you will be confused. While all Scripture is the Word of God, it's not all written to the same people. It's a different set of instructions fot each.

This verse does reveal that the Holy Spirit teaches the believer all things, I could be wrong, but I can't help thinking that it could also be referring to the place of the believer in eternity. No one can concieve what God has planned for those who love God. I see this as a profound statement.

Yeah, I agree it is really helpful to understand who Paul is talking to. For a long time, I saw a separation between Christian and Jew. However, the Bible's primary separation is Jew and Gentile. (A separation that should no longer exist in Christ.) It's better to see Paul as addressing Jews and Gentiles living out the Word differently rather than creating a separation between Jews and Christians. My understanding is, while predominantly Gentile, the churches Paul writes to would have had a good number of Jews, too. So, at times, while he's the Apostle to the Gentiles, he does address the Jewish crowd.

I like how one Messianic Jewish Rabbi author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles." A Jewish Jesus and his Jewish Apostles kicked the door wide open to Gentiles joining in on the mission of God to bless the nations and redeem creation. That's Christianity.

I would agree with much of what you said except that I don't believe that Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles. It completely does away with the Mosaic Law and it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

 

[Mister CIA]

it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

Somebody educate me. Why are "works" regarded as optional? ... I'm assuming there's an answer here, and maybe there isn't.

 

[dgreen]

it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

Somebody educate me. Why are "works" regarded as optional? ... I'm assuming there's an answer here, and maybe there isn't.

Optional in relation to salvation. The Israelites weren’t saved from slavery in Egypt because of their own work. However, after being saved, then they entered covenant with the god who saved them and that covenant does ask for them to do certain things in order to fulfill the mission their King has called them to.

 

[Paddington]

What does this verse mean to you?


1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

It looks like, in chapter 1, Paul is telling the church in Corinth that they have problems and that the wisdom of God is seen in Jesus. Then, here in chapter 2, he's pointing out that they have the ability to understand God's wisdom because they have received God's Spirit. I think he's then going to proceed to point out a string of issues and how they aren't living their lives as if they are Spirit-filled and understand the wisdom of God.

This particular verse is a bit tough. Looks like most assume he's loosely quoting Isaiah 64:4. The wording he uses fits his argument that there are things about God that people just can't imagine and now they (should) know these things because of their relationship with God. Paul could just be using the wording to make his argument or he could be pointing to the larger context surrounding Isaiah 64. There's a message there of God's mercy for his people as they come out of exile. While they have broken the covenant, God remains faithful.

When I get back home tonight, I'll check some reference books I have that focus on how the NT authors use OT quotations to see what they think is going on in verse 9. As hard as it is to understand Paul when he's not alluding to the OT, it can be even harder to follow his argument when he throws in stuff from Isaiah or elsewhere.

Paul's writings are actually to be separated from the rest of Scripture. They are wriiten to the grace age, primaily Gentile Church that those alive today are under. The other Books are written to the Jews who were under the Law. If you try to mix them together, you will be confused. While all Scripture is the Word of God, it's not all written to the same people. It's a different set of instructions fot each.

This verse does reveal that the Holy Spirit teaches the believer all things, I could be wrong, but I can't help thinking that it could also be referring to the place of the believer in eternity. No one can concieve what God has planned for those who love God. I see this as a profound statement.

Yeah, I agree it is really helpful to understand who Paul is talking to. For a long time, I saw a separation between Christian and Jew. However, the Bible's primary separation is Jew and Gentile. (A separation that should no longer exist in Christ.) It's better to see Paul as addressing Jews and Gentiles living out the Word differently rather than creating a separation between Jews and Christians. My understanding is, while predominantly Gentile, the churches Paul writes to would have had a good number of Jews, too. So, at times, while he's the Apostle to the Gentiles, he does address the Jewish crowd.

I like how one Messianic Jewish Rabbi author said, "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles." A Jewish Jesus and his Jewish Apostles kicked the door wide open to Gentiles joining in on the mission of God to bless the nations and redeem creation. That's Christianity.

I would agree with much of what you said except that I don't believe that Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles. It completely does away with the Mosaic Law and it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

Actually, Paul addresses this and in thos age of grace, it's the same for Jews and Gentiles, but after the rapture of the Church, God will once again turn His attention back to Israel and they will keep the Law. That's because any Jews that are saved right now are actually part of the body of Christ and not part of Israel in their calling. But any Jews that are saved after the Rapture will be part of Israel and the callings thereof.

