A Unique Proposal on Rom 1:18-2:1

[mikesw]

That was addressed to studyman who attaches works to salvation. Good works is a result not the means or addition to faith in the gospel of our salvation. Genuine faith will produce good works/ fruit.

there were many things in his post that seemed close to a normal view on Romans. But he made a point about other religions that Paul simply would not address to the Roman church. (Sure it is okay to point out that works do not save within any religion, but Paul was not addressing that.) He also seemed a little focused on the law and works. In general it was a stream of thought that was a little bit hard to follow.
Of course, my point is a reversal of many views. I show that in 1:18b-31 that it was the Israel history where Jews knew God (per 1:18b-19) but then turned away from that knowledge to dishonor God. They got into repeated idolatry over the years and maybe got into homosexuality or were presumed to have done that at times. But 1:18-32 is a parable that then is turned against the gentile Christians and thus can have mixed behaviors. It is 2:1 that exposes the gentiles' judgmental attitude and their sins, as found especially in 1:18b-27. Now good works was tending to be required but that main work was to believe on the Son sent by the Father.

I made a fairly long argument for this new reading of Romans and pretty solidly show Paul's use of a juridical parable like Nathan's approach with David. So there are fewer guesses than I had when I made the original post.

 

[Studyman]

That was addressed to studyman who attaches works to salvation. Good works is a result not the means or addition to faith in the gospel of our salvation. Genuine faith will produce good works/ fruit.

Civic is a promoter of this world's religious system, "Who profess to know God" in the same way Paul before his conversion, was a promoter of the religious system of his time "Who professed to know God".

A Pharisee promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of the Pharisees.

A Catholic promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of the Catholicism.

A Calvinist promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of Calvinism.

A Wesleyan promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of the Methodist.

And on and on and on. Each one of these religious sects and businesses compete with each other for butts to fill the seats of their manmade shrines of worship, without which their religious business could not survive. This is this world's religious system. In my post, I wanted to let Paul's own words describe the salvation of God he promoted. He had escaped the religious system of this world in his time, and the scales were no longer there to blind him.

How they compete with each other, is creating/adopting and then promoting doctrines and traditions as a marketing strategy to attract contributing members away from other religions, and into theirs. We see Civic doing this all the time to his main religious competitor, Calvinism. These religions create or adopt seductive philosophies designed to attract men to their particular religion. The Spirit of Christ in Jeremiah warns about this.

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. 17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and "they say" unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. (You are eternally saved regardless of your works)

This was the same as the first recorded deception in the Bible. A voice who "professed to know God" convincing Eve that God's Word cannot be trusted, and that her "Works" don't matter, "You shall surely not die". Or as Civic would say, "You are Eternally Saved" regardless of your works.

My hope is that Civic might "Yield himself" to God, through His Son, the Lord's Christ. But given he has so much invested in his religious business, it will cost him, as the Jesus "of the Bible" tells us. Nevertheless, my hope is that he will.

 

[civic]

Civic is a promoter of this world's religious system, "Who profess to know God" in the same way Paul before his conversion, was a promoter of the religious system of his time "Who professed to know God".

A Pharisee promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of the Pharisees.

A Catholic promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of the Catholicism.

A Calvinist promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of Calvinism.

A Wesleyan promotes the religious philosophies of the religious sect of the Methodist.

And on and on and on. Each one of these religious sects and businesses compete with each other for butts to fill the seats of their manmade shrines of worship, without which their religious business could not survive. This is this world's religious system. In my post, I wanted to let Paul's own words describe the salvation of God he promoted. He had escaped the religious system of this world in his time, and the scales were no longer there to blind him.

How they compete with each other, is creating/adopting and then promoting doctrines and traditions as a marketing strategy to attract contributing members away from other religions, and into theirs. We see Civic doing this all the time to his main religious competitor, Calvinism. These religions create or adopt seductive philosophies designed to attract men to their particular religion. The Spirit of Christ in Jeremiah warns about this.

