Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (1)

169 posts in this topic

Tell me JK, do you think I would try to refute something that does not exist? Obviously not. And I have never said that it does not exist. I could never create a branch of Christianity as a Jew. I am not a Christian. And I would never create any more of Christianity. One is just more than enough. We would not be able to handle even a single extra one. Christianity is not based on the OT. The OT for Christians exists only as a shadow which is supposed to disappear. (Heb. 7:12,22) That's where my front skirmish stands.

Ben

Those verses in Hebrews refer to the old covenant, not to the entire collection of Old Testament writings. The OT is still a treasure for Christianity. Christian ministry is found symbolized in the Tabernacle of Moses. The story of Esther is an amazing tale of God's provision; it's one of my favorite sermons to preach. The Psalms and the Proverbs as as appropriate today as they were then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minera, I agree with you up to the point: "Whether Jesus was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and what he represented." Perhaps not to you but to the the fact that he was a Jewish man, it makes a lot of a difference. A Jewish child, from age 13 or "Bar Mitzvah" he starts being mentally prepared for marriage, according to the first commandment to leave his mother and father and join a wife to be with her one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) Then, we have Jesus in Mat. 5:17-19 declaring that he came to fulfill all the laws. Obviously, he must have fulfilled the very first commandment too. Then, marriage only enhances a man's credibility, especially if he was a Jewish teacher or Rabbi whose professions one could not perform as a single man. If indeed he was not married,

it must either be stated in the text that he was NOT married or admitted that there is a contradiction.

Ben

Ben I fully agree with you. Especially the credibility part. One cannot give advice about family and marriage if they have not experienced it. It has always bothered me when Catholic priests would be telling young couples and married families how to act or do things etc. Unfortunately there is no statement or contradiction as to whether Jesus was married or not in any texts. At least not in the Catholic or Christian versions. Seems to be a volatile topic among those religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew- Jesus `s reasons not to marry

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Surely Jesus did not marry, for he says he must get on with his father`s work, for the kingdom of heaven's sake

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben I fully agree with you. Especially the credibility part. One cannot give advice about family and marriage if they have not experienced it. It has always bothered me when Catholic priests would be telling young couples and married families how to act or do things etc. Unfortunately there is no statement or contradiction as to whether Jesus was married or not in any texts. At least not in the Catholic or Christian versions. Seems to be a volatile topic among those religions.

Not only Catholic priests... it is called recruitment !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women to be stoned or Mary Magdalene`s marital status was`nt never given. Mary Magdalene was qouted as the women Jesus had saved from the seven deady sins. Do you think Jesus would have married a women he had saved from those sins?

IMHO, the seven "demons" Jesus had to exorcize from Mary Magdalene was a simile for the struggle it took him to get Mary Magdalene

to abandon her style of life in the city of Magdala. And Mary Magdalene was not quoted only as the women Jesus had saved. She is quoted in a few places even up to his last moments on the cross, let alone after he was dead, as she tried to remove Jesus from the tomb if she had found him in. (Joh 20:15)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Ben, please allow me to try.....

Jesus was born Jewish, he was brought up a Jewish, and continues to be Jewish …therefore Christianity and the Church is a fulfillment of Judism. It says in the book of Ephesians that through Jesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles become one in body of Christ which is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The word Catholic simply means universal.

Around 100 AD the reference to the Church as being Catholic is in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. And further back than that in the ‘Book of Acts’ you can see the progression. Originally the church was a sect of Judaism and later followers of Jesus was called Christian which meant “little Christs”.

My point is that from the very beginning the Church wasn’t one …. It was many different Churches (just like today) and they all met together in councils to sort things out.

It also states in the book of Acts that the Church decided how to handle non-jews entering the church….they met in a Council in Jerusalem and the Apostles, together with Peter, decided what to do. The Apostles were the foundation of the Church and the Catholic Church today is the same Church….Peter’s successor, which is the Pope... they can trace their lineage back to 12 Apostles. No other church can make this claim. The other churches (and there are so many different ones today) …they all broke away from the Catholic Church.

Sslama, hi! Sorry but I can't agree with you that Christianity and the Church is the fulfillment of Judaism. To say so, is simply to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. If Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, what does it make of Judaism, something fulfilled, done, just a shadow of Christianity? That's what Replacement Theology means. And Replacement Theology IOW, means

vandalism of Judaism by Christianity.