Yes this discussion can get very deep and lengthy. But that is the short answer. Here is a short verse to show that Jews right now in the age of Grace are the same as gentiles under grace. And they cannot be saved by keeping the law.

Galatians 3:26-29 KJV
[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Paddington]

it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

Somebody educate me. Why are "works" regarded as optional? ... I'm assuming there's an answer here, and maybe there isn't.

Works for salvation will not save you because you cannot be perfect and God requires perfection. The only work that can save you is the work of Christ when he died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins. If you place her faith in Him and what he did on the cross his sacrifice for your sins you will be saved. The reason is because you will be placing your sins upon Him and His payment on the cross and Christ's righteousness will be applied to your account. That's a legal transaction.

Once you are a child of God, and God does expect you to have works for him but not for salvation. God rewards His followers with eternal rewards in heaven. Under the law the Jews will rewarded with Earthly blessings but under grace we are rewarded with heavenly blessings.

 

[Paddington]

Try this guy. He walks you threw the Bible in 25 minutes lessons and is an extremely interesting teacher. Greatest teacher I have ever heard. He starts from the beginning and walks you all the way through the to the end.

Through the Bible with Les Feldick

Excellent Genesis-Revelation Bible study, Rightly-Dividing the Word: 82 books and MP3 Audio on-line. Les is an Oklahoma rancher who teaches non-denominational, home-style Bible classes.

www.lesfeldick.org

 

[Paddington]

I just want to encourage anyone who hasn't yet to please vote in the poll and meet this first post.

 

[Paddington]

Tomorrow is Sunday. Please find a good, Bible based Church and attend. God bless.

 

[Paddington]

Happy Mother's Day to all of the Mother's out there. You are appreciated!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I would agree with much of what you said except that I don't believe that Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles. It completely does away with the Mosaic Law and it also warns that if you add works to Grace, you nullify it. That's a dangerous warning.

I'm not really disagreeing with your take on what Paul says, but I'm going to word it differently. In my mind Paul is saying that faith alone in Christ brings salvation. If you think you need to add anything to this then you don't really have that faith in Christ. In addition, I think Paul is saying that if you could have just followed the law, then Jesus' death is meaningless.

Problem with this is that Matthew's Jesus seems to disagree around Matt 5:17-. Maybe Matthew is expecting his audience to be exclusively Jewish Christians and thus we/I read too much into this? But considering that the under currents of Matthew is that the Pharisees are the "other side" rather than say Rome, I doubt this was the case. And if we were having a discussion about whether the 10 Commandments should still be considered [applicable to] "Christian" this passage would certainly be brought up.

 

[Paddington]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

 

[dgreen]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

Yeah, I think Paul's interpretation is that he is fulfilling the law by being a light to the Gentiles. If he needed to temporarily become unclean by disregarding a less weighty aspect of the law in order to accomplish that, then he was willing to do that. Similarly, Jesus was willing to make himself unclean by touching a leper. I don't think he did that because he was abolishing cleanliness laws for Jews; I think he did that because he was obeying a higher commandment to love his neighbor and have compassion on others.

@Paddington, why do you say that Jews considered obedience to the law as their way to salvation? In the Exodus (what i think should be used as the image of salvation), they were saved BEFORE receiving the law. The law was a gift, not a mechanism for their salvation...because they had already been saved. And I think Jews understood that. Also, what do you mean by "salvation"? Do you mean "go to Heaven after they die"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

Yeah, I think Paul's interpretation is that he is fulfilling the law by being a light to the Gentiles. If he needed to temporarily become unclean by disregarding a less weighty aspect of the law in order to accomplish that, then he was willing to do that. Similarly, Jesus was willing to make himself unclean by touching a leper. I don't think he did that because he was abolishing cleanliness laws for Jews; I think he did that because he was obeying a higher commandment to love his neighbor and have compassion on others.

@Paddington, why do you say that Jews considered obedience to the law as their way to salvation? In the Exodus (what i think should be used as the image of salvation), they were saved BEFORE receiving the law. The law was a gift, not a mechanism for their salvation...because they had already been saved. And I think Jews understood that. Also, what do you mean by "salvation"? Do you mean "go to Heaven after they die"?