Jer. 23: 16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. 17 They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and "they say" unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. (You are eternally saved regardless of your works)

This was the same as the first recorded deception in the Bible. A voice who "professed to know God" convincing Eve that God's Word cannot be trusted, and that her "Works" don't matter, "You shall surely not die". Or as Civic would say, "You are Eternally Saved" regardless of your works.

My hope is that Civic might "Yield himself" to God, through His Son, the Lord's Christ. But given he has so much invested in his religious business, it will cost him, as the Jesus "of the Bible" tells us. Nevertheless, my hope is that he will.

Pot calling kettle I’m about the gospel which has nothing to do with works.

FYI- I yielded to Jesus in 1980 and my life was transformed since I was born again. The old has passed and all things became new. I became a new creation in Christ who lives in me.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Studyman]

there were many things in his post that seemed close to a normal view on Romans. But he made a point about other religions that Paul simply would not address to the Roman church. (Sure it is okay to point out that works do not save within any religion, but Paul was not addressing that.) He also seemed a little focused on the law and works. In general it was a stream of thought that was a little bit hard to follow.

If you consider what Paul actually says, and view his words with an unbiased mind, as much as possible, it becomes easier to understand him. The problem is we see Scriptures through the prism of whatever religious philosophy we were exposed to in our youth. Catholics view Paul's letters differently than Protestants. JW's view Paul's words different than Methodists. Atheists view Paul's words even differently.

Let me give an example of this in an OT Scripture, if I may, for our discussion.

Is. 64: 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all "our righteousnesses" are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Since my youth, this world's religions have taught me that this verse speaks to God's Righteousness that Isaiah is walking in. That walking in God righteousness doesn't make one righteous. That if a human walks in the righteousness of God, that same righteousness becomes a filthy rag.

That somehow, God's Righteousness is Righteous, when Jesus walks in them, but the moment I walk in them, they become filthy rags.

Through this understanding, every verse in the Bible I read is influenced. So then, is it true that the Spirit of Christ in Isaiah, is telling me that if I walk in God's Righteousness, His Righteousness becomes a filthy rag? What does Isaiah actually say?

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our (Not God's) righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, (Not obedience) like the wind, have taken us away.

So Isaiah isn't saying, what I have been taught by the Methodist Church in my youth.

And is there any more evidence in the bible to help me understand the teaching of this world's religions concerning God's Righteousness?

1 John 3: 7 Little children, let "no man deceive you": he that doeth righteousness "is righteous", even as "he is righteous".

Rom. 6: 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither "yield ye" your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but "yield yourselves" unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and (Yield) your members as "instruments of righteousness" unto God.

So what is Paul teaching about the mainstream preachers of his time, in Romans ?

Rom. 10: 1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish "their own righteousness", "have not submitted themselves" unto the righteousness of God.

But Jesus did, didn't HE. Therefore, Jesus was Righteous because HE "Submitted Himself" to God's righteousness, rather than going about to establish his own, and the Pharisees were not Righteous, because they refused to "Submit themselves" to God's Righteousness, and went about instead to establish their own.

So is this world's religions right when they preach to others that just believing I have eternal salvation will yield obedience to God? Or is Paul right when he instructs men to "Yield themselves" unto the righteousness of God, and not a servant unto transgression of God's Law, as it still leads to death?

Of course, my point is a reversal of many views. I show that in 1:18b-31 that it was the Israel history where Jews knew God (per 1:18b-19) but then turned away from that knowledge to dishonor God. They got into repeated idolatry over the years and maybe got into homosexuality or were presumed to have done that at times. But 1:18-32 is a parable that then is turned against the gentile Christians and thus can have mixed behaviors. It is 2:1 that exposes the gentiles' judgmental attitude and their sins, as found especially in 1:18b-27. Now good works was tending to be required but that main work was to believe on the Son sent by the Father.

But what does it mean to "Believe on the Son"? Doesn't it mean to believe what the Son said? And to show this belief, are we not to be "Doers" of the Son's Sayings, and not hearers only? Are we not instructed to "by the Son" to "Live By" Every Word of God? Would this not also include the Stranger/Non-Jew who chooses to sojourn with Israel?

