"Did you make birds out of clay?...Show me the birds you have made out of clay...Follow Jesus. Make some birds out of clay..."

[clefty]

"Did you make birds out of clay?...Show me the birds you have made out of clay...Follow Jesus. Make some birds out of clay..."

All this from the SB as part of a "discussion" of Christ vs Paul...as perhaps Paul did NOT receive "his" gospel from Christ...

So apparently to "love one another as I have loved you" one must include the making of some birds out of clay as He is alleged to have done as a child...

Cute story and here claimed to be a necessary part of His gospel vs what Paul taught...Paul who allegedly was a corrupting writer of gibberish with "his" own gospel which is contrary to the prior good news...

"Peter did say that what Paul wrote was incomprehensible gibberish. If we accept 2nd Peter 3:16 as proof that Paul's letters are scripture, we must also accept the fact that Peter calls some of Paul's teachings 'ill-minded'. This does not sound like someone who is supporting Paul."

A more typical assertion is that Paul "He preached the end of the law, Jesus preached the opposite"

Though "The mission of Jesus was confined to the Children of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). He was commissioned to revive the true spirit of the Torah in the hearts of the Judaeans" ...but Paul with his gospel had another agenda against the Law?...

"Jesus says in Matt 5:17 that he "fulfills the Law"; Paul in Romans 10:4 speaks of the "end of the law", says that it is "wiped out", "abolished", "blotted out". If Jesus meant the same thing as Paul, why does he say in the next verse that the Law will "never disappear" until heaven and earth pass away? This is a contradiction."

Of course in the heat of the discussion it gets personal quickly..."gotcha!" is the name of the game:

"you said you had a wife; I am curious, does she wear a veil? (Mine does, and I would have had it this way quite apart from religious considerations. I always believed that all women should wear the hijab, even when I was anti-religious.)

"Prove that you have long hair and that your wife wears the hijab. Your Bible commands men to have long hair and women to wear the hijab."

...with slander as the aim of the game:

"I think this would prove most edifying. Clefty at a grocery store: "That man's shirt is part cotton and part polyester! Doesn't he know the Bible forbids the blending of fabrics! Why isn't that woman wearing a veil? Nine-and-thirty lashes across the back! Why is that man using money--doesn't he know that the whole financial system is usury? That woman is wearing a jeweled crucifix neckflace, a graven image--have her beheaded in front of me! Banish her children, for they are cursed for the next four generations.
Witchcraft! sorcerer! That man just purchased a book by J. R. R. Tolkien! Stone him to death! That man says he is going to make chicken cordon bleu, which contains pork and cheese. Thou shalt not eat pork! Thou shalt not mix meats! Neither shalt thou combine cheese with meat! These things are abominations unto the Lord! Pour molten lead down his throat. (No doubt the only biblically sanctioned punishment commensurate to the gravity of the offense.)"

Sure is a lot of fun here to unpack...when time and desire meet...

 

[clefty]

So perhaps Paul did NOT receive "his" gospel from Christ...but "received" a new one...one contrary to His?

Paul addresses this directly:

12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. I Corinthians 1:12-15

Add to that all the times the other disciples could have protested personally with Paul "his gospel"...as at the Council of Jerusalem...or could have written a protest and make clear and obvious the discrepancies between their gospel from "his"...

In fact it was rumored among da joos that (as you claim) Paul was teaching a doing away of the customs...but he takes a vow to prove he walks orderly and keeps the Law (Acts 21)

Paul was the missionary to the gentiles and his mission was distinct...which even Peter needed clarity on as "his" gospel was geared more for da joos...in fact Peter even needed direct heavenly guidance with the vision that goyim were clean to receive the gospel...

So Peter with "his" gospel to the joos not only needed clarity but correction as Paul insists “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles (socializing and mixing to eat with believing goyim something later jooish tradition insisted was NOT to happen...but was NOT in the OT) and not as the Jews (who followed this their own "don't mix with" custom they came up with and not in Torah) , why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?"

INDEED Peter why DO you compel believing goyim to live as joos?...compel them their NOT eating unclean for instance as per the Acts 15 council...

"Paul's" gospel message was tailored to teach non joos what it meant...more specifically what it looked like as the lifestyle of a believer...to be no longer a foreigner but adopted as a full citizen of Israel by faith...a faith that did not make void the Law as he told the Romans...but a grafted branch to a root and trunk bearing MORE like the original fruit and NOT less like...to copy Christ as He taught and lived...as Paul did...