My real point though was that Paul's "Lawless Gospel" to the gentiles didn't abolish all of it for the gentiles, just reduced down to one commandment. And that one commandment wasn't the key to getting into heaven for Paul* but just the opposite. The commandment is more of an expression of appreciation so to speak for those with the gift of faith that they received (or in Paul's case will receive) their gift of grace. It is also preparing to live as one will in the coming God's kingdom as it makes the here and now more aligned to God's kingdom.

As for Paul, while he says he is still under the law as being from God's chosen people, there is a larger law he was following. And I think very much so that both Jesus and Paul tell us that the "letter of the law" was never the point because that enslaves us, but the "spirit of the law" is what always mattered as that is what ultimately frees us. Jesus in Matthew largely is telling us that law isn't [just] what we do, but more how we think. How we approach life. Which is ultimately how I think one reconciles Jesus in Matthew being firm that the law isn't supposed to be going anywhere for anyone with Paul's "Lawless Gospel".

*Not sure that Paul ever says one word about getting into heaven. Seems to me more like that at some future point we shall receive "heavenly" rewards on this world after it is transposed. But that might ultimately be a distinction without a difference.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Similarly, Jesus was willing to make himself unclean by touching a leper. I don't think he did that because he was abolishing cleanliness laws for Jews; I think he did that because he was obeying a higher commandment to love his neighbor and have compassion on others.

On the same lines are healing the man with the shriveled hand on the Sabbath in Mark 3.

“Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”

The letter of the law would say none of those are lawful. Then again, from the story maybe for the Pharisees it was okay to start planning to kill on the Sabbath.

 

[dgreen]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

Yeah, I think Paul's interpretation is that he is fulfilling the law by being a light to the Gentiles. If he needed to temporarily become unclean by disregarding a less weighty aspect of the law in order to accomplish that, then he was willing to do that. Similarly, Jesus was willing to make himself unclean by touching a leper. I don't think he did that because he was abolishing cleanliness laws for Jews; I think he did that because he was obeying a higher commandment to love his neighbor and have compassion on others.

@Paddington, why do you say that Jews considered obedience to the law as their way to salvation? In the Exodus (what i think should be used as the image of salvation), they were saved BEFORE receiving the law. The law was a gift, not a mechanism for their salvation...because they had already been saved. And I think Jews understood that. Also, what do you mean by "salvation"? Do you mean "go to Heaven after they die"?

My real point though was that Paul's "Lawless Gospel" to the gentiles didn't abolish all of it for the gentiles, just reduced down to one commandment. And that one commandment wasn't the key to getting into heaven for Paul* but just the opposite. The commandment is more of an expression of appreciation so to speak for those with the gift of faith that they received (or in Paul's case will receive) their gift of grace. It is also preparing to live as one will in the coming God's kingdom as it makes the here and now more aligned to God's kingdom.

As for Paul, while he says he is still under the law as being from God's chosen people, there is a larger law he was following. And I think very much so that both Jesus and Paul tell us that the "letter of the law" was never the point because that enslaves us, but the "spirit of the law" is what always mattered as that is what ultimately frees us. Jesus in Matthew largely is telling us that law isn't [just] what we do, but more how we think. How we approach life. Which is ultimately how I think one reconciles Jesus in Matthew being firm that the law isn't supposed to be going anywhere for anyone with Paul's "Lawless Gospel".

*Not sure that Paul ever says one word about getting into heaven. Seems to me more like that at some future point we shall receive "heavenly" rewards on this world after it is transposed. But that might ultimately be a distinction without a difference.

I think we might be saying close to the same thing. As you said before, "this is dependent on what we are calling the law". I tend to use "the law" as shorthand for "the obligations of the Sinai/Mosaic covenant". I don't think Paul can abolish that for Gentiles because Gentiles were never part of that covenant. While he doesn't abolish it, he (along with the Jerusalem council in Acts 15) also doesn't burden them with it. And, to your point, Paul recontextualizes it for Gentiles. He takes the spirit of the Sinai covenant and show Gentiles how they can do the same thing in their own context. Maybe he's basically saying, "We Jews are God's chosen people to be a kingdom of priests and a light to the Gentiles. The way we were asked to do that as a nation was through our covenant with God. You Gentiles are welcome into the same mission as we are, but to participate in that you don't have to become Jewish and take on that same covenant. However, while the way you Gentiles do that might be different than how we Jews do that, both of our missions are based on loving our neighbor. We have that in common."

