At times in the churches of Christ, we’ve seen a resurgence of what is often called a neo-Marcionism. A while back, I wrote the following about Marcionism:
Marcion of Sinope was born near the end of the first century. He was the son of a church leader and was raised in a Christian home. He came to be strongly influenced by popular philosophies of his day and developed his own unique approach to Christianity. (Eusebius called him a gnostic; I’ll let you research gnosticism on your own)
Marcion believed that the God revealed in the Old Testament was merely what he called a demiurge, sort of a sub-God. He wasn’t God the Father, the God revealed in the New Testament. Whereas the God of the Old Testament was an angry, unmerciful God, the God that was revealed through Jesus was only love and grace.
To strengthen his views, Marcion published a “canon,” a list of the inspired writings as opposed to the other Scriptures. Completely rejecting the Old Testament as an inferior revelation, Marcion’s canon had eleven books in two sections:
- The Evangelikon, which consisted of ten chapters from the book of Luke, carefully selected and trimmed by Marcion.
- The Apostolikon, which consisted of ten letters by Paul. Marcion thought that only Paul really understood and taught what Jesus taught.
Because of this, the term Marcionism is often applied to the rejection of the Old Testament, even though this doesn’t accurately reflect all of Marcion’s teachings.
Contrary to what the New Testament writers did, many believers today relegate the Old Testament writings to a secondary status. I want to discuss a bit this week as to why this happens, look at some of the motives behind this, and try to help us regain a more biblical perspective.
For now, let me close by reminding us what the apostle Paul said about the Old Testament writings:
“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:14–17)
What sacred writings had Timothy known from his youth? Not the New Testament, for those writings weren’t around then. The Scripture Paul talks about is the Old Testament, and he says those writings:
- Are able to make us wise for salvation
- Are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training so that we may be equipped for every good work
Does it sound like Paul saw little value in the Old Testament? If we aren’t able to find teachings about salvation and Christian living in the Old Testament, then we haven’t learned to study it the way Paul and Timothy did.
Hi Tim
Glad You Posted This Scripture. 2 Tim 3:14-17 Is Talking About All New Testament Scripture, By Rightly Dividing Gods Word By The Covenants Folks Here Is Your Absolute Proof.
1. Timothy Was A Young Man As When Paul Wrote This, And Referring Back To Timothy’s Youth, Obviously He Was Raised In The New Covenant Scriptures. All New Testament Scriptures Are Profitable For Us, Not The Old Testament. We Were Never A Part Of The Old Covenant With The Jews Folks. John 4:22 Ephesians 2:11-12 We Gentiles Were Without God And Without Any Hope, Strangers To The Covenants Of Promise. Apparently Tim Must Have Forgotten This Inspired Passage. I Guess Tim Must Have Forgotten The Law Is A Dead Covenant. Colossians 2:14. Jesus Ended It And Even Jews Were Dead To It. Romans 7:4 Romans 10:4. Tim Would Have Us Believe The Law While Being Taken away Is Profitable For Us Today, No Way Folks. Read Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6.
Tim Please Explain The Passages I Just Posted And tell Us How The Law Of Moses Is Profitable For Our Instruction In Righteousness In Light Of Romans 3:19-21 And Romans 10:1-6.
Thanks
Mickey
A. Who was Marcion and when did he live?
Marcion was born about 110 AD, being the son of the wealthy Bishop of Sinope in Pontus.
By 144 AD, at age 34, Marcion had caused such a stir, that his teachings were the subject of an investigation and condemnation.
B. What did Marcion believe that made him a dangerous heretic:
Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament was an evil creator god that Jesus came to destroy.
Marcion believed that this evil god did in fact reveal his will through the Old Testament. Thus he believed in the “inspiration” of the Old Testament from divine sources, although from an evil source.
Marcion’s canon: Luke + Paul’s writings. Marcion accepted only the gospel of Luke to the exclusion of the other three gospels. He also accepted all of Paul’s writings but he would “cut out” any Old Testament quote or anything else that contradicted his theological views. He rejected all other books of the Bible except Luke + Paul’s writings.
