Paulinity or Christianity?

[seven_segment]

---

again...if only Jesus had time to write...

reading behind, the TS forgot that Paul teaches us about what he have experienced/witnessed/learned with the Risen Lord Jesus...

making me think...Paulinity is incomparable to Christianity...not to be compared....


so i think we don't have to argue both...

[grovestreet]

"if only jesus had the time to write"

^^he can turn water into wine remember?

[regnauld]

if only jesus had the time to play chess with me

[Malic]

again...if only Jesus had time to write...

reading behind, the TS forgot that Paul teaches us about what he have experienced/witnessed/learned with the Risen Lord Jesus...

making me think...Paulinity is incomparable to Christianity...not to be compared....


so i think we don't have to argue both...

no I did not forget that. I even mentioned it.

But that claim is problematic sir. Even scholars are divided on that issue. Even the Apostles and the early disciples were divided on that issue.

At first Paul was doing okay but later on he changed the instructions of the apostles and totally made the Law a non-essential part of what Jesus originally taught and lived.

Jesus was circumcised on the eight day after his birth. The act was done in keeping with the law of Moses w/c was also a covenant between God and Abraham.


Jesus in our previous discussion with Brownprose I mentioned that never was his intention to abolish the Law of Moses. He gave an instruction that the law must be followed.


but when Paul came this is what he said...

Galatians6:15 For having circumcision is nothing, and not having circumcision is nothing, but only a new order of existence. 16 And on all who are guided by this rule be peace and mercy, and on the Israel of God.


This is direct contradiction to what Jesus said. Jesus was circumcised in keeping with the law of Moses w/c was also a covenant between abraham and God.


Gen 17...
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.


it is an everlasting covenant thats why Moses included it the Torah,Jesus followed it and never gave any instructions to abolish it...So why would Paul say that circumcision has no value.

This declaration coming from Paul is totally a contradiction of God's covenant. Everlasting is supposed to mean for all time.

[YellowSubmarine]

no I did not forget that. I even mentioned it.

But that claim is problematic sir. Even scholars are divided on that issue. Even the Apostles and the early disciples were divided on that issue.

At first Paul was doing okay but later on he changed the instructions of the apostles and totally made the Law a non-essential part of what Jesus originally taught and lived.

Jesus was circumcised on the eight day after his birth. The act was done in keeping with the law of Moses w/c was also a covenant between God and Abraham.


Jesus in our previous discussion with Brownprose I mentioned that never was his intention to abolish the Law of Moses. He gave an instruction that the law must be followed.

the Law of Moses was for Abraham and his descendants.. the Gentiles are not Abraham descendants that is why Paul said having circumcision is nothing

but when Paul came this is what he said...

Galatians6:15 For having circumcision is nothing, and not having circumcision is nothing, but only a new order of existence. 16 And on all who are guided by this rule be peace and mercy, and on the Israel of God.


This is direct contradiction to what Jesus said. Jesus was circumcised in keeping with the law of Moses w/c was also a covenant between abraham and God.

Gen 17...
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.


it is an everlasting covenant thats why Moses included it the Torah,Jesus followed it and never gave any instructions to abolish it...So why would Paul say that circumcision has no value.

This declaration coming from Paul is totally a contradiction of God's covenant. Everlasting is supposed to mean for all time.

Sir it's an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants.. the Gentiles to whom Paul addressed his letter(Galatians) are not Abraham's descendant therefore excluded from the covenant

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Wa alaykum salam sadiq. Alhamdollilah!

I was referring to Roman catholicism and everything that comes after it. Thank you for asking that question. It somehow put the discussion in the right perspective.

Correct sir,the Sect succeeded by James the just was the original christian church and taught the true message of Jesus the christ.

asalam alaikum.

you know, for a Muslim you seemed well-versed in Christianity. it's too bad not many Christians are well-versed in Islam. because if we are, then i truly think we really could find a way to co-exist in harmony.

OT: sadeek malic, could you enlighten us from a Muslim's point of view how the conflict between the modern Israelis and modern Palestinians started? if you like, maybe you could post a different thread about it.

shokran, masalam.

[Malic]

the Law of Moses was for Abraham and his descendants.. the Gentiles are not Abraham descendants that is why Paul said having circumcision is nothing

When we say gentiles it means any race outside Israel. Arabs are Abraham's descendant and since they are not Israelis they are considered as gentiles within the context of our discussion.

Through Ishmael God raised a PROPHET from his race...his name is Muhammad(SAW). Though a gentile was given the covenant of circumcision by God.

Sir it's an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants.. the Gentiles to whom Paul addressed his letter(Galatians) are not Abraham's descendant therefore excluded from the covenant

this is a wrong interpretation. Let us examine the verse...

Gen 17...
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

the words in green color...signifies a random race of people outside Abraham's descendants. From that verse we can conclude that even those outside Abraham's descendants were to be circumcised. Granting that that person would embrace God's religion.

and again it is to be an everlasting covenant.

Jesus was circumcised on the eight day...

Luke 2:21
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Paul who claimed to follow Jesus contradicted His adherence to the covenant of circumcision.

Therefore Paul totally preached a different Gospel.

[Malic]

asalam alaikum.

you know, for a Muslim you seemed well-versed in Christianity. it's too bad not many Christians are well-versed in Islam. because if we are, then i truly think we really could find a way to co-exist in harmony.

OT: sadeek malic, could you enlighten us from a Muslim's point of view how the conflict between the modern Israelis and modern Palestinians started? if you like, maybe you could post a different thread about it.

shokran, masalam.

wa alaikum salam Sadiq.

thank you,hehe. i do study the bible too .

I sure hope that christians will find ways to study the Quran objectively.

[SioDenz]

OT: sadeek malic, could you enlighten us from a Muslim's point of view how the conflict between the modern Israelis and modern Palestinians started? if you like, maybe you could post a different thread about it.

shokran, masalam.

Im not a muslim but just try to post my idea, I think the conflict starts way before when moses and his people entered the Promise land (canaan). The land is already been occupied with different tribes isa na ani mga una nga palestinians, then according to the Bible, they(lead by Joshua) inavade canaan and other nation/kingdoms there. Nya naa sad sa bible nga wa nila gihurot ug patay tanan occupants didto, mao ni an modern nga mga palistino ron, liwat sah nahibilin. ug Mao ni an conflict, Mga palestinian niangkon nga ila ning yuta sa Israel kay sila man sad jud naka una ani ug puyo sa una pa. Nya an mga Israelites kay ingun man sad mao nah yuta gi promise sa Ginoo nila... I dont think mahuman ni nga problem. unless naay isa ka side nga ma wipe out...

Just my thought...

[YellowSubmarine]

When we say gentiles it means any race outside Israel. Arabs are Abraham's descendant and since they are not Israelis they are considered as gentiles within the context of our discussion.

Through Ishmael God raised a PROPHET from his race...his name is Muhammad(SAW). Though a gentile was given the covenant of circumcision by God.

No, not Ishmael

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

this is a wrong interpretation. Let us examine the verse...

Gen 17...
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

the words in green color...signifies a random race of people outside Abraham's descendants. From that verse we can conclude that even those outside Abraham's descendants were to be circumcised. Granting that that person would embrace God's religion.

and again it is to be an everlasting covenant.

Jesus was circumcised on the eight day...

Yes even those that are not Abraham's descendants were to be circumcised as long as they are in Abraham's household.. A household is not a religion