This is why I like the phrase: "Christianity is Judaism for Gentiles."

 

[kutta]

I don’t want to go to heaven when I die.
Eternity sounds terrible. I get bored on a long weekend. What the heck will I do for eternity?
And I’m suspecting lots of my peeps won’t be there so if I made the cut I’d be bored out of my mind. I’m too old to make new friends.
I’m totally good just dying and being done.

 

[Paddington]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

What about Acts 28. What doesn't work?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

What about Acts 28. What doesn't work?

In Acts 28, which is relatively close to the end of Paul's ministry, Paul is stated to say that he has followed the law without exception

And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief* of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.​

​

You said that at this point in time "Paul was first saved he kept the law".

In 1 Cor 9:21, which is earlier in time. Probably among the earlier surviving letters (I'll say why later), Paul says-

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.​

Since KJV is pretty much gibberish here, allow me to use another translation (NIV).

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.​

​

You said that at this point in time "the gospel of grace was given to Paul" which Paul pretty much says the same thing.

This doesn't work because the sequence is backwards. If Paul is under the gospel of grace in say 55 A.D. give or take when 1 Cor is penned, then why isn't he in 62 A.D. give or take when the story in Acts takes place? Either way it shouldn't matter, either Paul kept the law always or he didn't. The bible says he didn't and then later in time says he did. The opposite might work (Paul lived under the law without exception until later when he does make exceptions), but not that is not what we have with these two passages.

Why do I say 1 Cor is likely one of the earlier letters? Because in 1 Cor 15:51-52 Paul seems to still be expecting to be alive when "we all shall be changed" where in presumably later letters he speaks of dying and even the virtues of dying. But even if I am reading too much into this, it is still earlier than his planned western expansion, before he writes Romans to get support for that expansion, before he is held in a Roman jail cell because per Romans he hadn't yet ever been to Rome. Of course, Acts suggests the same chronology.

Seems like a lot of words to support a secondary point, but there are several of these kind of issues with Acts. Paul says in a letter he did one thing, and then Acts narrates the story (20-30 years later) with Paul doing something else. Usually for trivial things, but not always. To me all of the quotes and speeches in Acts are not historical in the sense we would think of quotes in 2025 because no one in the first century was recording these words in any meaningful way in real time. They are all being back filled by the author decades later to keep a narrative flow. Whether that was some long ago lost to history anonymous author, Luke, the Holy Spirit, or God himself. There is history in Acts but also plenty of literary license.

 

[Paddington]

Don't have time to answer this now, I will try to get to it asap. Off hand, I will say that when Paul said "To the Jew I became as a Jew..." it means that although he wasn't required to keep the Law, he kept it to bring some to Christ.

I will look at it as soon as I can.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I don’t want to go to heaven when I die.
Eternity sounds terrible. I get bored on a long weekend. What the heck will I do for eternity?
And I’m suspecting lots of my peeps won’t be there so if I made the cut I’d be bored out of my mind. I’m too old to make new friends.
I’m totally good just dying and being done.

What do you think about eternal suffering, versus boredom?

 

[Terminalxylem]

What are the board believers’ thoughts on the 65% who haven’t placed faith in Jesus? Is it troubling/worrisome at all? Or c’est la vie, to each their own?

 

[dgreen]

I think this goes back to your earlier post about paying attention to who Paul is talking to. For example, in Galatians, I think Paul is telling Gentiles that they don’t need follow the Mosaic Law in order to be part of God’s covenant family. Same with Acts 15. It’s about what Gentiles need to do. My understanding is that the NT is mostly silent on whether Jews, even Jesus-following Jews, continue to obey the commandments, and I think that’s because it wasn’t even a question for them. That’s their covenant to obey and they were going to obey it. It’s not our (Gentiles) covenant. The reason I don’t follow kosher laws isn’t because of Jesus, it’s because I’m not Jewish.

This is a fascinating topic to me and one I’ve recently started learning about. Thanks for your perspective. It’s a fun discussion.

I think this is dependent on what we are calling the law. I think the ceremonial and cultural aspects of the law (sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) don't apply, but the moral code that can be summed up with "love thy neighbor" remains. And while others may be unwilling to take the leap, I still believe that "loving God with all your heart" is accomplished by taking care of his children.