These are important questions to make sure we understand the Scriptural response to, in my view. Or we could partake of this world's religious system, and just adopt one of the hundreds of differing religious sects and businesses to answer the questions for us, and hope we pick the right one.

I made a fairly long argument for this new reading of Romans and pretty solidly show Paul's use of a juridical parable like Nathan's approach with David. So there are fewer guesses than I had when I made the original post.

The main difference between Paul's message to the Pharisee and Nathans to David, is that the Pharisees were not forgiven for their outright rebellion against God's Laws. But David was not like the Pharisee and was forgiven.

All men sin and fall short of the Glory of God. But God defined the Pharisee as:


11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

But of David, even after his indiscretion, this same God said of him:

1 Kings 3: 13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days. 14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.

1 Kings 9: 4 And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: 5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.

I can see nothing in common between the message of Nathan and David, and the message of Paul and the Pharisees.

Apples and oranges in my view.

 

[mikesw]

If you consider what Paul actually says, and view his words with an unbiased mind, as much as possible, it becomes easier to understand him. The problem is we see Scriptures through the prism of whatever religious philosophy we were exposed to in our youth. Catholics view Paul's letters differently than Protestants. JW's view Paul's words different than Methodists. Atheists view Paul's words even differently.

Let me give an example of this in an OT Scripture, if I may, for our discussion.

Is. 64: 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all "our righteousnesses" are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
...

Through this understanding, every verse in the Bible I read is influenced. So then, is it true that the Spirit of Christ in Isaiah, is telling me that if I walk in God's Righteousness, His Righteousness becomes a filthy rag? What does Isaiah actually say?

6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our (Not God's) righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, (Not obedience) like the wind, have taken us away.

So Isaiah isn't saying, what I have been taught by the Methodist Church in my youth.

...

But Jesus did, didn't HE. Therefore, Jesus was Righteous because HE "Submitted Himself" to God's righteousness, rather than going about to establish his own, and the Pharisees were not Righteous, because they refused to "Submit themselves" to God's Righteousness, and went about instead to establish their own.

So is this world's religions right when they preach to others that just believing I have eternal salvation will yield obedience to God? Or is Paul right when he instructs men to "Yield themselves" unto the righteousness of God, and not a servant unto transgression of God's Law, as it still leads to death?
....

These are important questions to make sure we understand the Scriptural response to, in my view. Or we could partake of this world's religious system, and just adopt one of the hundreds of differing religious sects and businesses to answer the questions for us, and hope we pick the right one.


The main difference between Paul's message to the Pharisee and Nathans to David, is that the Pharisees were not forgiven for their outright rebellion against God's Laws. But David was not like the Pharisee and was forgiven.

...

I can see nothing in common between the message of Nathan and David, and the message of Paul and the Pharisees.

Apples and oranges in my view.

You sound pretty decent in your theology here. I have no idea how you add Pharisees into this discussion. The closest I can find for that is that people mistook Paul as speaking against Judaism, which requires the false assumption that Paul is addressing Jews in Romans 2-3.
Sorry also if you were confused by the idea that Nathan-David's message is used by Paul. The actual point is that Paul led the gentiles to judge themselves for judging Jews and for incorporating sinful passions as their worship. Paul's approach in 1:18-2:1 is unexpected. People are likely going to start recognizing Paul's approach intellectually before they follow it intuitively. Eventually later writers will probably explain Paul's approach better than I do.

 

[Studyman]

Pot calling kettle I’m about the gospel which has nothing to do with works.

FYI- I yielded to Jesus in 1980 and my life was transformed since I was born again. The old has passed and all things became new. I became a new creation in Christ who lives in me.

hope this helps !!!

No doubt Kenneth Copeland, those Christians in Matt. 7:22 and every Calvinist Preacher on the planet would declare the exact same thing.

But for me, it's what is actually written that matters, not what this world's preachers say.

And to preach to the world that there are NO WORKS involved in God's Salvation, is certainly a seductive philosophy, and a great marketing strategy which has snared a lot of people to walk the broad path of this world. But even a child knows there was a GREAT Work involved in God's Salvation for men. Not "Mans" Work, rather, Good Works God before ordained that men should walk in them.

