How many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You haven't answered my question about the time line. Are you saying Paul is a liar?

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

Because you said Paul was in transition from a Jew to half Jew and so on. But Act 25 should be after most of his trips, and after the book of Galatians. He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Because you said Paul was in transition from a Jew to half Jew and so on. But Act 25 should be after most of his trips, and after the book of Galatians. He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law.

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic. It is a form of pretense however. It would be equivalent to a Christian living as a Muslim to try to win muslims.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic.

So since when do you think Paul rejected all, if he actually did? You kept on referring to Galatians. The time line shows it is much earlier than Act 25.

Have you thought about how Paul can be both Jew and Gentile without lying? Simple logic - He lived according to the more restrictive law for Jews.

Paul did not see keeping the law as dung. To him, the law is holy (Rom 7:12). He counted as loss all the false righteousness he thought he gained through keeping the law.

And where did Paul say he preferred to live as a Gentile in Galatians 2?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

So since when do you think Paul rejected all, if he actually did? You kept on referring to Galatians. The time line shows it is much earlier than Act 25.

Have you thought about how Paul can be both Jew and Gentile without lying? Simple logic - He lived according to the more restrictive law for Jews.

Paul did not see keeping the law as dung. To him, the law is holy (Rom 7:12). He counted as loss all the false righteousness he thought he gained through keeping the law.

And where did Paul say he preferred to live as a Gentile in Galatians 2?

Paul was keeping the law for the sake of the Jewish converts. Not that he saw any value it in personally for his own righteousness. Compared to "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" the law was dung. The bible also calls the law dung in Malachi 2:1-9. "You boast of your holiness, sacrifices, and feasts, but they will turn to your shame and be as vile as dung.".

In Galatians , Paul called out Peter for living as a Gentile and then forcing converts to live as Jews. Strong indication that Paul himself lived as a gentile else it would make Paul a hypocrite.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul was keeping the law for the sake of the Jewish converts. Not that he saw any value it in personally for his own righteousness. Compared to "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" the law was dung. The bible also calls the law dung in Malachi 2:1-9. "You boast of your holiness, sacrifices, and feasts, but they will turn to your shame and be as vile as dung.".

In Galatians , Paul called out Peter for living as a Gentile and then forcing converts to live as Jews. Strong indication that Paul himself lived as a gentile else it would make Paul a hypocrite.

Let me make it clear before proceeding further. Do you now agree Paul kept the law, as oppose to what you said before?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Let me make it clear before proceeding further. Do you now agree Paul kept the law, as oppose to what you said before?

A Jew would not listen to Paul if he thought Paul was not religious. So for this reason Paul appeared to keep the law for the sake of the gospel.

Consider the part in bold below:

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.


"I became as a Jew" - "I pretended to be a Jew even though I wasn't (I used to be a Jew)"

"as under the Law" - "I pretended to be under the Law (for the sake of the gospel)."

"though not being myself under the Law" - "but I am not really under the law. I consider myself not obliged to keep the law now that I believe in Christ. I can eat with gentiles, I can eat pork"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic. It is a form of pretense however. It would be equivalent to a Christian living as a Muslim to try to win muslims.

I see this verse as empathetic. If a certain culture is very strict in the way men and women interact, then you would respect that so that you don't offend them needlessly. There is no pretense. If a group does not eat pork and thinks doing so is unclean, then don't eat pork. Why would you offend them over this? Why would you let trivial matters like this keep you from presenting the gospel? Hudson Taylor dressed as the Chinese dressed, kept his hair as they kept their hair, ate what they ate, etc. Why not? There is no pretense, no deceit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see this verse as empathetic. If a certain culture is very strict in the way men and women interact, then you would respect that so that you don't offend them needlessly. There is no pretense. If a group does not eat pork and thinks doing so is unclean, then don't eat pork. Why would you offend them over this? Why would you let trivial matters like this keep you from presenting the gospel? Hudson Taylor dressed as the Chinese dressed, kept his hair as they kept their hair, ate what they ate, etc. Why not? There is no pretense, no deceit.

This explains better what I was trying to explain to "a little brother" - Paul was keeping the law for other's sake, not his own.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

Just so I am following this discussion accurately.

You were asked -- "Was Paul following the Law?"

You said no.

You were asked about Acts where Paul says he has not broken the law.

And your response is to evade the question -- followed by saying that the time line of Paul being a Christian when he made this statement is not relevant to the question of whether or not Paul was following the law.

Did I get that correctly?