This also one of those cases where Acts often says one thing about Paul and Paul says the opposite, but depending on which you prefer Paul might be continuing himself to keep the law (Acts 28:17) or not (1 Cor 9:21).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that there are two Paul's. When Paul was first saved he kept the law because that was the Jewish way of Salvation at that time. The gospel of grace was given to Paul after that by the Risen christ. The gospel of grace is what we are under now.

Acts 28 is pretty much at the end of Paul's life and thus chronologically is after, not before 1 Corinthians. So, your timing doesn't really work. The sequence of these stories has Paul saying directly that out of expediency he will disregard the Law when with gentiles, despite it applying to him in order to win converts and then years later saying that he has followed the Law, both the moral and cultural aspects without fault. That doesn't work.

What about Acts 28. What doesn't work?

In Acts 28, which is relatively close to the end of Paul's ministry, Paul is stated to say that he has followed the law without exception

And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief* of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.​

​

You said that at this point in time "Paul was first saved he kept the law".

In 1 Cor 9:21, which is earlier in time. Probably among the earlier surviving letters (I'll say why later), Paul says-

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.​

Since KJV is pretty much gibberish here, allow me to use another translation (NIV).

To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.​

​

You said that at this point in time "the gospel of grace was given to Paul" which Paul pretty much says the same thing.

This doesn't work because the sequence is backwards. If Paul is under the gospel of grace in say 55 A.D. give or take when 1 Cor is penned, then why isn't he in 62 A.D. give or take when the story in Acts takes place? Either way it shouldn't matter, either Paul kept the law always or he didn't. The bible says he didn't and then later in time says he did. The opposite might work (Paul lived under the law without exception until later when he does make exceptions), but not that is not what we have with these two passages.

Why do I say 1 Cor is likely one of the earlier letters? Because in 1 Cor 15:51-52 Paul seems to still be expecting to be alive when "we all shall be changed" where in presumably later letters he speaks of dying and even the virtues of dying. But even if I am reading too much into this, it is still earlier than his planned western expansion, before he writes Romans to get support for that expansion, before he is held in a Roman jail cell because per Romans he hadn't yet ever been to Rome. Of course, Acts suggests the same chronology.

Seems like a lot of words to support a secondary point, but there are several of these kind of issues with Acts. Paul says in a letter he did one thing, and then Acts narrates the story (20-30 years later) with Paul doing something else. Usually for trivial things, but not always. To me all of the quotes and speeches in Acts are not historical in the sense we would think of quotes in 2025 because no one in the first century was recording these words in any meaningful way in real time. They are all being back filled by the author decades later to keep a narrative flow. Whether that was some long ago lost to history anonymous author, Luke, the Holy Spirit, or God himself. There is history in Acts but also plenty of literary license.

I think the way I'd put it is that exceptions are acceptable under the law.

Don't work on the sabbath.

If your enemies donkey falls in a ditch, help get it out.

So, what do you do when the donkey is in a ditch on the sabbath? Judaism debated it and the sages ruled that you save the donkey because life is more important than the sabbath. I don't think they would have said they weren't under the law when they saved the donkey. I think they would say they were fulfilling Torah by making an exception. There's a weightiness to the law, like we talked about earlier. The debate wasn't whether or not to make exceptions, rather where the exception line is.

 

[dgreen]

Don't have time to answer this now, I will try to get to it asap. Off hand, I will say that when Paul said "To the Jew I became as a Jew..." it means that although he wasn't required to keep the Law, he kept it to bring some to Christ.

I will look at it as soon as I can.

I think that's a good way to put it: "kept it to bring some to Christ." But I'll admit I don't like "he wasn't required to keep the Law". "Required" for what purpose? For salvation? If so, then I agree, but that's the way it's always been. Obedience to the Law was never a requirement for salvation. And that's not something Jesus changed. I have a very strong bias against any language that suggests Jews need to give up their Jewishness in order to follow Jesus and I might be reading more into people's posts than they intend. But it bothers me because of how much damage has been done by Gentile Christians against Jews the last 2000 years.

 

[kutta]

I don’t want to go to heaven when I die.
Eternity sounds terrible. I get bored on a long weekend. What the heck will I do for eternity?
And I’m suspecting lots of my peeps won’t be there so if I made the cut I’d be bored out of my mind. I’m too old to make new friends.
I’m totally good just dying and being done.

What do you think about eternal suffering, versus boredom?