And yet you insist Paul has "his" own gospel and contrary to Christ's gospel...As do others who seek to claim "his" gospel was of a later dispensation...another gospel of grace...and not to the joos but to the believing gentiles...in other words because of "his" gospel Paul was teaching the SECOND BRIDE of Christ...as there are now TWO brides...one Israel still zealous for the Law... and the other by grace...the body of Christ...no need for "jooish" ways...

However the teaching is that we are Israel...on that Paul was clear...our faith does NOT make void the Law...CERTAINLY NOT! you Romans so annoyed with customs not lawful for you to do...annoyed with His customs given to this ekklessia in the wilderness at Sinai when she said "I DO" to her Husband...a lifestyle custom unchanged by Him despite the false witness of slandering joos who claim otherwise...

Or as even the Roman Church teaches

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Obviously Paul wouldn't teach Romans against this yes?

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

Dear Sir:—
I am much obliged to you for taking the time & effort to expatiate at length upon matters but briefly touched upon in our previous discussion. I shall carefully weigh & consider the arguments you have advanced in support of your thesis, endeavouring to maintain an open mind, putting all partiality, prejudices, & long-settled convictions aside, & looking to each of your propositions with a lucid mind, unmoved by ideological biases & religious presuppositions of any kind, unblinded by the sort of personal antagonisms which might darken the hearts of other men, but have never found a place in my heart towards anyone. I shall seek to consider each proposition from every conceivable angle, starting from your own point of view, and seek to ascertain the strong points of your arguments, viewing them in their best light, and with the same readiness with which I shall essay to determine any shortcomings that might present themselves as I examine your arguments one after the other. I shall proceed to weigh the one against the other, with a view to obtaining only a correct and absolutely unbiased finding, perfectly indifferent to whether it turns out that you are in the right and I in the wrong, or vice versa, as the case may be. I shall accordingly be just as eager to detect any shortcomings that might be evident to me in your arguments. Expect a fellow-up post in which I shall give my verdicts on the various opinions and arguments you advanced thus far. Until then I remain, Sir,​

Ever most truly & cordially yours,​

Your most obliging & devoted Rabbi,​

LORD IXABERT.​

 

[clefty]

oh yeah and another thing or two...lol

Paul being the missionary to the gentiles his mission was distinct...but certainly NOT contrary to Christ's as you assert.

I just want to follow up with how unique distinct and specific it is that Paul was instructed BY CHRIST to go to the Gentiles with "his" gospel...to take it outside of Israel...

As Luke records it Christ tells Ananais "Go for Paul is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles and kings...For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake." Acts 9:15-16

Luke follows it up with Paul NOW preaching Christ is the Son of God...not the most obvious message in the previous sermons Luke recorded...namely that the anointed One of Israel IS the Son of God...were joos looking for a messiah that was THE Son of God? But this is NOT contrary to Christ's gospel is it?

Luke continues that Saul increased all the more in strength and confounded da joos PROVING to them that this Jesus is the Christ the anointed One Messiah...perhaps Paul did receive a little something extra? But certainly NOTHING contrary to Jesus yes?

What is important to remember is that the book of Acts records the acts of the disciples just after the resurrection until about AD 50...BEFORE the other gospels were widely available...in other words what the disciples taught daily after that first Pentecost was the gospel...and so Paul was converted 30-33AD...receiving "his gospel" before the others were written...Paul was killed 64-65AD...all his epistles were written even prior the first gospel of Mark...so when Paul writes "my gospel" there was no other one yet written...and it was given to him BY CHRIST Himself

Luke has Paul at one of his trials relating that something was given specifically to him on the road to Damascas Acts 22:10 Is it what was told to Ananias BY CHRIST?...Was it then at Paul's conversion that Christ gave him a gospel CONTRARY to His Own?

Also please note verse 18 Paul has a testimony which Christ calls "your testimony concerning me"...What's that? That the Gentiles are to be told He is the Son of God Israel's messiah? Is that contrary to Jesus' gospel though?

Acts 26 has Paul on trial again and here he relates that Yeshua (having heard His name in Hebrew) says He has even more yet to reveal to him. And that Paul will be sent to the gentiles to open their eyes...to receive forgiveness of sins and an INHERITANCE...

Now THAT is a gospel that was not so clearly flushed out in the sermons Luke recorded of Peter or Stephen given to the joos much less the "dirty goyim"...but it is NOT contrary to what Jesus taught...I mean why would Jesus reveal a gospel to Paul which contradicts what He taught just a few years prior? "God sent His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes shall receive"...not just da joos...

Acts 9 Barnabas introduces Paul to the disciples who are afraid of him...not for his "my gospel" but because of his history...Barnabas insists on vouching for Paul says nothing about "another gospel"...maybe there isn't one?

