D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
So it is possible that it was not immoral??
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Dee Dee,
I guess that it is possible to say that what Paul did was not "immoral".And that is because the "moral" law of God is summed up in the following two commandments:
"Thou shalt love the Lord,thy God,with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"(Mt.22:36-40).
And I believe that Paul was in fact loving his neighbor as himself when he deceived them.His purpose in doing such a thing was to "gain them who are under the law"(1Cor.9:20).
In His grace,--Jerry
I guess that it is possible to say that what Paul did was not "immoral".And that is because the "moral" law of God is summed up in the following two commandments:
"Thou shalt love the Lord,thy God,with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"(Mt.22:36-40).
And I believe that Paul was in fact loving his neighbor as himself when he deceived them.His purpose in doing such a thing was to "gain them who are under the law"(1Cor.9:20).
In His grace,--Jerry
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Then though we came to the conclusion by different paths, we seem to have reached a somewhat similar conclusion.
bill betzler
New member
Jerry,
Why not? Who was to decide when they got the message?
Why not? Who was to decide when they got the message?
bill betzler
New member
Jerry, You don't have many choices. If the act was moral then it is self justifying. But if it is immoral then God needs to do the justifying, and we have no scriptures telling us that God justified that action.
bill
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
The message that was to go to the Jews was the "gospel of the circumicision",and that message was based soley on the prophecies contained in the OT.Paul said that his message was based on "no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer,and that He should rise from the dead,and should show light unto the people,and to the Gentiles"(Acts26:22,23).
And indeed we do see that the gospel message that the Jews received was "Jesus,and the resurrection"(Acts17:18).
Since the Jews possessed the OT Scriptures.the Lord wanted them to have a meassage that could be verified by the prophecies contained in the OT.And we can see that that is exactly what happened:
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY,WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO.Therefore,many of them believed"(Acts17:11,12).
The Lord did not want any message that could not be verified by the OT prophecies preached to the Jews.And the message that "THE LAW was no longer in effect for believers" (Ro.10:4) could not be found in the OT prophecies,so therefore that message was not to be given unto the Jews.
In fact,that message could cause confusion and perhaps some would not believe because there are some OT prophecies that do show that some form of "law" will be instituted at some point in the futue,as we see at Isaiah 2:3.
So the "gospel of the circumcision" was to be preached to the Jews,and the Jews were not to hear the "mysteries" contained in the "gospel of the uncircumcision".Therefore,Paul did not tell the Jews at Acts21 that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believeth".
And I believe that the Lord was telling Paul when the Jews should receive one message and when they would receive the same "good news" which the Gentiles were receiving.It seems as if the Lord was keeping Paul informed as to His purposes as time progressed (Acts26:16).
In His grace,--Jerry
The message that was to go to the Jews was the "gospel of the circumicision",and that message was based soley on the prophecies contained in the OT.Paul said that his message was based on "no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer,and that He should rise from the dead,and should show light unto the people,and to the Gentiles"(Acts26:22,23).
And indeed we do see that the gospel message that the Jews received was "Jesus,and the resurrection"(Acts17:18).
Since the Jews possessed the OT Scriptures.the Lord wanted them to have a meassage that could be verified by the prophecies contained in the OT.And we can see that that is exactly what happened:
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY,WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO.Therefore,many of them believed"(Acts17:11,12).
The Lord did not want any message that could not be verified by the OT prophecies preached to the Jews.And the message that "THE LAW was no longer in effect for believers" (Ro.10:4) could not be found in the OT prophecies,so therefore that message was not to be given unto the Jews.
In fact,that message could cause confusion and perhaps some would not believe because there are some OT prophecies that do show that some form of "law" will be instituted at some point in the futue,as we see at Isaiah 2:3.
So the "gospel of the circumcision" was to be preached to the Jews,and the Jews were not to hear the "mysteries" contained in the "gospel of the uncircumcision".Therefore,Paul did not tell the Jews at Acts21 that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believeth".
And I believe that the Lord was telling Paul when the Jews should receive one message and when they would receive the same "good news" which the Gentiles were receiving.It seems as if the Lord was keeping Paul informed as to His purposes as time progressed (Acts26:16).
In His grace,--Jerry
Last edited:
bill betzler
New member
Jerry,
If your last post is true, then no deception took place. For it was "nothing" to the Jews at the time of Acts 21.
Are you changing your mind?
bill
If your last post is true, then no deception took place. For it was "nothing" to the Jews at the time of Acts 21.
Are you changing your mind?
bill
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
What was " 'nothing' to the Jews at the time of Acts21"?
In HIs grace,--Jerry
What was " 'nothing' to the Jews at the time of Acts21"?
In HIs grace,--Jerry
bill betzler
New member
Jerry, sorry for the vague post.
Acts
21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
It was what we were talking about originally and why I changed my mind. At first I thought 'nothing' was nothing therefore Paul didn't deceive. Later I changed my mind and concluded that the Jews had a right to the information and Paul withheld it, thus making the 'nothing' something.
bill
Acts
21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
It was what we were talking about originally and why I changed my mind. At first I thought 'nothing' was nothing therefore Paul didn't deceive. Later I changed my mind and concluded that the Jews had a right to the information and Paul withheld it, thus making the 'nothing' something.
bill
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
I think that James is saying that all the things that were being said about Paul--that he taught the Jews who were among the Gentiles not to circumcize their children or to walk after the customs(v.21)--were not true,or "are nothing".
But Paul was indeed teaching that exact thing.And he took part in an ordinance under the law in order to deceive the Jews into believing that he did in fact "keep the law"(v.24) when in fact he was teaching the opposite.
In HIs grce,--Jerry
I think that James is saying that all the things that were being said about Paul--that he taught the Jews who were among the Gentiles not to circumcize their children or to walk after the customs(v.21)--were not true,or "are nothing".
But Paul was indeed teaching that exact thing.And he took part in an ordinance under the law in order to deceive the Jews into believing that he did in fact "keep the law"(v.24) when in fact he was teaching the opposite.
In HIs grce,--Jerry
bill betzler
New member
OK Jerry, that was your original view.
So reconcile your two posts, the one on 12-11-02 (3rd to the last) and your last post here.
bill
So reconcile your two posts, the one on 12-11-02 (3rd to the last) and your last post here.
bill
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jaltus.. I will be coming back to this. My attention has been elsewhere for a little while.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I am a little slow on the uptake this morning sorry... are you requesting me not to respond? If so, I will respect that... I was hoping to kick you around a bit more then... I have a good response prepared (and a lot of pent-up agression) LOLOLOL
(and a lot of pent-up agression) LOLOLOL
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Okay Jaltus, I will respect your wishes. No one wants to fight someone who has put down their gloves. For the record I felt no antogonism towards you at all. I give you the complete freedom to be utterly wrong.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
It is actually this smiley that always is irking It reminds me constantly of a certain nameless person who earned three trips to my ignore list.
It reminds me constantly of a certain nameless person who earned three trips to my ignore list.