“It is usually said that Marcion “rejected” the Old Testament and accepted in its place only his own canon of Luke plus Pauline Epistles, edited to remove all allusions to the Old Testament. This, however, obscures two important points. First, Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament was indeed total, in that he regarded it as completely alien to the revelation of salvation brought by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament documents he accepted. But this was not because he did not believe that the God of the Old Testament actually existed, or thought that the Old Testament itself was a purely human invention, pseudo-oracles of an imaginary god. On the contrary, Marcion firmly believed that the Old Testament God did exist, and that he was the Creator of the world. The problem was that his creation was evil, and he himself therefore a malign being; it was precisely the role of Jesus, and of the Unknown God now revealed in him, to deliver humankind from the malice of the evil Creator. Furthermore, the creator-god really had spoken the words attributed to him in the Old Testament: these were fully true and accurate oracles, not a human invention. They truly expressed the thoughts of the maker of the universe, and there could be no question of suggesting that they had been falsified in any way or contaminated by human intervention. “The Jewish Scriptures represent a true revelation of the Creator, but they do not speak of or for the God whom alone Christians ought to worship.”” Marcion’s “rejection” of the Old Testament thus needs to be qualified.”” (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 344, 2002)
“Marcion, we may conclude, was important for two reasons. He rejected the Old Testament as the document of an alien religion; and he taught that Jesus had come to save humankind from the control of the evil Creator to whom the Old Testament witnesses. These are precisely the two aspects of his work on which patristic condemnations, from Tertullian onwards, focus. In the process he denied the validity of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, which he saw as a means of accommodating it to Christian belief; this too is picked up by Tertullian. In short, Marcion was not a major influence on the formation of the New Testament; he was simply a Marcionite.” (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 354, 2002)
C. Others quickly identified Marcion as a dangerous heretic:
At any rate, it is clear that Tertullian was not the first to realize that there was a problem with Marcion’s Bible and try to answer his claims. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 311, 2002)
Tertullian too contrasted Marcion’s reductionism with what he considered Valentinus’s expansion of the gospel material: ‘Of the scriptures we have our being before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by [heretics]. . . . One man perverts the scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has nonetheless laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent scriptures to square with his own subject-matter … and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word….’ (Praescr. 38) (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 312, 2002)
D. Marcion’s canon was much less than what was already accepted as scripture by Christians in general.
Marcion’s concern was to exclude books that he disapproved of from his “canon.” He was not assembling a collection of Christian books, but making a (very restricted) selection from the corpus of texts which already existed and which must already have been recognized as sacred by many in the church-otherwise he would not have needed to insist on abolishing them. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 342, 2002)
The New Testament books, or at any rate the central “core” of the Gospels and the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, were already used very widely in the time before Marcion, and continued to be so used after him. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 343, 2002)
In his attitude to the Old Testament Marcion really does look more like an innovator than he was in his “canonization” of the New Testament. Nevertheless it is unlikely that his theology seemed so new to him. Rather, he regarded it as the continuation of a central theme in Paul: the supersession of the law by the gospel. Paul “spoiled” the novelty of this theme by continuing to quote the Old Testament as though it were authoritative for Christians, and Marcion accordingly had to expurgate even the Pauline letters that he retained. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 351, 2002)
D. Roman Catholic and Orthodox get Marcion wrong:
Father James Bernstein, an Orthodox church leader wrote: “The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. … Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own.” (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 7)
Refutation of James Bernstein (Orthodox):
It is clear from our documentation that most scholars today reject the idea that Marcion had any direct influence on the development of the canon. But the Orthodox church wants to desperately to believe that there was no Bible till the 4th century and that church tradition was the rule of the day.
The consensus of scholars is the Marcion started with a larger list of New Testament books and from this list of universally known inspired books, started removing books from the list.
Marcion clearly proves that all the writings of Paul were considered inspired and universally distributed. The Orthodox church practices countless things the contradict the writings of Paul.
Conclusion:
When we study Marcion, it should be obvious that the vast majority of New Testament books were already recognized as part of the New Testament canon.
