Posted on 09/09/2004 9:56:01 PM PDT by ksen
I have seen some interesting things said on this forum. But this statement brought me up short. Here is the quote from another thread and I will leave the poster of the quote anonymous because I'd like to open a discussion about the idea behind the quote and not the person behind the quote:
However you define doctrine, it is essentially Man's interpretation of God's Law, and I believe that would even include Paul's docrtinal statements.
Was Paul writing Scripture? Are the Pauline Epistles just as much God's Word as the Gospels are? as the giving of the Mosaic Law?
I believe Peter thought they were when he told the people he was writing to to pay as much attention to Paul's writings as you do the other Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-17).
But what do you do when confronted with someone who says that Paul's interpretation of God's doctrine is fallible because it came from a man like us, albeit a man somewhat closer to God than we are.
What are your thought? And remember to keep it civil.
***Not surprisingly, they worship Al-ilah, the god of Abraham.***
And some people believe that God is an alien who wants them to commit suicide before he can take them up away in his spaceship!
Neither of which have any direct bering on our conversation - or this thread.
So what do you do, just pick and chooce what you like from the Bible? You seem to like Jesus. Do you accept what he said about Abraham?
Well there you go, whoever said that an 8-day old infant is innocent? There is none innocent nor righteous, except Jesus Christ.....and that includes 8-day old infants.
Gen 45:5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.
Your screen name reminds me of:
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Hmmm...
There were 12 apostles with supernumery powers provided as a gift from the Holy Spirit and to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection. see Matt 15:7-11
All of the original apostles were visited except for Judas Escariot, who was replaced by Paul. (Mathias was voted upon by the other apostles, but the soveriegnty of the Holy Spirit provides the spiritual gift of apostleship, not the volition of man. (see 1Cor 12:11, 28,; Acts 1:15-27)
It is also noteworthy that the other 11 apostles were apostles to the Jews, whereas Paul was the apostle to the Romans, an even more significant title.
The gift of apostleship is a spiritual gift provided by the Holy Ghost. Paul testifies to that gift, as well has his journey on the road to Damascus and his later conversion. He was also chosen by Christ for apostleship (see Eph 4:11)
Considering Paul was a third generation Roman, they naturally were Roman, however Paul was also a member of the Sanhedrin prior to salvation and after being chosen by Christ to be an apostle, then bestowed with that spiritual gift by the Holy Spirit, he wrote Scripture.
Simple answer to those stating Paul was a man like us, is to direct him to consider Paul's selection as an apostle as a spiritual gift, which was removed after the completion of the canon of Scripture.
There's actually some rigorous doctrine out there which points to Galatians as being right on track, but Paul testifying against himself in that Paul really desired to be the apostle to Jerusalem when instead he had been chosen by God to be an apostle to Rome.
His repeated return to Jerusalem and desire to return their merely delayed his testimony to Rome, which is significant in that the other apostles were sent to Jews while Paul's witness was to the Gentile world to build the Church.
Abraham's actions manifest his faith in God and his faith was counted as righteousness. His faith also was in singluar in the Son alone as Abraham was about to render a sacrifice which he understood to be a more perfect sacrifice than an animal without soul or spirit.
God stopped Abraham before a killing of his son was performed, but the action manifest Abraham's faith in the same way Jesus Christ Himself remained faithful on the cross.
The sacrificial system did not focus upon performing an evil act to correct unrighteousness, rather the sacrifice had to be of something perfect. If any evil crept into the action or ritual, the sacrifice was null and void, worse...it became a corruption of the system rendering the sacrifice.
All of the sacrifices pointed ahead in time to the only real sacrifice that counted,...namely the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, his physical, soulish and spiritual existence which were separated after the sins )past, present and future) of all mankind were imputed upon Him, and judged.
The actions of the terrorists on 9/11/01 were not equatable to those of Abraham.
Their actions did not point to the Cross, Abraham's did.
They judged their victims, Abraham through faith in the Son, tendered his son for judgment by God.
God stayed Abraham's hand,...He didn't stay their hands.
They sought their enemies to slaughter, Abraham sought to slauhter his most valuable possession provided from God.
I apologize. Yes, Torah has a wide range of meaning. Each commandment can be called a torah on it's own, torah of the priests, torah of the offerings, etc. I choose to use Torah, because I don't consider 'Law' to be the most accurate translation.
I'm referring to a very general meaning, not inclusive of extra-Biblical sources, where Torah means the teachings, counsel and instruction of YHWH from the root word 'yarah', to point towards, teach, likened to shooting an arrow at a target. There is a significant connection between various derivatives of yarah.
Torah (tav-vav-resh-hey) = teaching
Moreh (mem-vav-resh-hey) = teacher
Orah (aleph-vav-resh-hey) = light, lumination, enlightenment (ie - what following the teaching brings forth)
Prov 6:23 For the commandment [is] a lamp; and the torah [is] light; and reproofs of instruction [are] the way of life:
However, I think the following verse conveys the meaning as I use it very well.
Prov 6:20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the torah of thy mother:
Hope that helps clarify how I am using the term Torah.
Blessings
Yes, Isaac was to be offered up by Abraham. Isaac carried the wood of the sacrifice up Mount Moriah, just as Yeshua would carry the wood of the sacrifice up the same Mount Moriah. Abraham was stopped from sacrificing Isaac and given a substitute. What did Abraham see? A ram wearing a crown of thorns(it's head caught in the thicket). I would even go so far as to speculate this took place on the same day that would become Passover and on the very spot where Yeshua was crucified.
Isaac was a type of Yeshua. This is what Yeshua was referring to when he said "Abraham longed to see my day and he saw it".
Genesis 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place YHWH-Yireh: as it is said [to] this day, In the mount of YHWH it shall be seen.
YHWH, the Father of Yeshua, calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Through Messiah's own words, we know that Abraham will be in the Kingdom. Why in the world do you want to call him "an unholy monster"?
Unlike that JESUS guy, who apparently couldn't tell an "unholy monster" from a hero of faith.
Would you be willing to kill your own son on an altar, if you were absolutely convinced that the god of Abraham wanted you to?
I would not be so convinced, because I believe the request to Abraham was a one-off (like the ghost of Samuel) done to make a point -- as others have said, it pointed to the sacrificial death of Christ. But if I were Abraham, I hope the answer is that I would do the same.
I happen to believe that Paul was divinely inspired. But why would a quote from Paul that "scripture is given by inspiration from God" prove to a skeptic that Paul was inspired?I, too, accept the inspiration of the Paulime Epistles. May I suggest that the Apostle Peter did as well:
...and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. [NAS95, 2 Pe 3:15-16]
***And Jesus Christ is too good for it. ***
Where do you get your knowlege of Jesus Christ?
***Can we get Marcion a Free Republic account?***
It seems he may already have one!
Amen. Many great and small people, including Luther and Augustine have said that they owe their conversion to the book of Romans. Of course we know that none come except the Father draw them, but in many many instances, too numerous to list, it was the Word written in Paul's understanding that they heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.