Acts 11 Barnabas seeks Paul in Antioch and together for a whole year they preached...and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch...does that sound contrary to Christ's gospel? Barnabas and Paul are even entrusted with the relief offerings to the elders in Jerusalem.

Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Saul return from Jerusalem when they fulfilled their ministry...what ministry was that...one CONTRARY the gospel of Christ?

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."...a work CONTRARY to what Christ did?

Acts 13 is also where almost the whole city of goyim came to hear Paul preach one Sabbath and then the next Sabbath...was this where he taught "worship whenever...eat pork" is THAT why they crowded the synagogue both Sabbaths?

Acts 14 records Paul healing a lame man...is that possible contrary to Christ? of course not...is why the chapter ends with a good report in Antioch...nothing about Paul's contrarian gospel

Acts 19:11-15
"[11] God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, [12] so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them."13] Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out." [14] Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. [15] One day the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"

And if Paul was indeed entrusted with a NEW "my gospel" why would he be so concerned of affirmation by the others?

Galatians 1:11-12
"[11] I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. [12] I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Galatians 1:18–19
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal 2:9
James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

 

[clefty]

Paul who allegedly was a corrupting writer of gibberish with "his" own gospel which is contrary to the prior good news...you claim...

you wish...

"Peter did say that what Paul wrote was incomprehensible gibberish. If we accept 2nd Peter 3:16 as proof that Paul's letters are scripture, we must also accept the fact that Peter calls some of Paul's teachings 'ill-minded'. This does not sound like someone who is supporting Paul."

Let's look further into Peter's thinking on this:

1Beloved, this is now my second letter to you. Both of them are reminders to stir you to wholesome thinking 2by recalling what was foretold by the holy prophets and commanded by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires...

Wholesome thinking...wholesome by Who's standard? Oh yes recall the holy prophets foretellin' a doing away with the Law? Giving up a tradition and lifestyle designed to separate believers from the rest of the world...to be MORE like Him? Peter knew there would be false teachers wolves amongst the sheep...both outwardly scoffing and those secretly counterfeiting the message to fit the desires of uncircumcised hearts and reprobate minds...bent on POWER and pleasure...

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness…

to be made holy is to be set apart...called out...distinct...and godliness in accordance to which God? Yes CONDUCT as in LIVE not just BELIEVE or have faith in Christ His gospel

14Therefore, beloved, as you anticipate these things, make every effort to be found at peace—spotless and blameless in His sight.

I think Peter is confirming we live MORE like He did...following His teachings and example...so a seamless continuity from before this ekklessia said I DO at Sinai in His sight

So we are clear on what Peter expects having lived with our Lord...now what about Paul?

15 Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.

"Beloved Paul"...does that sound like a heretic teaching CONTRARY the One Peter lived and learned from? Does Peter feel Paul opposes the apostles their teachings?

Peter is clear that Paul received wisdom from God...personal revelation...but that which opposes and is contradicting Christ's gospel?

16He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters.

In which way?...about what matters?...Paul writes about living spotless and blameless in His sight...conducting oneself in holiness and godliness...

Speaking of "way"...please recall back in Acts 9:2 that when Paul was persecuting these believers he sought in synagogues of Damascus...he was looking for those STILL in the synagogues...and of the sect known as "the Way"..."But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." Acts 24:14 does this really sound like Paul is teaching another gospel CONTRARY to He lived and taught? Paul confesses this at a trial for his life...

Ironically a trial set up by da joos attempting to slander him with claims like yours he was a liar blasephemer "his gospel opposes our customs...he teaches his Christ did away with the living oracles given us at Sinai"...that Paul was a ring leader of dissenting joos wishing to profane the Temple. But all this was false witness and testimony by slandering joos which they could NOT prove having no evidence to present...Acts 24:13

By the time of this trial in front of Felix Paul's letters to the Thessalonians Galatians and Corinthians were already written and could have been presented as evidence for what the lyin' joos and you here claim...

But back to what Peter writes:

Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Just because something is hard to understand does not mean it is gibberish...please have that same tolerance towards my quick responses here...lol

Peter is clear Paul is not twisting or distorting Scripture but some people...

17Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing.

Ok Pete...will do...will watch out for those who would claim we are lawless...without His Law...His Torah...His Way

 

[clefty]

Ixabert: "We must also accept the fact that Peter calls some of Paul's teachings 'ill-minded'.

Until you show your work...come up with something else...this is accepted for centuries even by those that claim theirs wrote the Bible...

15 Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16 Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


"This does not sound like someone who is supporting Paul."