And Paul said we are to "put on the new man", which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. This perfectly aligns with the Commandment of the Jesus "of the Bible" to "Be Ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect". Another "Work", And Paul and other members of the Body of Christ which Worship God in Spirit and Truth, strived for this "Good Work". Even if you have been convinced otherwise.

Phil. 3: 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (A Work)

14 I press toward the mark (A work) for the prize of the high calling of God (Which was) in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, "be thus minded": and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us "walk by" the same rule, (works) let us mind the same thing.

And why does Paul teach these "Works" of God for us to walk in, that you preach doesn't exist?

Because he Loves God "Who will render to every man according to his deeds".

I simply want to post and discuss what is actually written.

 

[civic]

No doubt Kenneth Copeland, those Christians in Matt. 7:22 and every Calvinist Preacher on the planet would declare the exact same thing.

But for me, it's what is actually written that matters, not what this world's preachers say.

And to preach to the world that there are NO WORKS involved in God's Salvation, is certainly a seductive philosophy, and a great marketing strategy which has snared a lot of people to walk the broad path of this world. But even a child knows there was a GREAT Work involved in God's Salvation for men. Not "Mans" Work, rather, Good Works God before ordained that men should walk in them.

And Paul said we are to "put on the new man", which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. This perfectly aligns with the Commandment of the Jesus "of the Bible" to "Be Ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect". Another "Work", And Paul and other members of the Body of Christ which Worship God in Spirit and Truth, strived for this "Good Work". Even if you have been convinced otherwise.

Phil. 3: 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (A Work)

14 I press toward the mark (A work) for the prize of the high calling of God (Which was) in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, "be thus minded": and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us "walk by" the same rule, (works) let us mind the same thing.

And why does Paul teach these "Works" of God for us to walk in, that you preach doesn't exist?

Because he Loves God "Who will render to every man according to his deeds".

I simply want to post and discuss what is actually written.

All after one is saved not how one is saved.

You teach a false gospel as per Paul in Galatians

You are exactly like the Judaizers, the Pharisees. The same false gospel which Jesus and the Apostles condemned

 

[Studyman]

You sound pretty decent in your theology here. I have no idea how you add Pharisees into this discussion.

The Pharisees at that time, "sat in Moses seat". They had exclusive possession of the Oracles of God. The only way for men to "Receive God's Laws" was through the Levitical Priesthood as it was written. If you listened to Jesus define the Jews who ran the Temple, you would understand that Paul was describing the Pharisees in Romans 1-3, whose stiff necked and rebellious fathers killed the Prophets, just as they killed Stephen and Jesus.

Is this not undeniable truth? I would ask you a question and hope you will answer it.

"What was the difference between the Pharisees and Scribes, and Zacharias and Simeon, according to Scriptures?

The closest I can find for that is that people mistook Paul as speaking against Judaism, which requires the false assumption that Paul is addressing Jews in Romans 2-3.

What is Judaism? Was Jesus and Paul and John the Baptist, Zacharias and Simeon Judaizers? Or were the Pharisees and Scribes Judaizers?

Sorry also if you were confused by the idea that Nathan-David's message is used by Paul. The actual point is that Paul led the gentiles to judge themselves for judging Jews and for incorporating sinful passions as their worship. Paul's approach in 1:18-2:1 is unexpected. People are likely going to start recognizing Paul's approach intellectually before they follow it intuitively. Eventually later writers will probably explain Paul's approach better than I do.

Paul is speaking about the mainstream religion of his time. He is simply continuing where Jesus left off in exposing the largest God of Abraham preaching religion on the planet. Where were the Gentile judging Jews in Romans 1-3?

Rom. 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Who were given the Oracles of God? Jews or Gentiles? Who did God give His Law to, which revealed the righteousness of God and the wrath of against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men? Who did God give His Gospel to first?

Rom. 2: 17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Please try and answer the questions without working to justify your understanding. And ask me some as well. These discussions are good to have in this world God placed us in.

 

[mikesw]

All after one is saved not how one is saved.