Christianity was never a sect of Judaism. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Sect of the Nazarenes founded by the Apostles on behalf of Jesus. Jesus himself never had a Christian for a follower. When they rose with Paul in Antioch, Jesus had been gone for about 35 years. (Acts 11:26)

Once Paul did have to go to Jerusalem to solve a problem for the Church but because some of the Nazarenes sent from Judea were causing dissentions throughout the churches that Paul had overturned from Nazarene synagogues into Christian churches. (Acts 15:1,2)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those verses in Hebrews refer to the old covenant, not to the entire collection of Old Testament writings. The OT is still a treasure for Christianity. Christian ministry is found symbolized in the Tabernacle of Moses. The story of Esther is an amazing tale of God's provision; it's one of my favorite sermons to preach. The Psalms and the Proverbs as as appropriate today as they were then.

Beautiful! I am flattered. But what about Hebrews 7:12,22? Paul made it very sure that the Law changed and a better covenant guaranteed by Jesus replaced the Jewish covenant. What does it mean that Judaism has been replaced?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben I fully agree with you. Especially the credibility part. One cannot give advice about family and marriage if they have not experienced it. It has always bothered me when Catholic priests would be telling young couples and married families how to act or do things etc. Unfortunately there is no statement or contradiction as to whether Jesus was married or not in any texts. At least not in the Catholic or Christian versions. Seems to be a volatile topic among those religions.

The lack of a quote about Jesus being married is understood because it was a commong thing for a youngman to be married. The opposite is true that, if Jesus was not married, it would most definitely be down on the pages of the NT that he was NOT married.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jesus had been married, wouldn't Paul have mentioned it? Since Peter, the other apostles, and Jesus’ half-brothers had wives, Paul says he could also marry if he wanted to (1 Corinthians 9:5). If Jesus had been married, Paul would probably have named him in this list of married men before Peter and the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful! I am flattered. But what about Hebrews 7:12,22? Paul made it very sure that the Law changed and a better covenant guaranteed by Jesus replaced the Jewish covenant. What does it mean that Judaism has been replaced?

Ben

I believe the "law" in verse 7 refers to the guideline that the priests had to come from the tribe of Levi. For Jesus to become the High Priest, being from Judah, a change in the law was necessary.

The new covenant acknowledges the old covenant by stating that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest, the last one that would ever be needed. The new covenant does not replace the old covenant; instead, it completes the old covenant. That which the old covenant required - perfect living - was accomplished by Jesus and applied to all who believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Jesus being a rabbi. Didn`t he suggest not to be called a Rabbi.

Mattew

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jesus had been married, wouldn't Paul have mentioned it? Since Peter, the other apostles, and Jesus’ half-brothers had wives, Paul says he could also marry if he wanted to (1 Corinthians 9:5). If Jesus had been married, Paul would probably have named him in this list of married men before Peter and the others.

You are right, he did not mention anything of the sort about Jesus. But by the same token, he did not mention any other who worked with him that he was married. Probably because there was no reason to mention. He mentioned Peter, the other apostles and James to prove the point that he - Paul - had also the right to a wife and to be paid for his works as an apostle. Although he was a self-called apostle because the Apostles could not be 13 or less than 12. Then to replace Judas the Apostles had chosen Mathias not Paul. (Acts 1:26; I Cor. 9:5,6)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the "law" in verse 7 refers to the guideline that the priests had to come from the tribe of Levi. For Jesus to become the High Priest, being from Judah, a change in the law was necessary.

The new covenant acknowledges the old covenant by stating that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest, the last one that would ever be needed. The new covenant does not replace the old covenant; instead, it completes the old covenant. That which the old covenant required - perfect living - was accomplished by Jesus and applied to all who believe.

No offense meant JK, but IMHO, you are trying to fix something that's not broken by taking your own preconceived notions into the text. Every time Paul referred to the Law, he had in mind the Decalogue which is also called the Law of the Covenant. Evidence of the fact is in Romans 7:7. The chapter is about an allegory of freedom from the Law where he mentions one of the commandments "Thou shall not covet." Where is it written if not in the Decalogue? Besides, back in Hebrews 7:12,22 he says that, with the change of the Levitical Priesthood to that of Jesus, a change in the Law became necessary. Thus, Jesus became the guarantor of a BETTER covenant. Better than what covenant? Obviously, the Jewish Covenant. IWO, the Law and the Jewish covenant have been replaced. Hence, the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Obviously, there is nothing we can do to erase that stigma from the gospel of Paul.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Jesus being a rabbi. Didn`t he suggest not to be called a Rabbi.