Let's return to how Paul was received Acts 15:

1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Two quick things "according to the custom of Moses" was on the 8th day from birth...NONE of these converts were at that age...OT had clear regulations on how foreigners could live "within they gates" as stated in the Sabbath commandment the ONLY one to INCLUDE them BTW

And circumcision of the heart "not with human hands" is what saved...as even those physically circumcised at birth were considered as UNcircumcised for their disobedience...

If it's by physical circumcision one is saved...how are women saved? Does medical circumcision still save? Egyptians circumcised...saved yes?

2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

Nothing there about Paul being "ill minded" or without support.


3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.

Still nothing...but causing joy that the goyim were joining Paul and the believing joos their ways...crowding their Synagogues from Sabbath to the next...see Acts 13

4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.

so still nothing about Paul's being "ill-minded" and without support...even after he corrected Peter to his face about his not eating with believing goyim as made up jooish traditions would have them do...

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

Do we expect "ill-minded" Paul was teaching it was NOT necessary to keep the 10 commandments? The dissension would be much bigger than just about circumcision right? Recall those myriads of joos still zealous for the Law...Acts 21:20


6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Peter here speaks on the Spirit making NO DISTINCTION between believers...that is between believing joos and believing goyim...why should Paul teach a distinction?

I mean one group worshiping on Sabbath and not eating pig would be quite distinct from another group celebrating Sunday and with Sunday Ham...right? But Peter said the Spirit made NONE...so why should Paul?

10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

Notice how Peter has joos are saved in the same manner as goyim...by FAITH...not by works...those come AFTER we believe...to love as He did

Peter here in the midst of a council of learned elders and zealous leaders claims joos will be saved like the "dirty goyim" were...wow

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

...anything ill minded here and the multitude would NOT keep silent

13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me:
14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, this Paul of Tarsus is ill-minded and teaches gibberish claiming his own gospel which is CONTRARY to the gospel of Christ.

I had to resort to making some changes myself to make scripture say what you claim...

 

[clefty]

You: "He preached the end of the law, Jesus preached the opposite"

Ah yes...the word "end"...

Matt 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Peter didn't even think He would even die...so he didn't sit down to see an ending of His life in the priest's palace as they certainly would not literally kill Him there. He sat down to see the result, consequence, or as nicely translated elsewhere the "outcome" of the proceedings.

outcome.
τέλος (telos)
Noun - Accusative Neuter Singular
Strong's 5056: (a) an end, (b) event or issue, (c) the principal end, aim, purpose, (d) a tax.

Roman 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end (result, consequence, purpose, outcome) everlasting life.

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end (result, consequence, purpose, outcome) of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end (result, consequence, purpose, outcome) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Or does our faith cease upon receiving the salvation of our souls? Certainly not!

You assert that "The mission of Jesus was confined to the Children of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6)

A mission with a message which He was giving the disciples there that day...which BTW He already hinted would impact the Gentiles see verse 18...JUST LIKE Israel was to be a light to ALL nations in the OT.

Because "whosever believeth" is adopted by faith into Israel...becomes a citizen of His kingdom...just like when the living oracles were delivered to those that said "I DO" at Mt Sinai...

of that motley crew da joos were a minority...1/12 of Israel and those NOT of Jacob the mixed multitudes as referred to in the 10 commandments those "strangers within thy gates"

"(Matt 15:24)." This was said to a non joo which He gave her what she desired because of her faith in the Son of David king of Israel.

He was also a blessing to other non-joos who had faith IN Him...as He was the Way the Truth the Light and the Life...as the Torah describes itself...He was the Word made Flesh...

A blessing to non joos? Maybe because His genealogy includes 4 goyim women Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “the wife of Uriah” ...so maybe He was just "based"?

"He was commissioned to revive the true spirit of the Torah in the hearts of the Judaeans" yes that is part of His mission to the world...but you don't mean He was sent to save just da joo?...

Torah indeed reveals the true Spirit which was to be for ALL who believed...His House a House of prayer for ALL nations...

From:

Exodus 12:49 The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.

To:

Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,

But you insist on letting da joos monopolize Torah...having even killed Him for reminding them of their blasphemous mishandling of it...and keeping it from the "dirty goyim"...

"Jesus says in Matt 5:17 that he "fulfills the Law"; Paul in Romans 10:4 speaks of the "end of the law", says that it is "wiped out", "abolished", "blotted out". If Jesus meant the same thing as Paul, why does he say in the next verse that the Law will "never disappear" until heaven and earth pass away? This is a contradiction."

IF is a big word here...if Jesus meant what you think Paul thinks about the law...

but Jesus says think NOT that...that the Law was to be destroyed...

or just for da joos...

or that Paul thought that...