Marcion’s specific removal and denial of many New Testament books from his own canon, including all of Peter, James and John, proves they were already in use between 125-144 AD and widely accepted as scripture.
Brother, what in the world are you talking about? You believe your source? WOW! i AM A History Buff, wow Tim!
Mickey,
Study your history. Bible history. Timothy was traveling with Paul in the middle of the book of Acts, before most of the New Testament was written. He COULDN’T have known the New Testament from infancy.
I’ll address the “rightly dividing” confusion tomorrow. I know you traditional brethren get confused by the poorly chosen wording of the King James there.
The Law is not a covenant. The covenant is not a law. The scriptures we call the “Old Testament” (term the Bible never uses for Holy writ) contain the Law and contain a recording of the covenant but are not equal to either.
“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Hi Albert,
I was explaining the term neo-Marcionism. There are some in the churches of Christ, traditionalists, who would excise large portions of Scripture from the church’s canon.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
FYI – Albert copied and pasted that comment from this site – http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-canon-of-marcion.htm
Mickey,
Let’s work through some of your thoughts, if you don’t mind.
“2 Tim 3:14-17 Is Talking About All New Testament Scripture”
Would you agree Paul can only be referring to documents that had been written prior to this point in time? Paul cannot refer to something that has not yet been written. Paul says that Timothy had studied these scriptures since his childhood. That means you are talking about even less of the New Testament (NT) but definitely still the Old Testament (OT). The New Testament writers repeatedly make use of OT quotations in their writing precisely because of Paul’s point here, the OT points to Jesus. He is the fulfillment of so many scriptures that studying those things helps to build faith in Christ.
There isn’t anyway you would say Paul or Timothy or Peter or Matthew or any of the rest of the NT authors didn’t study or care about the OT themselves because they all quoted it over and over again through inspiration in their NT writings. I don’t understand what is lost by saying Paul is talking about something from the OT in 2 Tim 3. Help me get it.
“All New Testament Scriptures Are Profitable For Us, Not The Old Testament.”
– You are actually saying there is nothing profitable to be read in the Old Testament? If that is true the inspired writers of the NT got it all wrong then because they constantly quote the OT. Why? If it is unprofitable why did they quote it thousands of times? Please answer that. Are they ignorant of something you know?
Colossians 2:14 – explain to me, from scripture, how that is talking about the Old Testament.
“Jesus Ended It” – if you mean fulfilled it, then you agree with scripture (Matt 5:17)
“Tim Would Have Us Believe The Law While Being Taken away Is Profitable For Us Today, No Way Folks. Read Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6.” – Paul’s point is that the Law had its purpose but it is no longer effectual for salvation but it is still good for many things. In Romans he makes the point that the Law is really good for pointing out what sin is but isn’t so effective at saving us from it…now through Christ we have redemption. It makes no sense to argue the OT has no use, no purpose and no profit for us to read because it flies in the face of Paul, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and all the rest who quote it relentlessly in the NT to make their points.
Tim
You Need To Study Your History Timothy Was A Gentile, The Gentiles Had No COVENANT Access To God Under The Law. John 4:22 Ephesians 2:11-12, So Your Wrong About Timothy Being Wise Through Salvation Of The Old Law.Romans 15:4 The Law Was Written For Our Learning. King James Version, Not Our Faith Tim. Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6
2. The New Testament Scriptures Were Being Written, And You Forgot At That Time The Miraculous Gifts Of The Spirit Were Still Quite Active, And The Church Was Guided By Those Gifts Until The Perfect Law Of Liberty Was Compleatly Written 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.
3. Tim You Dodged My Question About How Anyone Could Be Justified By A Dead Covenant Today. How Can A Gentile Be Justified By A Covenant They were Never Included In? Ephesians 2:11-12 Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6 The Jews Just Like Our Traditional Brethren Are Ignorant Of Gods New Testament Righteousness And Trying To Establish There Own, Or What They Think Should Be There Own.
Tim By Your Own Wording Above Me I Can tell You Are Truly A Confused Man, But I Hope You Will Learn From Our Discussions. Tim Sais The Law Is Not A Covenant And The Covenant Is Not A Law.You Got To Be Kidding Me Tim? Please Tell Us That Was A Mis Print Of Some Sort?
Let Me Get This Straight Tim. The Covenant God Made With Israel Begging In Exodus 20 Is Not The Law According To You Right Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12. And The New Covenant That God Prophesied About In Jeremiah 31:31-34 Hebrews 8:8-13 Began In Acts 2 Is Not A Law, Although We Will Be Judged By That Covenant Perfect Law Of Liberty That You Falsely Claim Is No Law? James 1:25 James 2:12 If This Is What You Are Truly Saying Tim You Are Truly Mixed Up Indeed Sir?
Hi Matt
My Response To Tim Should Answer Your Questions.
The Law Of Moses Is Not Profitable For Our Doctrine Or Instruction In Righteousness. Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6 John 7:16 Law Of Moses Verses 2 John 9-11 Jesus New Covenant Law Of Liberty. Titus 3:9 Sure We Can Learn From The History Of It, I Never Said That I Made It Clear It Is Not Profitable At All For Salvation This Side Of The Cross.
The New Testament Was Being Written During Timothy’s Youth, and They Had The Miraculous Gifts Of The Holy Spirit To guide The New Testament Church Until Those Scriptures Were Completed. Mathew-John Before The Cross Is The Law Of Moses, And Is A Dead Covenant. Colossians 2:14 Romans 10:4 Romans 7:4
Get This Straight Matt Mathew-John describing Jesus Before The Cross Is 100 Percent Old Testament Or Covenant. Mathew 5:17-18 Mathew 7:12
Whoa, Mickey. Let’s not forget context. Let’s not just start making things up. Let’s look at what the Bible says.
Timothy was half Jewish. He was raised in a context of Scripture by his faithful mother and grandmother. Paul doesn’t say that the writings of the only Scripture Timothy would have had SAVED him, he says they made him wise for salvation. Their teachings prepared him to come to Christ, just like Galatians 3 talks about.
Paul talks about the writings Timothy knew from his infancy. That’s not the New Testament. That’s not the inspired teaching of the apostles and others in the church. That’s God’s inspired word through his prophets, the very Scriptures you disdain.
Mickey, I’m not dodging your questions. The sheer quantity of stuff that you’ve poured onto this blog the last few days keeps me from being able to address it all. If you have something you’d particularly like addressed, write it in a short comment where that question can be easily found.
I see a difference between salvation and sanctification. One thing is teaching about how to be saved; another is about how to live as part of God’s community. The specifics about how to be saved today were revealed after the cross. Is that what you’re all worked up about? Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. But teachings about how God wants us to live can be found in all the inspired Scripture. That’s what Paul wrote to Timothy. That’s what I believe.
Mickey, if you don’t know the difference between covenant and law, then I’m not the one mixed up. Sorry. Insults and accusations don’t prove points either.
Tim
Half Breed Jew Half Jew Is A Samaritan Makes No Difference. The Samaritans Were Lost Just Like The Gentiles Before The Cross. Read Jesus Statement To This Samaritan.
John 4:22 You Worship What You Do Not Know We Jews Worship What We Know For Salvation Is Of The Jews. So Timothy Was Still Up The Lake Without A Covenant Before The Cross. Get This Straight Tim, There Was Absolutely No Salvation No Hope At All For Anyone But Pure Bred Jews Before The Cross.
Oh By The Way Tim My Comments About You Being Confused Were Not An Insult It Is A Fact Sir. I Agree Insults Are Wrong, I Am Not Trying To Insult You At All, Believe Me.
Tim is saying the OT has some use in certain areas of our lives, particularly in terms of morality and ethics. Mickey is saying that the Law can’t have anything to say to us, ever, just because it doesn’t save us. Big difference here.
Mickey, the OT says you shouldn’t murder or steal or commit adultery. Simple question. Do you agree?
Matt, I did copy and paste, what does that have to do with anything? I am starting to see what Mickey talking about, WOW! and you guys can’t see this? Tim, did you add matt in to help with your false doctrinal teachings, so many Brethren can’t even see this.. God Bless you Mickey, your on the Mark.
Albert
Matt, your explanation of the 10 commandments are about as smart as us building a new ark! and to Tim, are you telling us, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is for Gentiles? you don’t even realize your calling the son of God a Liar? and to Albert, I never really thought about placing myself on the scene of the teachings before the cross, I Like that! there was Never a Gentile saved Under the Law of Moses. WAKE UP BRETHREN!
Daniel Ross (Churches of Christ Minister)
http://www.newcovenanttruth.com
Well Matt
The New Testament Sais If We Do Those Things You Mentioned We Will Not Be Saved.
Question Matt Was Israel Justified By Not Doing Those Things You Mentioned? You Know 3 Of Those Ten Commandments Jesus Told The Rich Young Ruler To Keep And Follow Jesus To Have Eternal Life? Mathew 19:16-20. Can A Christian Be Justified Today By Not Doing Those Things Matt? Yes Or No. Galatians 5:4 Romans 3:19-21 Romans 10:1-6 Do You Believe Jesus This Side Of The Cross? 2 John 9-11 Is The Law Of Moses Jesus New Covenant Doctrine Matt? John 7:16
What Justifies Christians Today Matt? 1 John 1:7 James 1:25 What Will We Be Judged By, The Law Of Moses Or Jesus New Covenant Perfect Law Of Liberty? James 2:12
Thanks For Your Interest And Questions Matt. I Must Go To Bed, But Will Continue This Tomorrow.
Good Night All
Mickey
Daniel,
You guys don’t know how to listen. You are accusing Tim of saying we are saved today based on the Law. At least, that is what I am assuming when you say things like, “there was Never a Gentile saved Under the Law of Moses. WAKE UP BRETHREN!”
Okay – help me see where Tim has said they are. Tim clarified his point in his last comment saying, “The specifics about how to be saved today were revealed after the cross.” Do you not agree with that?
Tim is saying that a Christian can read the Old Testament and get a benefit from it. He isn’t saying salvation…he is saying the OT can be useful for building up a Christian today. Then you go on and blast him saying he is talking about the OT saving Christians and how he is preaching error. When did he say that? Come on now.
Albert,
It isn’t generally acceptable to copy and paste that much content from someone else’s work without citing where it came from. I was pointing it out to Tim because this is his site and he may not want that many words stripped out of someone else’s work without a citation.
Daniel,
I read the About page on your site and appreciate the attitude and spirit in which it was written.
Matt, what you are saying is this, The Old testament can be used to build up Christians? is that what you are saying? Wrong, Wrong Wrong! The Letter Kills 2 Cor 3:6 how in the world can you build Christians up on a dead covenant?
2. I am Blasting Tim and you for your false doctrine, Binding the word’s of Christ from before the cross to the Jews Only! do you not Understand this is what The Jews were trying in Gal 5:4? what did Paul say? you know that answer. Jesus Preached the whole Law before the cross! Jesus was getting the Jews Ready for the end of their Covenant/World of Israel! you Brethren who John 3:16, and you think that’s talking about the Gentiles as well? NO NO NO! Eph 2:11-12 makes that clear. Matt pretty much what you are saying, it’s OK to Pick and Choose whatever sounds good in the law, just not the salvation parts, Picking and Choosing will cost your soul! Romans 15:4 is for our Understand, Not Doctoring! Titus 3:9 Makes that as clear as the Nose on your face. WAKE UP BRETHREN!
Daniel,
We can test out whether there are words and teachings in the Old Testament that are useful for edifying the saints today. Let me try a few out and you see if they work.
Psalm 23 – does that have any usefulness?
Psalm 1 – does that teach us anything about wisdom that might be useful? Are there any untruths in it? Is it “unsound”?
Genesis 1 – does the creation account teach us anything useful about God or about our place in the world?
Genesis 2 – is it helpful or meaningful to know we are made in God’s image?
Am I binding anything from there in saying these are useful? If you answer yes then you just don’t care enough to listen. I am saying they are USEFUL. Not BINDING. There is a difference brother. I hope you are mature enough to see it and abide by your own About page…that you are open to change.
“Matt pretty much what you are saying, it’s OK to Pick and Choose whatever sounds good in the law, just not the salvation parts, Picking and Choosing will cost your soul! ”
What on earth are you talking about? Quote me when I said that please. And please answer my question in regard to what Tim said. You still haven’t told me when Tim said he was talking about salvation here and yet you go on and on about salvation. You are reading the wrong article or are confused or something here.
Mickey,
My apologies. I got caught up in the moment last night and responded to you inappropriately. You are passionate about your beliefs, and I admire that. I’m afraid we’ve reached a competitive point in our discussion, where our personal involvement in our reasoning makes it hard to listen to the other. I’ll try and listen more and respond less.
Grace and peace,
Tim
So Mickey, the OT and NT agree on those matters.
Question for Albert and Dan. Do you guys know each other?
Thank you, Daniel, for showing yourself. I had been fooled into believing Albert was someone who stumbled onto the site about the time Mickey started writing. But since he shares your IP address and an e-mail that you have used in the past, well, there’s probably a connection, isn’t there?
Well played, gentlemen. I fell for the ruse.
cool, I learned that if Mickey is a moron, I can call him one because it’s simply a fact and not an insult.
Maybe Roman 15:4 is a starting point. Can we at least agree that “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”
Mickey,
You seem like someone who really cares about the scriptures and so let me just give you a few verses to consider when you have some time to study. It is good that you are aware of these things to form your views so that you can make sure you aren’t just prooftexting your points but that your points are made on a solid exegesis and consideration of the entire New Testament.
If you read the account of Paul in the book of Acts all the way through one of the things you will notice is that he was accused on multiple occasions of being a false teacher because they believed he was teaching against the Law of Moses (which is the very thing you are doing). Paul never defended the Law as a means to salvation (which Tim, myself and you all agree on) but I do want you to be familiar with Paul’s response when these accusations came his way.
Acts 21:17-24
“17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.”
21:24 says Paul lived in observance to the law. What do you do with that?
Acts 24:10-14
10 And when the governor had nodded to him to speak, Paul replied:
“Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. 11 You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, 12 and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. 13 Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,”
Acts 25:6-8
“6 After he stayed among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea. And the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. 8 Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”
I just want you to be aware of those verses and Paul’s own words toward the Law in Acts. It doesn’t mean Paul believed the Law saved him (again we all agree on that) but he was still a Jew and still lived as a Jew but was not bound by the Law. I hope you are able to live in that tension. I also hope that you at least accept the OT as true and that it does teach us something about God when we read it.
just when you thought church of Christers could show even less grace, mickey/daniel arrive on the scene.
as long as people confuse the writings with the law/covenant, there’s gonna be lots of miscommunication.
Does the NT condemn beastiality??
the OT does. but if it ain’t in the NT, enjoy yourselves, gentlemen.
Brian,
The comment about Mickey was uncalled for.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Needless to say I am very disappointed in all of this. You guys seriously need to repent. It amazes me that you can use deceit to try to call out people as false teachers. I am praying for you. I also want to apologize to you if my attitude in the comments has come across as less than Christ-like.
I keep praying for you Brethren who Takes Jesus (The Messiah of the Jews) and twist and turn His teachings as New Testament for Christians, Gal 5:4 WARNING!
Daniel,
I really don’t see how the very next comment from you could be anything but an apology brother after all that has been revealed about your tactics and deception via multiple names used by you in this post in order to try to persuade us by acting like you were persuading someone else. You really lost all credibility at that point. I am not saying I am perfect and that is why I apologized for my attitude above.
Your Not Even Going To Have The Dignity Of Allowing Me To Answer Matt Are Yu Tim? Oh Well
Don’t you DARE talk about dignity after what you and Daniel pulled. No, you two have not shown a bit of dignity in your dealings here.
This never was a conversation from the very beginning. It was all some sort of cruel joke and we were the butt of the joke. I still haven’t seen an apology when it was proven that lies were told on this thread. Instead the actions were defended…by a Christian?!? I have had theological discussions with thousands of people (mostly Christians) and have never seen such audacity even among pagans. Shame. Just man up and apologize.