I would hate to live with that fear.
If I’m wrong and don’t get let in because I didn’t worship the gatekeeper, and I get sent to burn forever, I’m not sure that’s a god I’d want to believe in anyway.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Don't have time to answer this now, I will try to get to it asap. Off hand, I will say that when Paul said "To the Jew I became as a Jew..." it means that although he wasn't required to keep the Law, he kept it to bring some to Christ.

I will look at it as soon as I can.

Yes, in 1 Corinthians it is okay for Paul to have it both ways because he is not contradicting himself. He is not saying that he has " committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers" in 1 Corinthians. He is saying sometimes he always under the Law, but whether he strictly follows it depends on the audience and whether setting aside the law helps his greater cause. That is fine. However, per Acts though he is saying that he has done nothing that would be against the law whether it be the moral code (against the people) or the cultural code (customs), almost a decade later. It is this statement attributed to him later in the timeline in Acts that is the contradiction that cannot be reconciled by your "before and after" reply because your before happens after and your after happens before.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Hmm, I always have a hard time understanding Paul. It takes a lot of work on my part.

Hilariously, so did Simon Peter. (2 Peter 3:16)

Having praised the apostle Paul as a beloved brother speaking with wisdom given by God, Peter acknowledged that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. He also refers to Paul's writing as "Scripture." Both of these are important ideas.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think the way I'd put it is that exceptions are acceptable under the law.


Don't work on the sabbath.

If your enemies donkey falls in a ditch, help get it out.

So, what do you do when the donkey is in a ditch on the sabbath? Judaism debated it and the sages ruled that you save the donkey because life is more important than the sabbath. I don't think they would have said they weren't under the law when they saved the donkey. I think they would say they were fulfilling Torah by making an exception. There's a weightiness to the law, like we talked about earlier. The debate wasn't whether or not to make exceptions, rather where the exception line is.

But that doesn't really help. This is what Jesus is saying in Matthew. I think your first sentence is sort of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians and the rest would be part of the logic behind it. But in Acts 28:17 he is supposedly telling Jewish leadership that he has not ever gone against the Law governing "our people". Not that he has done nothing except for those things that would be an acceptable exception, but nothing at all. Considering how feisty Paul is in some of his letters (parts of 2 Corinthians for example), I would think that Paul most likely would have flat out told the chief of the Jews that he had a higher calling and that the exceptions weren't only acceptable but required under Christ's law. Maybe even mocked him for his ignorance of the true law. So not only is Acts 28 a contradiction, but it also seems out of character to me. But one of the features of Acts seems to be to smooth things over. To create a "cleaner" version of history than the messy one often found in Paul's letters which likely better reflect the reality.

 

[dgreen]

I think the way I'd put it is that exceptions are acceptable under the law.


Don't work on the sabbath.

If your enemies donkey falls in a ditch, help get it out.

So, what do you do when the donkey is in a ditch on the sabbath? Judaism debated it and the sages ruled that you save the donkey because life is more important than the sabbath. I don't think they would have said they weren't under the law when they saved the donkey. I think they would say they were fulfilling Torah by making an exception. There's a weightiness to the law, like we talked about earlier. The debate wasn't whether or not to make exceptions, rather where the exception line is.

But that doesn't really help. This is what Jesus is saying in Matthew. I think your first sentence is sort of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians and the rest would be part of the logic behind it. But in Acts 28:17 he is supposedly telling Jewish leadership that he has not ever gone against the Law governing "our people". Not that he has done nothing except for those things that would be an acceptable exception, but nothing at all. Considering how feisty Paul is in some of his letters (parts of 2 Corinthians for example), I would think that Paul most likely would have flat out told the chief of the Jews that he had a higher calling and that the exceptions weren't only acceptable but required under Christ's law. Maybe even mocked him for his ignorance of the true law. So not only is Acts 28 a contradiction, but it also seems out of character to me. But one of the features of Acts seems to be to smooth things over. To create a "cleaner" version of history than the messy one often found in Paul's letters which likely better reflect the reality.

If I’m understanding your argument, I think you are interpreting Acts 28 too literally. Elsewhere, Paul admits to be being a sinner. I don’t see any reason to interpret his words as saying, “I have never broken a single commandment nor have I crossed the line of any of the fences our sages put in place.” It’s an impossibility, so I don’t think that’s what Paul (or Luke) is claiming. I’ll admit to not being as familiar as I should be with this story, so I don’t even remember what Paul was charged with. My guess is his statement is directly related to whatever the charge is.