You teach a false gospel as per Paul in Galatians

You are exactly like the Judaizers, the Pharisees. The same false gospel which Jesus and the Apostles condemned

Thanks for pointing out the significant error of studyman's emphasis on works. He type's up such a long response that I can barely skim through it. I do notice that it seems really perverted when he injects that God's righteousness in a person as being insufficient. The idea that can be missed is that Paul speaks of "doing good" (as a play on words of good works) and of showing good works, which are stated in irony and rejection of works of the law. Paul is not enforcing enforcement of rules as a basis for justification. He even says that people may be pursuing life the wrong way and their works being burned up like hay, wood, stubble but they still will be justified in Christ.

 

[mikesw]

The Pharisees at that time, "sat in Moses seat". They had exclusive possession of the Oracles of God. The only way for men to "Receive God's Laws" was through the Levitical Priesthood as it was written. If you listened to Jesus define the Jews who ran the Temple, you would understand that Paul was describing the Pharisees in Romans 1-3, whose stiff necked and rebellious fathers killed the Prophets, just as they killed Stephen and Jesus.

Is this not undeniable truth? I would ask you a question and hope you will answer it.

"What was the difference between the Pharisees and Scribes, and Zacharias and Simeon, according to Scriptures?



What is Judaism? Was Jesus and Paul and John the Baptist, Zacharias and Simeon Judaizers? Or were the Pharisees and Scribes Judaizers?



Paul is speaking about the mainstream religion of his time. He is simply continuing where Jesus left off in exposing the largest God of Abraham preaching religion on the planet. Where were the Gentile judging Jews in Romans 1-3?

Rom. 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Who were given the Oracles of God? Jews or Gentiles? Who did God give His Law to, which revealed the righteousness of God and the wrath of against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men? Who did God give His Gospel to first?

Rom. 2: 17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Please try and answer the questions without working to justify your understanding. And ask me some as well. These discussions are good to have in this world God placed us in.

Christ came with grace not law.
Those who were righteous were the ones who had trust in God despite all the judgmental behavior of the people around them --who were focused on judging their neighbors for violating one aspect or another of the modified laws that were strong in Judaism. The righteous realized that they themselves were in need of God to correct the problems of a society that failed to remember God.

Anyhow, the topic of my thread is really about understanding how Paul approached the gentiles in Rome who had rejected Jews and strayed from wholesome living. This detail has been overlooked because of the amazing rhetorical approach Paul takes when seeking to restore them to the faith they originally had.

 

[Studyman]

All after one is saved not how one is saved.

You teach a false gospel as per Paul in Galatians

You are exactly like the Judaizers, the Pharisees. The same false gospel which Jesus and the Apostles condemned

No, the Pharisees despised God's Judgments, polluted His Sabbaths, and full well rejected God's Commandments that they might live by their own manmade religious traditions.

The undeniable truth is that this describes your adopted religion, not the Jesus "of the Bible's Gospel, or His way of life I have yielded myself to live by.

But your anger and ridicule towards me, for simply believing all that is written, is proof positive that I'm on the right path.

Thank you Jesus, "of the Bible" for showing me before hand, how the religions of this world, and those who adopt them will treat those "Who hunger and thirst for God's righteousness.

 

[civic]

Thanks for pointing out the significant error of studyman's emphasis on works. He type's up such a long response that I can barely skim through it. I do notice that it seems really perverted when he injects that God's righteousness in a person as being insufficient. The idea that can be missed is that Paul speaks of "doing good" (as a play on words of good works) and of showing good works, which are stated in irony and rejection of works of the law. Paul is not enforcing enforcement of rules as a basis for justification. He even says that people may be pursuing life the wrong way and their works being burned up like hay, wood, stubble but they still will be justified in Christ.

Amen

 

[civic]

No, the Pharisees despised God's Judgments, polluted His Sabbaths, and full well rejected God's Commandments that they might live by their own manmade religious traditions.

The undeniable truth is that this describes your adopted religion, not the Jesus "of the Bible's Gospel, or His way of life I have yielded myself to live by.

But your anger and ridicule towards me, for simply believing all that is written, is proof positive that I'm on the right path.