Mattew

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

According to this text you have printed above, Jesus rather called himself a Rabbi by saying not to call anyone a Rabbi or Master but himself alone. Since according to Judaism a single man could not be involved with teaching by being a Rabbi or Master, it is only obvious that Jesus was a married man. And that wedding at Cana of the Galilee was of his own for having had to happen just between his mikveh at the hands of John the Immerser and his official ordination into the Rabbinate.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense meant JK, but IMHO, you are trying to fix something that's not broken by taking your own preconceived notions into the text. Every time Paul referred to the Law, he had in mind the Decalogue which is also called the Law of the Covenant. Evidence of the fact is in Romans 7:7. The chapter is about an allegory of freedom from the Law where he mentions one of the commandments "Thou shall not covet." Where is it written if not in the Decalogue? Besides, back in Hebrews 7:12,22 he says that, with the change of the Levitical Priesthood to that of Jesus, a change in the Law became necessary. Thus, Jesus became the guarantor of a BETTER covenant. Better than what covenant? Obviously, the Jewish Covenant. IWO, the Law and the Jewish covenant have been replaced. Hence, the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Obviously, there is nothing we can do to erase that stigma from the gospel of Paul.

Ben

The only preconceived notions that I had before I began to read and study the Bible were that (a) God exists and (B) the Bible is His Word to us. As we know, (B) is a source of contention for you and I. I choose to view it as one entire document.

As a Christian of 37 years, I have heard and read much material about the Bible. Some of the material I have rejected as being invalid, because it directly conflicts with statements or guidelines in the Bible, or is so tangential to the Scripture that it is meaningless. (For example, I once heard a preacher say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit each had a body, soul, and spirit. I see no evidence of that in the Bible, so I reject that statement.) Other material I have accepted as truth, because it is aligned with Scripture. However, the Scripture takes precedence.

What I have been trying to explain to you here and in other threads is that the Christianity that I follow does not subscribe to Replacement Theology. Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity, not Paul. Paul was just a messenger appointed to the Gentiles. The New Testament does not replace the Old Testament; it complements the Old Testament. It completes; fulfills; brings to fruition. Jesus becomes our High Priest, our intercessor to God. The Law pointed out man’s sin; the New Testament provides the solution.

I accept your theory of Replacement Theology as an alternate viewpoint, but I deny that I live according to that theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only preconceived notions that I had before I began to read and study the Bible were that (a) God exists and (B) the Bible is His Word to us. As we know, (B) is a source of contention for you and I. I choose to view it as one entire document.

As a Christian of 37 years, I have heard and read much material about the Bible. Some of the material I have rejected as being invalid, because it directly conflicts with statements or guidelines in the Bible, or is so tangential to the Scripture that it is meaningless. (For example, I once heard a preacher say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit each had a body, soul, and spirit. I see no evidence of that in the Bible, so I reject that statement.) Other material I have accepted as truth, because it is aligned with Scripture. However, the Scripture takes precedence.

What I have been trying to explain to you here and in other threads is that the Christianity that I follow does not subscribe to Replacement Theology. Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity, not Paul. Paul was just a messenger appointed to the Gentiles. The New Testament does not replace the Old Testament; it complements the Old Testament. It completes; fulfills; brings to fruition. Jesus becomes our High Priest, our intercessor to God. The Law pointed out man’s sin; the New Testament provides the solution.

I accept your theory of Replacement Theology as an alternate viewpoint, but I deny that I live according to that theory.

JK, all a Christian needs to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology is to be a Christian. Furthermore, any Christian preacher cannot open his or her mouth from a pulpit without promoting Replacement Theology. You might say that I am paranoid. It is okay. Let me point to you an evidence of RT only here in this post of yours: You say above that the NT fulfills the OT. Something that is fulfilled is supposed to be discarded. As Paul said they were shadows of things to come whose reality is Jesus.(Col.2:16,17) IOW the OT has been replaced by the NT.

Another evidence: When you say that the Law served to point out man's sin and the NT to provide the solution, you are IMO saying that the solution in Isaiah 1:18,19 is no solution. What does Isaiah say? That if we want to set things right with God so that our sins from crimson red become as white as snow, we must repent and obey God's Law. To stop living according to the Pauline policy of RT, one must quit being Christian. Not that I am implying you should. Just bringing up the principle involved in the Logic.

Last but not least - no more about RT - You state that Paul was a messenger appointed to the Gentiles. Would you be so kind as to quote to me when he ever decided to go to the Gentiles? Because what I have is that since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 - Damascus) (Acts 28:17 - Rome)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JK, all a Christian needs to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology is to be a Christian. Furthermore, any Christian preacher cannot open his or her mouth from a pulpit without promoting Replacement Theology. You might say that I am paranoid. It is okay. Let me point to you an evidence of RT only here in this post of yours: You say above that the NT fulfills the OT. Something that is fulfilled is supposed to be discarded. As Paul said they were shadows of things to come whose reality is Jesus.(Col.2:16,17) IOW the OT has been replaced by the NT.