 

[clefty]

You said:

"Jesus says in Matt 5:17 that he "fulfills the Law"; Paul in Romans 10:4 speaks of the "end of the law", says that it is "wiped out", "abolished", "blotted out". If Jesus meant the same thing as Paul, why does he say in the next verse that the Law will "never disappear" until heaven and earth pass away? This is a contradiction."

BINGO...it is a contradiction...but only IF He meant what you think Paul meant...

Matt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

When I fulfill the directions of a recipe...does that destroy abrogate or abolish that recipe? Do I never follow the directions again? Do others NOT make the same item? Is grandma's recipe lost forever?... a one and done?...

Or if I exchange chocolate chips for the raisins... is it still oatmeal raisin cookies? Doesn't a change alter that recipe...void the original?

When I fulfill my obligations as a law abiding citizen...does that destroy abrogate or abolish civic expectations on me for tomorrow...

When I fulfill my duties as an employer/employee...do I come in to work tomorrow?

When I fulfill the traffic laws on one road...do I drive as I wish on another...or when I stop at a red light...does the driver behind me not have to?

What would happen were I to make any arbitrary changes to my obligations or duties...or decide to drive on the left hand side of the road?...

Hope you see the pattern...

"well you see officer...there was this one driver who fulfilled ALL the traffic laws PERFECTLY and so now I don't have to"...lol


Back to Jesus...and Paul:

πληρῶσαι (plērōsai) — 4 Occurrences

Matthew 3:15 V-ANA
GRK: ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην
NAS: it is fitting for us to fulfill all
KJV: us to fulfil all
INT: it is to us to fulfill all righteousness
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Does Jesus here mean to abolish righteousness or alter its standard by a fulfillment through baptism?

Matthew 5:17 V-ANA
GRK: καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι
NAS: to abolish but to fulfill.
KJV: to destroy, but to fulfil.
INT: to abolish but to fulfill [them]

Romans 15:13 V-AOA-3S
GRK: τῆς ἐλπίδος πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης
NAS: of hope fill you with all
KJV: the God of hope fill you with all
INT: of hope may fill you with all
Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Does Paul wish God to destroy you, with all joy and peace by your belief in Him?

Colossians 1:25 V-ANA
GRK: εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον
NAS: on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the [preaching of] the word
KJV: for you, to fulfil the word of God;
INT: toward you to complete the word
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Does Paul expect his readers to think God dispensed him to destroy or abolish His Word?...

oh wait...you do...lol

 

[clefty]

[B]Ixabert[/B]:
Anent the contradictions 'twixt St. Paul & Jesus, let us consider the following:

well...obviously you have ignored this thread all this time...

Works-based Salvation: St. Paul proclaimed that salvation was a gift from Deity, conferred upon a man through faith in Jesus, whereas Jesus emphasised the importance of adhering to the commandments of Deity & leading a righteous life.

Well we could also twist Jesus' words into a cherry picked version of cheap grace..."For God so loved the world that whosoever believeth shall not perish but inherite eternal life"...leave it at that and it remains a freebie given away on the cheap..."just believe bro"

The Mosaic Law: Paul held that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled by Jesus & no longer binding upon Christians, whilst Jesus oft referenced the Mosaic Law in his teachings.

Even in his letter to the Romans Paul attempts to clarify to them "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] Romans 7:7

Paul knew sin was the breaking of His law but how would gentiles know they were displeasing Him if there was not some order structure LAW to clarify how His people lived as citizens in His kingdom?

Paul like many understood pagans claimed to be FREE "do whatever I want" it is the way of the world...but Paul insists "9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." ...once Paul claimed Him he had to acknowledge his own faults as sin is the breaking of His Law and the wages of sin is death...

And as as any good child knows punishment is to remind one not to disobey a rule...So naturally Paul concludes this thought with "12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good."...please note NOTHING there about the Law done away with...no longer binding to ALL mankind...but was a reminder a WARNING of sin to ALL verse 13 "in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." See? the Law remains necessary to point ALL out to their sins and NEED of a Savior...oh and not just da joo...

my time and your attention demands I speed this up...

verse 16 "And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." does that sound like Paul rejects His Law?

verse 22 "For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;" does THAT sound like Paul contradicts Christ?

Paul concludes chapter 7 with "...So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law..."

...did Christ Himself not claim the same? "Not MY will but THINE"...oh and by WILL of His Father it is understood obey His commandments yes?

There is so much more Paul wrote to the Romans...a people who were well aware of attempting to appease the gods with sacrifices and works...but Paul was attempting to show them that through His Son's love He already SAVED them...but yes there were expectations to remain good upstanding citizens in His kingdom they were adopted into by their faith...