Thank you Jesus, "of the Bible" for showing me before hand, how the religions of this world, and those who adopt them will treat those "Who hunger and thirst for God's righteousness.

projecting again you are the same in your philosophy as the Judaizers the enemies of the gospel and the Apostles.

you are saved by your self righteous obedience to the law but in your heart you know you fail miserably with Gods standards of righteousness.

 

[Studyman]

Christ came with grace not law.

God's Law was already given by Moses and the Prophets and Jesus walked in them. Jesus said:

Luke 16: 31, And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Those who were righteous were the ones who had trust in God despite all the judgmental behavior of the people around them --who were focused on judging their neighbors for violating one aspect or another of the modified laws that were strong in Judaism.

You don't answer the questions I ask. Why is that? How can you and I have an honest edifying discussion, if we can't answer each others questions?

The righteous realized that they themselves were in need of God to correct the problems of a society that failed to remember God.

In need of God's "WHAT?" What did Zacharias and Simeon have that the rebellious Jews didn't have? What was wrong with the religion in Jerusalem when Jesus turned 30 years old? These are relevant, unbiased questions that are asked in search of biblical Truth, which seems important to me.

Anyhow, the topic of my thread is really about understanding how Paul approached the gentiles in Rome who had rejected Jews and strayed from wholesome living. This detail has been overlooked because of the amazing rhetorical approach Paul takes when seeking to restore them to the faith they originally had.

Who told you the Gentiles rejected the Jews in Romans? Where does Paul teach this?

 

[mikesw]

God's Law was already given by Moses and the Prophets and Jesus walked in them. Jesus said:

Luke 16: 31, And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.




You don't answer the questions I ask. Why is that? How can you and I have an honest edifying discussion, if we can't answer each others questions?



In need of God's "WHAT?" What did Zacharias and Simeon have that the rebellious Jews didn't have? What was wrong with the religion in Jerusalem when Jesus turned 30 years old? These are relevant, unbiased questions that are asked in search of biblical Truth, which seems important to me.




Who told you the Gentiles rejected the Jews in Romans? Where does Paul teach this?

I get over optimistic that people will be able to re-read the text in light of the key detail I have provided. My focus in this thread is to help people see that how Paul approached the gentile Christians after their rejection that Jews could even be saved. Their stance against Jews came largely as the result of conflicts with non-Christian Jews who remained when the Christian Jews were expelled from the city of Rome. When Paul wrote, he was one of those people the gentiles rejected, so he had to find a clever technique to get them to keep reading the text. That is where Paul got inspired by the approach Nathan took with David. Hope that helps.

 

[Studyman]

I get over optimistic that people will be able to re-read the text in light of the key detail I have provided. My focus in this thread is to help people see that how Paul approached the gentile Christians after their rejection that Jews could even be saved.

I guess that I am trying to see where you get your knowledge that the Gentile Christians in the Scriptures rejected that the Jews could even be saved. I have searched through the NT, and studied it for many, many years, apart from the influence of mainstream Christianity, and I have not found, nor have you shown me, where the Gentile Christians rejected the Jews in Scripture. And also, there is ZERO prophesy about Gentile Believers rejecting Jews in the Law and Prophets. This is why I asked you the questions I asked, because it seems you are making up a Biblical Position, "The Gentile Christians in the Bible rejected the Jews", then you go about to show how Paul dealt with them.

To better understand your philosophy here, it would be really helpful if you could show me in Scriptures, where Gentile Christians "rejected that the Jews could even be saved".

Their stance against Jews came largely as the result of conflicts with non-Christian Jews who remained when the Christian Jews were expelled from the city of Rome.

Where is it written that Gentile Christians stood against Jewish Christians in the Early Church of God?

When Paul wrote, he was one of those people the gentiles rejected,

But that isn't what the Scriptures teach is it?

Acts 13: 16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. 17 The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it.

Paul continued teaching;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you. 42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought "that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath".

Where is their rejection of the Jews? The Jewish leadership rejected them, not the other way around.

44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, "we turn to the Gentiles".