Would you wear a sweater that was only half-completed? No, because its incompleteness would render it ineffective. Its full purpose is not realized. Likewise, the OT is incomplete without the NT. The NT does not replace the OT; it completes God’s plan which was begun in the OT. They both work together.

Another evidence: When you say that the Law served to point out man's sin and the NT to provide the solution, you are IMO saying that the solution in Isaiah 1:18,19 is no solution. What does Isaiah say? That if we want to set things right with God so that our sins from crimson red become as white as snow, we must repent and obey God's Law. To stop living according to the Pauline policy of RT, one must quit being Christian. Not that I am implying you should. Just bringing up the principle involved in the Logic.

I was under the impression that Isaiah 1 was addressed to the nation of Judah, not humanity in general. I don’t see any repentance involved, just being “willing and obedient” (v. 19). (Additionally, it seems as if God Himself is replacing some activities in verses 11-14).

Last but not least - no more about RT - You state that Paul was a messenger appointed to the Gentiles. Would you be so kind as to quote to me when he ever decided to go to the Gentiles? Because what I have is that since his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome, he never left the Jews in peace. (Acts 9:1,2 - Damascus) (Acts 28:17 - Rome)

In Acts 9:15, God Himself says that Paul was to minister to the Gentiles; it was not Paul’s decision. Neither is there an injunction against preaching to the Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JK, all a Christian needs to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology

The idea of Replacement Theology is that the Covenant of Moses has been replaced with the Covenant of Grace (almost a misnomer, since the Law of Moses was also based on Grace, but the New Covenant is more overt in its application). However, as others have tried to tell you over and over again, this does not therefore mean that the Law is abolished. This is your interpretation only and does not represent all of Christianity. But as I noted several times, you are either unable or unwilling to entertain that you may be wrong, and therefore any disagreement is met with scorn and disdain, as if you, a 21st Century Jew, are the sole arbiter of truth for what Christians should and shouldn't believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you wear a sweater that was only half-completed? No, because its incompleteness would render it ineffective. Its full purpose is not realized. Likewise, the OT is incomplete without the NT. The NT does not replace the OT; it completes God’s plan which was begun in the OT. They both work together.

I was under the impression that Isaiah 1 was addressed to the nation of Judah, not humanity in general. I don’t see any repentance involved, just being “willing and obedient” (v. 19). (Additionally, it seems as if God Himself is replacing some activities in verses 11-14).

In Acts 9:15, God Himself says that Paul was to minister to the Gentiles; it was not Paul’s decision. Neither is there an injunction against preaching to the Jews.

You didn't answer my question. Now, if God Himself said that Paul was to minister to the Gentiles, when did he ever go to the Gentiles? Because he started among the Jews and ended among the Jews. So, please, a quote stating when Paul ever decided to turn to the Gentiles.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question. Now, if God Himself said that Paul was to minister to the Gentiles, when did he ever go to the Gentiles? Because he started among the Jews and ended among the Jews. So, please, a quote stating when Paul ever decided to turn to the Gentiles.

Ben

Acts 13

46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you [Jews] first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

Paul said, "We turn to the Gentiles." That sounds like a decision to me. He was obediently responding to God's command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of Replacement Theology is that the Covenant of Moses has been replaced with the Covenant of Grace (almost a misnomer, since the Law of Moses was also based on Grace, but the New Covenant is more overt in its application). However, as others have tried to tell you over and over again, this does not therefore mean that the Law is abolished. This is your interpretation only and does not represent all of Christianity. But as I noted several times, you are either unable or unwilling to entertain that you may be wrong, and therefore any disagreement is met with scorn and disdain, as if you, a 21st Century Jew, are the sole arbiter of truth for what Christians should and shouldn't believe.

Tell me PA, did Paul represent all of Christianity or not? If yes, he compared the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar the slave of Sarah and Israel to her son Ishmael, and then compared Christianity to the free woman Sarah and Christians to Isaac. Then, he warned Christians to cast out Hagar with her son altogether because they could not share the inheritance Christians, the children of the free one. Read Galatians 4:21-31. This is Replacement Theology.

Then, he said that the Law was abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) Then, talking about freedom of the Law in Romans 7:1-7 he mentioned one of the commandments of the Decalogue in v.7. Then, he said that with the change of the Jewish Priesthood to Jesus, there was a change of the Law because Jesus had become guarantor of a better Covenant. (Heb. 7:12,22)

Enough of examples of RT or you need more? But back to my question: Does Paul represent all Christianity or not? If he does, that's what Christianity is all about. Sorry and please, do not say that any disagreement with me meets with scorn and disdain. That's definitely not fair. You are simply in denial of something you cannot live without.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acts 13

46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you [Jews] first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

Paul said, "We turn to the Gentiles." That sounds like a decision to me. He was obediently responding to God's command.

Very good JK! Paul indeed got upset about his rejection by the Jews, shook his sandals and said, "Now, we turn to the Gentiles." It does sound like a decision; nothing more. Now, go right ahead my friend and tell me where did he go to. It is just in the first verse

of the next chapter Acts 14:1. TO THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUES OF ICONIUM. What was happening to Paul? Was he going berserk? Hadn't he decided to turn to the Gentiles? How could Gentiles be found in the synagogues of the Jews? If you want me to tell you what he was after, let me know.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good JK! Paul indeed got upset about his rejection by the Jews, shook his sandals and said, "Now, we turn to the Gentiles." It does sound like a decision; nothing more. Now, go right ahead my friend and tell me where did he go to. It is just in the first verse

of the next chapter Acts 14:1. TO THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUES OF ICONIUM. What was happening to Paul? Was he going berserk? Hadn't he decided to turn to the Gentiles? How could Gentiles be found in the synagogues of the Jews? If you want me to tell you what he was after, let me know.

Paul did indeed continue to preach both to Jews and Gentiles as he journeyed through the Mediterranean areas. I don't recall God limiting him to the Gentiles. If I were to surmise why he continued to minister to the Jews, I would imagine that he cared deeply for his fellow Jews and wanted them to share in God's blessing. His compassion - and passion - is evident in his writings.

Can you name a Christian denomination or movement that specifically teaches "Replacement" theology as a doctrine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me PA, did Paul represent all of Christianity or not?

No, Christ represents al of Christianity. But Paul did come as a representative of Christ.

If yes, he compared the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar the slave of Sarah and Israel to her son Ishmael, and then compared Christianity to the free woman Sarah and Christians to Isaac. Then, he warned Christians to cast out Hagar with her son altogether because they could not share the inheritance Christians, the children of the free one. Read Galatians 4:21-31. This is Replacement Theology.

Then, he said that the Law was abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) Then, talking about freedom of the Law in Romans 7:1-7 he mentioned one of the commandments of the Decalogue in v.7. Then, he said that with the change of the Jewish Priesthood to Jesus, there was a change of the Law because Jesus had become guarantor of a better Covenant. (Heb. 7:12,22)

Enough of examples of RT or you need more? But back to my question: Does Paul represent all Christianity or not? If he does, that's what Christianity is all about. Sorry and please, do not say that any disagreement with me meets with scorn and disdain. That's definitely not fair. You are simply in denial of something you cannot live without.

Ben

We've already discussed Ephesians 2:15 elsewhere - the Law as a rigid set of commandments has been set aside, but the Law itself still remains for us.

As for Galatians 4, I see not a single point where Paul wrote that the Law was done away with. It says we are not to be slaves to the Law, but it does not say we should not follow the Law.

Let me ask you a question now. Paul tells us to live righteous lives, to abstain from sinful ways. How can we do this if we have no knowledge of the Law? If I don't have the Law, how can I abstain from sinful ways? My answer to this would be that I can't. I need the Law to know how to follow God. But in saying that I need the Law to know how to follow God, I am not constrained by the Law, for the covenant of Moses has been replaced by a better covenant, a covenant of Grace.

How would you answer it?

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

Paul did indeed continue to preach both to Jews and Gentiles as he journeyed through the Mediterranean areas. I don't recall God limiting him to the Gentiles. If I were to surmise why he continued to minister to the Jews, I would imagine that he cared deeply for his fellow Jews and wanted them to share in God's blessing. His compassion - and passion - is evident in his writings.

Can you name a Christian denomination or movement that specifically teaches "Replacement" theology as a doctrine?

Therefore, what you are really telling me is that Paul did not fulfill his mission as an apostle to the Gentiles. Then you say above

that "You do not recall God limiting Paul to the Gentiles." Do you recall God extanding his mission to the Gentiles, I mean that is not reported by himself? BTW, Peter declared that he, Peter, was the one assigned to the Gentiles, while all the other Apostles would

work with the Jews. (Acts 15:7) It was at a meeting of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. Paul was there as a guest and said nothing. He was probably afraid to start a contension since the Apostles did not acknowledge him as a disciple. (Acts 9:26)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.