Replies

I know I won't get much support from my brothers in the East or West; they are included simply because that's how the thread started. If any of you wish to be discontinued, please let me know.

First, the position of the Church is that +Paul is misinterpreted by the Protestants. I can see that in some cases, as +Paul says things that are strictly orthodox (lower-case "o") and fully in line with the Church teaching.

I trust the collective knowledge of the Church, and I never assume that I am wright and the Church is wrong. I simply present my perceptions in hope of finding convincing answers.

Having said that, I also have "issues" with +Paul, as I do with the "official truth" of other parts of the Bible. That is me.

Paul didn't believe otherwise at all. Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Paul tells us: Rom 9:6-8...

Let's look at this, verse-by-verse.

For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel

Clearly, not all were the "People of God" (meaning of "Israel"). That God is the God of the Jews. He makes that abundantly clear in the OT. Those who believe in Him become Israel, and are considered Jews.

There are also idolatrous Jews (that includes Christian Jews), and naturally they are not the People of God.

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants

Same as above. Being "genetically" a Hebrew doesn't make you a Jew if you are an idolater. Those who believe in the (Jewish) God of Abraham are true Israel.

It is through Isaac that your offspring will be named."

For obvious reasons. Again, being faithful is the key, buit it always pertained only to the Jews.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Very cleverly worded. The children of promise, which +Paul uses extensively in Romans makes it sound as if anyone who belongs to Christ is, like Him, a descendant of Abraham.

The only thing he left out (and Romans were no experts on Jewish history) is that nowhere does it say in the Scriptures that those who believe in the God of Abraham are, or become, Jews! For 1,300 years, those who converted to the faith of Abraham, became Jews.

+Paul was not believe he was creating a new religion. But he was too aware of the fact that pagan Greeks and Romans would never accept becoming Jews. And the Church had to survive; the Church was being strangled in Israel. That is a historical fact and even Christ warned the Apostles that they will be thrown out of the synagogues because of Him.

So, while Jesus never encouraged the Apostles to preach in gentile lands, and admits being sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, and appoints one Apostle for each tribe, and the Revelation speaks of 12 apostolic judges, it is clear that the number 12 refers to 12 tribes of Israel and not all the people of the world.

Of course, someone will bring up Matthew 28 and the Great Commission. Can I be blunt without being excommunicated? It was written when the Church was out of Israel struggling to survive in pagan lands. What else could +Matthew have written to make it acceptable to the Gentiles? I believe that part was added for reasons that should be obvious. In other words, I doubt Christ ever said that.

I doubt it because all the other Apostles go around baptizing in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Holy Trinity. In fact, there are hardly any trinitarian expressions in the NT, so Matthew 28 stands out like a sore thumb, out of context and out of place.

If one is correct in interpreting Jesus to mean that He only came to save one biological race, then we are wasting our time being Christian

In the strictest sense, that is a possibility. In Mat 15:24, Jesus is quoted as saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel? Well, in Mat 10:5-6 he makes it abundantly clear that the house of Israel does not include the Gentiles:

Do not go in the way of the Gentiles

but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel

In other words, preach to the Jews only. You see, when +Paul wrote his sweet letters to the Romans, Matthew's Gospel wasn't around yet. Romans had no clue what Jesus is quoted as saying. And neither could the Bereans check against Scripture that what Paul taught was as Christ said, because there was nothing written what Christ said yet.

So, +Paul was perfectly safe to tell Romans and Greeks that Christ told him what to preach to the Gentiles. And Bereans had nothing to verify that against Scripture! They could only verify +Paul's OT quotes against the Septuagint.

First, the position of the Church is that +Paul is misinterpreted by the Protestants. I can see that in some cases, as +Paul says things that are strictly orthodox (lower-case "o") and fully in line with the Church teaching.

OK, good. My understanding is that the Church teaches that the scriptures are indeed inspired and inerrant.

I trust the collective knowledge of the Church, and I never assume that I am right and the Church is wrong. I simply present my perceptions in hope of finding convincing answers.

Yes, for lurkers, Kosta has been very open and clear about this in the past.

[Re: Rom. 9:6-8] "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." Clearly, not all were the "People of God" (meaning of "Israel"). That God is the God of the Jews. He makes that abundantly clear in the OT. Those who believe in Him become Israel, and are considered Jews. There are also idolatrous Jews (that includes Christian Jews), and naturally they are not the People of God.

Yes, on all counts.

Being "genetically" a Hebrew doesn't make you a Jew if you are an idolater. Those who believe in the (Jewish) God of Abraham are true Israel.

Yes again.

"That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." ---- Very cleverly worded. The children of promise, which +Paul uses extensively in Romans makes it sound as if anyone who belongs to Christ is, like Him, a descendant of Abraham.

Sure. That is what he meant, and I agree with him.

The only thing he left out (and Romans were no experts on Jewish history) is that nowhere does it say in the Scriptures that those who believe in the God of Abraham are, or become, Jews! For 1,300 years, those who converted to the faith of Abraham, became Jews.,/p>

I'm not following. Were Adam, Eve, Abel, etc., saved? They were not "Jews".

But [Paul] was too aware of the fact that pagan Greeks and Romans would never accept becoming Jews. And the Church had to survive; the Church was being strangled in Israel. That is a historical fact and even Christ warned the Apostles that they will be thrown out of the synagogues because of Him.

And what else did Christ teach concerning His own power? He taught that it was infinite and that His will would be done. Paul never fretted that Christianity would be finished but for some heroic gesture on his part. Look at the man's humility and faith. He put trust in God that I only dream about. :) Paul KNEW that God would take care of the "movement". He had to.

If this is what you really think that Jesus thought, then how do you or I get in? Did God literally change His mind based on what Paul did? If so, or even something close to that, then I would think that you and the Church should honor Paul at least as much as Mary.

If He never said it, then the Bible contains patent error. I know that in finality you will accept the Church's teachings on any given matter, but if that isn't available, how do you know which scriptures are true and which are not?

[continuing:] I doubt it because all the other Apostles go around baptizing in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Holy Trinity. In fact, there are hardly any trinitarian expressions in the NT, so Matthew 28 stands out like a sore thumb, out of context and out of place.

I don't know what the other Apostles said as they were baptizing, but I know there is scripture that reads to back up your thought. You are right that Matthew 28 stands out. So much, in fact, that it is precisely what we (Southern Baptists) practice. Proper baptism should be in the name of the Trinity. I happen to believe that the Trinity is covered adequately in the scriptures, and I understand that some disagree. I would disagree that the actions of men, any men, on any side, constitute evidence that any scriptures are false. In your faith I have learned what the road to hell is paved with. :) That should say NOTHING to us on the truth of the scriptures.

You must know in your heart that the truth of the scriptures is NOT a rebutable presumption. It is an irrebutable FACT.

In Mat 15:24, Jesus is quoted as saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel? Well, in Mat 10:5-6 he makes it abundantly clear that the house of Israel does not include the Gentiles: ...

OH, come-on. :) This was a specific mission that Jesus sent them on, knowing that they would return for further teaching and instructions. This was not Jesus being "anti-Gentile", He just had a specific mission He wanted accomplished, and so He sent out His Apostles to accomplish it.