4 7For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, "they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord": and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. Antiok

50But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

51But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.

52And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

so he had to find a clever technique to get them to keep reading the text. That is where Paul got inspired by the approach Nathan took with David. Hope that helps.

Well it is for certain that Paul used Davids words in the Psalms 5 and 14 to describe the Pharisees and Scribes who persecuted the church of God, who he said were given the Oracles of God but didn't believe them. But I see no evidence in Scripture that Paul was rejected by those Gentiles who God led to the Christ, nor any evidence that Gentile Christians rejected the Jews, as Jesus Himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews".

In fact, until Constantine rejected the Law and Prophets in order to inject paganism into Christianity to bring his kingdom under ONE religion, I find no evidence at all that Gentiles rejected the Jews, or Paul anywhere in the Scriptures.

I could have missed some scriptures though, so please show them to me, for our edification.

 

[mikesw]

I probably shared in this discussion that Rom 11:17-18 specifically addresses the arrogance of the gentiles in rejecting that Jews could be saved.
Romans 11:17–18 (ESV)

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
18do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.

In case I was not clear, it is the letter to the Romans that reveals that the Roman gentiles came to think Jews lost their chance to be justified in Christ. That is the problem that Paul addresses rather fully in Rom 9-11, but I have not written out that explanation in sufficient detail now. This was one of the big problems in Rome. I may post the Rom 9-11 outline in another thread.
Here's the outline link: #link outline-of-central-message-in-romans-9-11.2079/post-117992

 

[mikesw]

I speak of the gentile Christians in Rome who came to reject that Jews could be justified. This came as a side-effect of the Claudius edict in AD49 that would expel all Jews from Rome due to conflicts surrounding Christ. However, it appears the edict goal was achieved by requiring only Jewish Christians to leave. This left the gentile Christians (who really were just in a messianic sect of Judaism) to decide how to worship God and Christ. The gentiles also were vulnerable to verbal pressure by the Jews in Rome. So I found that this broad situation led to gentiles deciding that Jews could no longer be saved. When Jewish Christians began returning to Rome at around AD54, the gentiles did not welcome the Jews back into common fellowship. Thus Paul had to write to resolve it so that the gospel would have a chance of reaching Jews before it was too late.
I first came into awareness of the division base on the juridical parable of 1:18-2:1. Eventually more of the details became apparent upon further study on topics related to Romans.

 

[mikesw]

The situation in Rome has a rough equivalent to a modern church breakup based on major doctrinal differences. The gentiles' situation was a breakup forced by Claudius' decree, which left the gentiles in isolation from family and Jews. This of course is a recreation based on the content of the letter.
The description in 1:18-32 can be seen as a history of the Israel people. They had repeatedly been facing discipline for idolatry or worship of other gods. Although the vv 26-27 appear less descriptive of Jews, the previous verses would lend to gentiles seeing Jews as deserving judgment. Also, it is possible that gentiles could have reason to think vv 26-27 applied to situations of Israel's history. Then, in the role of a juridical parable, the text is designed not for identifying truth but rather is for generating emotions.
I have developed a decent proof of Paul's design of this passage close to the style of Nathan's approach with David. The treatment of 1:18-32 fits well within that.

 

[Swordman]

The situation in Rome has a rough equivalent to a modern church breakup based on major doctrinal differences. The gentiles' situation was a breakup forced by Claudius' decree, which left the gentiles in isolation from family and Jews. This of course is a recreation based on the content of the letter.
The description in 1:18-32 can be seen as a history of the Israel people. They had repeatedly been facing discipline for idolatry or worship of other gods. Although the vv 26-27 appear less descriptive of Jews, the previous verses would lend to gentiles seeing Jews as deserving judgment. Also, it is possible that gentiles could have reason to think vv 26-27 applied to situations of Israel's history. Then, in the role of a juridical parable, the text is designed not for identifying truth but rather is for generating emotions.
I have developed a decent proof of Paul's design of this passage close to the style of Nathan's approach with David. The treatment of 1:18-32 fits well within that.

Do you mind if I pass on a YouTube link to your video for my class? I always like to note alternative interpretations.