There’s a difference between saying Paul never violated Torah (which is how I am interpreting your interpretation of his words in Acts 28) and saying Paul would have still considered himself obligated to Torah observance (the argument I was trying to make).

I feel like we might be discussing slightly different things, but maybe not. I admit I might be misinterpreting you.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think the way I'd put it is that exceptions are acceptable under the law.


Don't work on the sabbath.

If your enemies donkey falls in a ditch, help get it out.

So, what do you do when the donkey is in a ditch on the sabbath? Judaism debated it and the sages ruled that you save the donkey because life is more important than the sabbath. I don't think they would have said they weren't under the law when they saved the donkey. I think they would say they were fulfilling Torah by making an exception. There's a weightiness to the law, like we talked about earlier. The debate wasn't whether or not to make exceptions, rather where the exception line is.

But that doesn't really help. This is what Jesus is saying in Matthew. I think your first sentence is sort of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians and the rest would be part of the logic behind it. But in Acts 28:17 he is supposedly telling Jewish leadership that he has not ever gone against the Law governing "our people". Not that he has done nothing except for those things that would be an acceptable exception, but nothing at all. Considering how feisty Paul is in some of his letters (parts of 2 Corinthians for example), I would think that Paul most likely would have flat out told the chief of the Jews that he had a higher calling and that the exceptions weren't only acceptable but required under Christ's law. Maybe even mocked him for his ignorance of the true law. So not only is Acts 28 a contradiction, but it also seems out of character to me. But one of the features of Acts seems to be to smooth things over. To create a "cleaner" version of history than the messy one often found in Paul's letters which likely better reflect the reality.

If I’m understanding your argument, I think you are interpreting Acts 28 too literally. Elsewhere, Paul admits to be being a sinner. I don’t see any reason to interpret his words as saying, “I have never broken a single commandment nor have I crossed the line of any of the fences our sages put in place.” It’s an impossibility, so I don’t think that’s what Paul (or Luke) is claiming. I’ll admit to not being as familiar as I should be with this story, so I don’t even remember what Paul was charged with. My guess is his statement is directly related to whatever the charge is.

There’s a difference between saying Paul never violated Torah (which is how I am interpreting your interpretation of his words in Acts 28) and saying Paul would have still considered himself obligated to Torah observance (the argument I was trying to make).

I feel like we might be discussing slightly different things, but maybe not. I admit I might be misinterpreting you.

As for context Acts 28 is the final chapter of Acts. The end of Paul's story. Paul has left Malta and headed to Rome across some stormy seas both literally and figuratively. When he gets to Rome the story somewhat mirrors Jesus's story in Jerusalem where the Jews hand him over to "Caesar" and demand his execution. Paul is appealing to those Jews that he has done nothing to deserve this (including the verse being discussed). (Some commentaries will suggest that he appealing to Jewish Christians where some of the ideas we have discussed might work, but that doesn't make much sense overall to me.) When the Jewish leadership doesn't give in, he does go all Paul and mocks them for not understanding quoting Issiah in the process. From there he preaches for two years presumably from behind bars until he is presumably executed. End of Acts.

As for me, I don't believe the author of Acts is ever using the actual real words spoken by anyone in anything he quotes. That it is always the author's words. I don't think it matters if it was Luke, some long-lost anonymous author, or God who is the author. So ultimately, I don't think Paul said these actual words at all. (Or, technically words that can be translated into these.)

My original point is that because of this contradiction you couldn't really use the bible directly to say whether Paul believed that he, as a Jew was to faithfully follow the law. I think we can infer that Paul believed that when all else was equal he was to follow the law, but when there was a greater good that the greater good should prevail because of lots of reasons, but especially because that is what he himself wrote directly and not what someone else claims he said.

So, I am solidly on the side such that for historical precision I trust 1 Corinthians (and any of Paul's undisputed letters) and take Acts with a grain of salt. Acts takes some liberties at time with its literary license, often "smoothing things over", and often paralleling Paul's life with Jesus's. It is a "true to the story" reenactment rather than an archived footage (or Paul's actual letters in this case) documentary for what I think are obvious reasons. And not something that is problematic to my faith except that Acts does seemingly contradict Paul's letters from time to time while making the author's points. But Matthew contradicts Mark, and Luke contradicts both of those, and John contradicts just about everything so not a big deal.

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet