"El pobre es rico cuando esta feliz con lo que tiene...Y el rico es pobre cuando nada de lo que tiene lo hace feliz" Benjamin Franklin.


A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us




Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"


Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me


Pauline Pastor Series of Question -- Anonymized

In 2013, a Mega-Church Pauline Pastor named Jonas who otherwise will go nameless began a series of questions to me. His purpose was to convince me that the Old Covenant depicts Jesus as God; that Matthew 5:28 teaches the necessity of faith alone for salvation; that Acts 15 has words indicating the apostles agreed the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles; etc.


I am thus verbatim including all his argument and each of my replies. I make hindsight annotated comments in brackets -- [  comment  ]


This way you can see his proofs, and weigh whether I responded properly to his arguments.


One thing you need to know. Jonas preaches vigorously  on his website in videos that the Law was abrogated based upon Paul's teaching. He is proud and vocal about these positions. He claims we become lost for trying to obey the law, relying upon Paul's teachings. For some reason, at one point Jonas tries to claim he does not have these positions.  I then advise him I had just watched a video on his website that says the opposite. He does not respond, and drops the point. 


Finally, at the very end, when I prove to him Acts 15 was modified -- putting words in the apostles mouth by a 10th Century alteration, and I already discussed this fully in my 2006 book Jesus' Words Only, Jonas stopped writing me back. So much for a dialogue.


I am praying all these years later that he is studying the issues with the references I gave him.

Yet, I assume he knows I was correct on the last issue of Acts 15 which we discussed, and this explains why he never responded. Otherwise, I am praying for Jonas to repent of his doctrines, or come back and prove me wrong on all the Bible-based disproofs to each of his arguments I raised in rebuttal. 


If any of you think you can do better than Jonas, by all means. Truth is the goal, not winning an issue. I will post the debate where you best me with proof to the contrary.


Here is the series of questions and answers I gave him in a dialogue that began October 2013.


Jonas 10/4/2013 - Deity of Christ - Inspired OT

What is your position on the Deity Of Jesus? Was he the God of the O.T.? What books in the O.T. do you believe to be the inspired Word of God besides the four Gospels? 


My Reply 10/4/2013

Hi Jonas  I have an article entitled The Correct Christology. Essentially, Jesus says the Father dwelled in Him (John 14), and thus this renders Jesus divine. As a result, the Father spoke directly through Jesus: "Before Abraham, I am."  

I believe the Original Testament has, as God taught the Jews in Numbers 12, a priority of inspiration for Moses, then all the Prophets were secondary to Moses. See my article Jesus' Words Only Principle Explained. I see all those OT works are classified properly as Torah or Prophets, and are inspired at the level indicated by scroll section to which the Jews originally assigned them -- Torah Scroll and Prophets scroll, without exception. To see the assignments, see this graphic
Then Jews sorted out a third category of "Writings" aka Scripture that Jews classed books that were unknown by the time of Christ whether inspired, or were thought sometimes inspired, and other times not. Daniel was in the Writings section prior to Christ because Jews did not see yet any inspired fulfillments, and it was kept just in case. See article Writings Section of OT. See also this graphic of the 3-fold division, with each book of the OT which was classified as a Writing / Scripture at time of Christ. However, based upon Christ fulfilling Daniel, and Jesus calling Daniel a prophet, that is the one change I would make to the OT as of the time of Christ. I would move Daniel from the Writings section to the Prophets section. 
Thus, everything else is in its right section as originally sorted by the Jews to obey God's guidance in Numbers 12. They each have the inspiration as understood by Jews for why they put in each part of canon -- using the criteria laid down in Numbers 12.
Hence, I disagree with the modern publication of the OT that does not separate the OT works into their appropriate original scroll sections. This prevents us from readily classifying the level of inspiration that God taught the Jews to apply - to not exaggerate a particular work's level of inspiration over the work that belonged in a higher level section. "Scripture" was the least authoritative section, and thus assigning anything to that category was a sign of caution, and Jews taught that one had to use careful discretion to find what was inspired, and what was not inspired. For example, hate-filled precatory Psalms Jesus impliedly said were not inspired, as he said "you have heard of old, hate your enemy, but I tell you...." 
Of course, don't forget, that under Deut 18, The Prophet to come (Jesus) would have the greatest priority over all, as Moses tells us that every word The Prophet will speak will be that of God -- which was not true of Moses or the later prophets. I refer you again to my article The Jesus' Words Only Principle Explained. That makes Jesus of higher clarity and emphasis than Moses, if you apply Numbers 12 in light of Deuteronomy 18.
Do you agree with JWO? or are you still studying what I am saying?

Jonas' Questions If I Believe NT Gospels Are Inspired
Which N.T. books would you place on an equal basis with the O.T? ... [Or] would you say no N.T. writing reach the level of being inspired? Thanks Jonas

My Response On NT Authority v. OT Authority

No Jonas, I never have said that the NT works are of lesser inspiration to the OT. To the contrary, I believe the apostolic gospels are fully inspired, and that Jesus' words have a higher authority than Moses's words based upon Deut 18:17-18. Because the Father resides in Jesus, which is unlike the inspiration that Moses had, with Jesus we were hearing the Father speaking directly through Jesus. Hence, I hold the opposite view than what you are supposing.

Incidentally, I see you are "pastor" ...
If that is you, I see you affirm Paul's view that the Law "produced death" -- and "kills people." [Cite omitted to keep this anonymous.]
I demonstrate those views are blasphemy in Paul's writings. Please review Paul and Blasphemy. 
You say anyone is an "adulterer" if they observe the Law. You identify Romans 7:1-7. But I suggest you read my article Paul Says The God of Sinai is Dead. The husband that died who dissolved the law with the wife (Israel) necessarily was the God of Sinai, and then Paul teaches he betroths us to "Jesus" as our new husband. Have you truly thought through what Paul is saying? It is pure blasphemy -- the immortal God of Sinai is dead, and Jesus lives as our God today. 
I teach Jesus' Words Only which Paul even endorses:

Paul states:


If any man gives different teaching, not in agreement with the true words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the teaching which is in agreement with true religion, He has an over-high opinion of himself; being without knowledge, having only an unhealthy love of questionings and wars of words, from which come envy, fighting, cruel words, evil thoughts, (I Tim. 6:3-4, Basic Bible in English.)

As you know, Paul in his epistles never quotes a single word of Jesus except the liturgy in Corinthians [and a single reference Paulinists cringe at and dispute where Paul says the Lord told Paul that he would not remove an affliction from an Angel of Satan upon Paul for "my grace is sufficient for thee." 2 Cor 12:7-9] But Paul contradicts Jesus, particularly on the issue of the Law which is the subject of your sermon I am listening to as I write this. In my article The Contradictions of Paul, I reference this -- and you are clearly quoting in the sermon I am listening to Paul's contrary view, so I won't cite the proofs Paul abrogated the law which you know well. Instead, I will discuss Jesus' contrary teaching: 

Jesus's View on the Law. Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:

(17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)

Compare Luke 16:17 similarly says at a different time than the Sermon on the Mount -- meaning Jesus repeated the same point twice:

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (Luke 16:16-17 NIV.)

Thus, Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from following the Law. Jesus cannot be a false prophet under Deuteronomy 13:5-10 (false prophet is anyone who has miracles and wonders but seduces you from following the Law). Jesus said the Law remained valid until the Heavens and Earth pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according to the Book of Revelation.

Now you certainly know Paul teaches the opposite. Now apply Paul's own words endorsing Jesus' Words Only as a test of orthodoxy:

If any man gives different teaching,not in agreement with the true words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the teaching which is in agreement with true religion, He

has an over-high opinion of himself; being without knowledge, having only an unhealthy love ofquestionings andwars of words, from which come envy, fighting, cruel words, evil thoughts, (I Tim. 6:3-4, Basic Bible in English.)

Paul is not "in agreement with the true words of our Lord Jesus," and Paul's words thus judge him. Paul says this means he is a person who has an "over high opinion of himself" and has an "unhealthy love of questionings" and "wars of words," etc.
I would appreciate hearing any thoughts you have. 

Jonas Asks Question if Jesus's Words Prove Obeying The Law Is Impossible
Lets get to my first question?  Jesus poses a question to those accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath. 
    Hi Doug The reason for the question is I wanted to know what part of the N.T. do you acknowledge as being inspired so I would know how to direct my questions.   Because I am still unclear I will only use the words of Jesus in posing my questions. Here's my question.
Jn 7: 19-29   Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keep the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel.22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? 24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Here is my question? The Sabbath demanded a man not to do any servile work. Those who had a child born on a Friday had a dilemma. Keep the law of circumcision and break the Sabbath or keep the Sabbath and break the law by not circumcising on the 8th day? Can you explain why God would make it impossible to keep the law. I will await your response. Thanks Jonas

My Response: Jesus Was Saying He Did Not Break The Law
Deut 30:11 says obedience to the law "is not too hard for thee."
Jesus was deflecting a claim he broke the sabbath law (and thus was a sinner) by invoking a well-accepted principle that the sabbath is not broken when necessity arises. (Just like "self-defense" is an excuse for otherwise violating "thou shall not kill" in the 10 Commandments.)
The classic example used by Rabbis is precisely what Jesus cited. The Rabbis said this proved the Sabbath can be set aside when a greater moral imperative is necessaary to save someone's life, give medical care, or comply with another law, etc. For the Sabbath was intended for man's good, and setting it aside to do a greater good is in keeping with the Sabbath, and thus not a violation.
If instead Jesus broke the law, and had no excuse, then Jesus was a sinner, and could not pay for sin. Thus, any construction that holds Jesus means it is impossible to keep the Law, and he admitted He himself was a lawbreaker would destroy our salvation. That certainly is not Jesus' intent, and since He invoked a classic proof of how to interpret that Sabbath is not broken when necessity is involved means Jesus was saying He was innocent of actually breaking the law. Just like self-defense is an excuse to "killing" another.

The law thus is true that "the law is not too difficult for thee" Deut. 30:11. There is nothing impossible about keeping the Law, when properly and reasonably understood.

Jonas' Reply & States His Beliefs, & Asks if Passover Does Not Prove Obedience Is Irrelevant to Salvation
Hi Doug
                Thanks for your response on John 7. I accept your response and hold the same convictions.
Yes I am the Pastor of [  ] as you cited. My Theology is well documented on our web site and make no apologies. It's important to our dialog that we are both very careful not to mischaracterize each other's theology. I am not your cookie cutter parrot preacher. I was saved at the age of 19 yrs old and have studied God's word independent of the influence of antiquated commentaries. As someone well stated "The bible sheds a lot of light on commentaries." The thing that drew me to your material was the thoughtfulness by which you write. You take the time to understanding other men and their theological positions on critical doctrine. This is why I am reading your material before formulating my questions.
Here are some of the things I believe.
1. I don't believe the Law and God are one and the same. 
2. I believe the Law to be Perfect and eternal.
3  I believe the problem was not with the law. It was with our ability to  keep the whole Law in order to be declared righteous in the Law. James 210 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
4  I believe Paul is not teaching death to the God of Sinai, but rather death to self freeing us from the Law not the God of the Law. While man was married to the Law he could not be married to the Lord. Under the Law God was mandated by his word to Judge man according to the Law. By Himself satisfying the Law he now can fellowship with man and not have to judge him by putting him to death according to the Law  
22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: Duet 2123 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day;
5. I believe my righteous comes from Jesus satisfying the Law in my behalf.
6. I believe when I am measured against the Law the Law declares me righteous because Jesus satisfied the Law in my behalf
7. I do believe Jesus to be the Monotheistic God proclaimed in the O.T. 
8. I believe Paul emphatically taught one could lose their salvation by going back under the Law. 
9. Col 2:15 Only that in the Law which was against us He nailed to the cross. I am living in all the promises that was promised under the Law if one could keep it. I am blessed coming in and going out.
10. By Jesus keeping the law perfectly it qualified Him to be the spotless Passover lamb that would take away our sins.
11.  I believe my righteousness comes from me being made in right standing with the Law.Romans 331 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 8that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
I am trying to get a better feel for what you believe so I will be able to ask responsible questions.
    Next Question? In the O.T. They examined the Lamb and not the person at the Feast of Passover. Same thing when they left Egypt when they were instructed to place the blood of the Lamb on the door post of the Israelite home. The Angel did not ask who was in the house? The angel only looked for the blood. The qualification for one having their sins forgiven was predicated on the lamb being with out spot or blemish. Those who observed the Passover had their sins forgiven for the upcoming year. Passover to Passover. The Passover dealt with future sins and not past sins. Like to hear your thoughts   Thanks Jonas

My Reply to Passover Question
Hi Jonas
Thanks for your refreshing honesty. I once believed everything Paul wrote, and believed just as you do. I too would try to find confirmation in things to fit Paul in Scripture. But in the end, I think this does not work. Thus, claiming one is lost by following the Law, which you affirm Paul teaches (and I agree he teaches that in Galatians), is directly contrary to Deut 6:25. So who do you trust? I suggest we trust God Yahweh and not put Paul above God's word to Moses. These and many other contradictions exist. But I digress.....
So you cite the example of Passover to prove one is saved by the blood of the Lamb without "qualification" obviously to support a faith alone view as Paul teaches. 
But then if you are applying this correctly, this means even faith is not a criteria. Simply the "sons of Abraham" who were in those houses qualified by being in those houses during the Passover. And this would, if your premise is correct that the first passover is an anology to salvation, mean "sons of Abraham" were saved by lineage. This is what John the Baptist confronted, and made clear God could raise up sons of Abraham from stones if that is what would create a saved class of people. Instead God wants repentance from SIN - breaking the Law.
So did the original Passover event represent spiritual salvation? If it means what you say, John the Baptist was wrong, and salvation is by being a son of Abraham. But once the Law came, the principle of Passover was extended to include the principle of atonement announced in the Law that came after the first passover. This is how Jesus understood it too. Jesus said His blood was poured out for the "remission of sins." Isaiah 53 says that the servant who suffers does so to atone for sin. The original Passover event in Egypt is thus no longer a way to interpret the salvation principle of Passover under the law. In the original event in Egypt, blood covers and physical death did not happen. It is not a spiritual atonement-salvation event.
What Jesus did is more than what happened on Passover in Egypt; he atoned for sin which was how the Law redefined Passover for the future. That salvation principle of atonement did not arise until the Law was given, which means the Passover event in Egypt is not a proper analogy to explain salvation criteria. The Egypt event does not tell us how Jesus' blood applies to us. Only the Law explains the principles of atonement to use -- which were contingent on repentance from sin and turning to obedience to the Law God gave Moses, FYI. 
Hence, the premise of your question is not founded on a proper analogy to the event in Egypt. Instead, one must draw on how Passover was defined under the Law later to know how to apply salvation principles when Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
That's my take on it Jonas. I do love your sermon ability. Very good. I would have said the same things 15 years ago but not as eloquently.
Blessings of Christ be yours today,

Jonas: Have You Found It Possible Not to Violate Jesus' Command on Lust?
Hi Doug   Had a busy day today. I look forward this week emailing back and forth. I realize from your response to my last email that we believe almost the same. From your perspective the law is to be observed but has none of the consequences imposed by God in the O.T. for not keeping it for the various reason you sited? On the other hand I believe Jesus bore all my judgment imposed by the Law past, present and future sparing me from the consequences imposed by the Law.
      Remember Doug in "Jesus words only" he elevated the Law to the thought Life. Have you ever since conversion had a lustful thought toward a woman. When he said if you look upon a woman to lust you have committed adultery therefore looking Jesus considered one who breaks the law. [Emphasis mine].
2Matt 58 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast itfrom thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Jesus was elevating the Law because the Pharisees reduced the Law to the act of adultery the act of murder? Jesus was teaching all men are guilty and need the GRACE OF GOD!!! 
    I teach the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the Law. The law was never intended for man evidenced by the fact God warned man not to eat of it or he would die. Death is the result of breaking the law. Without the Law death was not possible. Because God is a God of equity and a God of his word, God was mandated by his word to judge man according to the law becoming their Judge. By submitting to the Law for their right standing with God man became self-righteous. God never intended nor wanted to be our judge but rather a Father who would correct ,admonish discipline and teach his children. As you see God judging man in the O.T. the bible is constantly showing Gods heart evidenced by His plan (The cross)from the foundation of the world. Jesus came to satisfy the Law in our behalf by bearing our sins and judgment so he could once again be a father to us and not have to sentence us to death. As an attorney I am sure you witnessed Judges who sentenced men to death and go home and enjoy a meal with his family and never think about the man who he found guilty. If it were their son that judge would beg for mercy and would gladly switch places with his son. The cross was in the plan of God from the foundation of the world he took our place. Blessings Jonas

My Reply: The Lust Command Is Far Narrower

Just a few comments.
We may agree that none of the criminal penalties apply because Rome in effect still operates, I think you are applying atonement contrary to how God explained it. It is not a permanent excuse for sin. That is, you cannot claim an atonement for sin and never repent and expect heaven. Jesus explained this in His lesson about leaving your gift at the altar. This is chapter one of my book Jesus' Words on Salvation (all free online too). It is a common misperception that because Jesus paid for every sin you may commit, this means all your sin you may do in the future is covered by an atonement. When you sin and don't repent, atonement is pulled back. If you read that chapter, Jesus taught against the contrary misconception (as all the prophets explained over and over again about that error) and Apostle John most certainly said no to that misconception, using Jesus' identical words [as explained in that chapter].
Many before you have used the lust passage to say it is impossible even to keep Jesus' words, and thus 'grace' is inexorably necessary (as if repentance were never a cure). 
However, the word in the 'lust' passage that is critical is gunaika. It means a married woman or wife, not woman [in context. See link.] (One cannot use Strong's 'concordance as a dictionary, because it is simply recording how the KJV rendered each word, whether wrong or right. [See link.]) Paul is translated as meaning by gunaika that it is "wife" several times. Eph 5:22, 33; Romans 7:2-3. So Jesus too in Matt 5:23. 
Even in context you can see it can have no other meaning than a married woman. To lust after a married woman is known as Adultery. To lust after a single woman is not adultery. Jesus' words were if you lust after a "gunaika" you have already committed adultery. It thus could only mean "wife" or "married woman" in context. (This is more fully explained in my Jesus' Words on Salvation book at page 205-206, ch. 10 on the Sermon on the Mount. Here is link to ch.10. I received a scholarship designation as a "Classic Language Scholar" for my Greek and Latin studies, so I am confident this is correct.)
It is obvious the puritan King James translators preferred to make us feel guilt if we lust after a single woman to protect their daughters. (I am being humorous). But such sexual desire is not condemned in the Law nor in Jesus' words. (Don't go crazy with the permission you think that might imply!...Again, I am being a little humorous.) 
But if you are asking, have I ever sinned. Sure. But Jesus teaches us that when that happens, we must repent -- cut off the source of the sinful lust. Or I go to hell. Jesus said that "one who believes in me" if he "stumbles" must "cut off" the source of temptation, and go to heaven maimed, or you will go to hell whole. No faith alone covering, you should note. This is Mark 9:42-47; Matt 18:8-9. I discuss this in chapter 3 of Jesus' Words on Salvation, also free online at this link in HTML format.
So don't jump to the conclusion that obedience is impossible from the KJV mistranslation of "gunaikia."
Next you claim that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the Law, and then claim that God's telling Adam and Eve not to eat of it means God did not intend them to obey the Law. However, this is nowhere in Scripture. I suggest you are reading Scripture from a Paul-influenced presupposition. However, the Law did not exist in the Garden. The Law if anything at that point was God's command not to eat from the fruit of that tree. They disobeyed it and suffered mortality. Hence, the Law there was clearly something God wanted followed -- although it was not the complete law which was to come. To read into the story a presupposition to give it a context it did not have (in order to cast a blemish on the Law) is known as the fallacy of presupposition. See "List of Fallacies," Wikipedia. Just trying to keep it real Jonas!
You mention 'self-righteousness,' and you equate that evil with obeying the Law. But this is not correct. Self-righteousness means using our own measure, not God's measure, of self-righteousness. As I explain in my book Jesus' Words on Salvation, this is the lesson in the Parable of the Publican and Pharisee. The Pharisee patted himself on the back that he did 2 things - one was tithing (which Jesus said the Pharisees were good at, but neglected the rest of the Law of Moses-- Matt 23:23--sound like anyone you know?) and the other was fasting, which is not commanded in the Law. So the Pharisee held up to God an obedience to a self-made righteousness -- fasting -- which scored no points with God. Their valid obedience was to only one true command -- tithing, which Jesus said was the lesser command of the law. Jesus said the Pharisees were terrible otherwise in following any other law. Please read Matt 23:23. (Cast out Paul's contrary statement from your mind!) Is obeying the law a self-righteousness or a righteousness from God? God tells us that obeying the true Law of Moses does what? Deut 6:25 says it brings us "justification." This is not a pompous self-righteousness for obeying our own self-made rules of right and wrong or 'equity.' 
Finally, I agree that God's plan was Jesus would pay for all sin. But again, one has to know the principles of atonement, and not misconstrue them -- as God over and over again corrected the misunderstanding that the unrepentant and disobedient could rely upon an atoning sacrifice. God told Saul, the Benjamite king, that sinning and not repenting yet trying to employ an atonement was divination, presumption, and wickedness. Ouch!  Again, read ch. 1 I cited above from my book Jesus' Words on Salvation -- free for download in PDF online as well.
I look forward to your thoughts after you read what I have cited above. Iron sharpens iron.
Blessings and Shalom

Jonas Insists It Is Difficult We Can Ever Obey The Law
Hi Doug   Thanks for your thoughts. Surely if a man is married (I suppose you are)  and he looks upon a single woman would he not be committing adultery? Are you telling me Jesus is teaching that a married man can look on a woman and lust as long as she is single? [My bolding added.] Your telling me he is not committing adultery? You are really setting me free and you don't  even realize it. (I can be funny too)
Keep in mind I am at a great disadvantage not being able to quote outside of the gospels. Its very difficult for me as you can imagine. I look forward to you asking me questions about the writings of Paul. I truly believe you don't understand Paul's teaching. Paul teaches we are made righteous through the Law. 
Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Ron 8:3-5 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,  
(What Paul is teaching is this. The end result of Jesus keeping the Law perfectly and fulfilling the Law was the obtaining of righteousness through the Law for those who would believe.)
Gal 3:21,22 " Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Paul is teaching Jesus was the end result in keeping the Law unto all them who would believe. I believe therefore through faith I am made righteous through Jesus satisfying the Law in my behalf . I think you completely misunderstand Paul. I a perfect when measured against the law.)
1. Adam did not have eternal life. If one possess eternal life it is impossible to stop having eternal life. Its a contradiction. You can't possess eternal life And loose it. ( I am not referencing eternal security) I am addressing your statement about man becoming mortal by eating the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. You say it was eating the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil that caused man to have mortality. If man would have chosen the right tree (the Tree of Life) then he would have lived forever according to the scripture. It was the love of God that put His angels to guard the way back into the Garden less he eat it and live forever. God did not want man to have eternal life in the state of sin so he guarded The tree of Life
  Gen 3 the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.  
You cannot live forever and then not live forever. 
2. I had a hard time accepting the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil being the Law because I knew the law did not come until 430 yrs. after Abraham. I finally realized when Moses received the Law on Mt Sinai it was the first 5 books of the Law!!!!. This would make Genesis to Deuteronomy part of the Law. I teach the law was removed after man sinned so God would not have to send people to hell. "Where there is no Law sin is not imputed". When God did reveal the volatile Law to the Hebrew people God gave them the antidote to one who would break the Law the Pascal lamb.
 I also believe the Law served a twofold purpose. One to stop every mouth and every man guilty before God. Secondly so Jesus could be measured against the Law. Jesus was the only one who could keep the Law perfectly because of the virgin birth and his sinnlessness. (Pilate I see no fault in this man) qualifying the second Adam to be the sin sacrifice. The bible teaches "we were born and shaped in iniquity". By virtue of our nature we were incapable of keeping the Law.

 My Reply: Adultery Only Involves Married Woman; Question to Jonas On Jesus' Prophecy Against Imposter Jesuses Prior to His Return

Before I answer about adultery, your point, as many before you, was that if Jesus prohibits any lust by any man for a single woman he has committed "adultery" then Jesus gave us an impossible command, and thus breaking the law is necessarily frequent and obviously futile to imagine one can keep. Hence, many before you have argued this command of Jesus proves faith alone  / grace is our only hope. But the argument rests on a wrong premise, as I explained at pages 204-05 of Jesus' Words on Salvation. [See this link. It is only a command to not lust after a married woman.] But if the command on adultery was a married man should not lust after a single woman (as most of us effectively vow in the wedding ceremony), then this kind of command is something we can keep, and does not aid the faith alone argument.  
But in point of fact, adultery under the law only involves a married woman, not a married man.

Deuteronomy 22:22 ESV 

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.'

Exodus 20:17

English Standard Version (ESV)

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's wife...."

See also Lev. 20:10.

Rome prohibited plural marriages, and most Christian men have taken a vow not to "cling" to another woman during marriage, so that has the effect of making lust for a single woman something to avoid so as not to break a wedding vow. But it is not in the Law. In fact, the Law required plural marriages if your married brother with whom you lived died without a son:

"If two brothers are living together on the same property and one of them dies without a son, his widow may not be married to anyone from outside the family. Instead, her husband's brother should marry her and have intercourse with her to fulfill the duties of a brother-in-law." Deut. 25:5.
Jesus implicitly accepted this as a correct legal principle when Deut 25:5 was cited to him in Matt 22:24.(The Sadducees twisted this to argue against eternal life.)
So you see Jonas, we live in a land impoverished by lack of knowledge of God's law. So when faith alone advocates see Jesus' command do not "lust after a woman" they jump to wrong conclusions, to try to bolster their argument. But it does not say what they think. Jesus says instead 'do not lust after a married woman" - something I have found very possible to keep. Nothing impossible. 
As to Paul, I know what Paul teaches. If I thought Paul was inspired, I would believe exactly as you do. But that is a key question of Berean responsibility that I wish to now ask you a question. Until we solve the knot of Paul, there is really no more point to discussing questions any more where you are solely trying to vindicate Paul's doctrine.
So here is my question to you:
Do we have to listen to the Jesus Paul met as a bright light on the road outside Damascus with the 2 companions who heard the voice but saw no one? Or does Jesus command us not to accept an imposter coming in his name in a wilderness location that is not universally seen when Jesus says you will only know it is truly "me" because his next appearance (presence) on earth will only be universally seen? (Matt 24:4-5, 24-27.) To answer this, please read my article Jesus' Prophecy About Paul's Experience in the Wilderness of Damascus. If you find any weaknesses in how I interpret our Master's words, please let me know.
We have reached the point in our dialogue where unless we resolve the inspiration-question about Paul, and Jesus' commands to test the wilderness of Damascus experience, then Paul's words on the Law which you quote are not yet relevant. 
So I will await your response to that question before I
answer any other. 
Blessings in Christ,

 Jonas Wants To Know If I Accept Acts 15 First
In order for me to be able to respond let me ask if you accept Acts 15 as being a true account of the events that took place in this chapter.   Thanks

My Response: Yes -- Yet I Request Only Relevant Evidence Is Used
Yes, however, from Acts 15 don't presuppose the 12 apostles knew Paul's account of the vision and saw no problem. Luke never records Paul told the 12 of it. (Luke is writing in 58 AD, and we cannot presume what he learned to write Acts was known much earlier when Acts 15 took place.) Thus, don't presume the 12's silence about Matt 24 is proof how to interpret the master's word. See my article Is Silence of Apostles Enough. And also note Paul has no objection in Acts 15 to the Holy Spirit having chosen Peter, not Paul, as the Apostle to the Gentiles. And FYI James' interpretation of circumcision on Gentiles was spot on.... Lev. 12:1-3 says it only applies to "sons of Israel," and Exodus says a Gentile only had to be circumcised to participate in Passover [or enter the Temple if he wished]. 
Please focus on Matt 24:4-5, 27-29, and do not use
extraneous irrelevant material. Please stick with the
for this answer.
The 12 apostles were there in Acts 15 -- Remember Matthias, the 12th, was added by the Holy Spirit in Acts 1.
Do you accept Acts 1? 

Jonas' Reply First On Whether I Accept John as
By the way I quoted from the Apostle John in my last email. Do you receive the writing's of John and the other Apostles (who were part of the 12)? With the exception of 2 Peter?

My Reply: I Accept John and Any One Not
Constituting False Prophet
Yes, I accept John's Gospel as inspired. I don't believe letters are inspired (unless one of the 12 quoting Jesus), but edifying and also useful to prove the meaning of letters of John to understand the Gospel he wrote. 
To be recognized as an inspired writing (unless God spoke from heaven to the crowd like He did over Moses and Jesus to "listen to him"), the Original Testament requirement was the writer / would-be prophet had to declare "Yahweh says," or "Yahweh burdened me with a message," etc. (They must use the "name" of the Lord.) Then if that writer's prophecy did not happen or even if it did, but they try to "seduce you from following the Law," then they are a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-10.) As a result, if a true prophet who meets those criteria and their prophecy came true, then their writing is from God. In the NT, the only difference is an inspired writing includes any of the 12 who recollects Jesus' words during His ministry before the Ascension. Many articles on canon are at my website. But I would add that if any of the 12 recollected Jesus "seducing you from following the Law," then either Jesus is a false prophet or the Jesus to whom that apostle was listening would be a false Jesus. That's because Deut 13:1-5 applies as a test of Jesus or an apostle quoting Jesus as much as any other claim to being a prophet.

Jonas: I Am Not A Cookie Cutter Pastor
Thanks that was helpful. Do you truly understand my position? I told you I was not your cookie cutter parrot preacher. Your so against the writings of Paul you automatically assume because I accept his writings that I bash the Law. You would be surprised how far away I am from the traditional church. I believe the Reform church is one of the biggest cults today along with the Catholic Church. They certainly do not believe what I believe. I saw where you were in the Presbyterian church? No wonder you rebelled against their teachings. You are stereotypically categorizing me with those other guys and assuming I hold their same belief systems just because I quote Paul. May I remind you I believe the Law is still in full force today and will remain in full force until as you said it "the New Heaven and New Earth comes". I don't believe in eternal security. I don't believe in Predestination as taught by the Reformist theologians. I believe the Law is eternal. I consider myself perfect in the Law.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven isperfect. I am perfect when I am measured against the Law. The word Perfect is not mature. (Certainly God is not mature)
         Because Jesus fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law in my behalf he sees me perfect when I am measured against the Law. You of all people should understand the term when a man serves his time in prison it is said of him "he has paid his debt to society" I owed a debt I could not pay He paid a debt He did not owe. The Law required me to be put to death. Jesus died in my place satisfying the laws demand while not violating Gods Holy Righteous Law.  Their is a difference between someone who is trying to be righteous by keeping the Law (or as you say following the Law) and one like myself who believes the Law was completely fulfilled and satisfied in their behalf so that "the righteousness which is of the Law is now manifested in me. The Law can't do anything but bless me.  Doug am I blessed coming in and blessed going out. I have chosen the Life that is more abundant. I've entered into his rest I have ceased from my own works. I no longer live its Christ that lives in me. You would not have liked the Jonas Robertson before he met Jesus. He died at 19yrs old and you at the age of 15. That person died a long time ago. Have you ever heard of a body being dug up to stand trail?  Everyone of the promises associated with keeping the Law I am experiencing in  my life.   Thanks Doug

My Reply: I Confirmed Your Views Initially With You; Restating My Questions
I am sorry if you think I stereotyped you. In the second email, I told you I was listening to a sermon on your website that said the Law is abrogated, gone, etc. That defended faith alone. (Eternal security is a different issue.) You also wrote me any attempt to be just by obeying the Law actually condemns you to hell. I said Paul teaches that in Galatians. You did not disagree. So please tell me whether I am wrong you hold the position that the Law is abrogated, done away with? That you believe in faith alone? I believe I confirmed your views early on, and no stereotype is involved. But if I misunderstood you, I apologize.
I also am still waiting to hear your answer about Matt 24:4-5, 24-27.
I think it is crucial to know whether we believe in a Jesus who is a phantom image of who He truly was -- an imposter version. This is why Matt 24:4-5, 24-27 is crucial for you to answer me about. I am praying for you to take time to read my article in depth. The issues, to make this easy, are: 
(a) did Paul claim Jesus appeared on earth just the same way he appeared to the 11?
(b) is the road "outside" Damascus a "wilderness" in the Biblical sense of that word?
(c) did the person Paul meet say "I am Jesus";
(d) did that Jesus appear privately to Paul, and those with him saw "no one" as opposed to Jesus being seen universally all over the globe?
Then assuming you answered those questions all yes, then why does Jesus' words in Matt 24 not constitute a command of Jesus 'do not believe them' 'do not follow him' apply to the Jesus whom Paul met?
Please initially do not stray from the text of Acts 9 and Matt 24:4-5, 24-27, as these questions are limited to those two passages. Once you answer whether on its face the facts come within Matt 24:4-5, 24-27, then if you wish, please provide any explanation from other resources you think independently support Paul. But the threshold question is whether this passage in Matthew implicates Paul, and thus requires scepticism about Paul by a follower of the true Jesus Christ.

Jonas' Response To Question on Matthew 24 - Prophecy of Imposter
Sorry I have not responded to your question on Matt 24
        Jesus is clearly speaking of his second coming in Matt 24. Why would Paul warns believers not to be shaken in mind as to when the Lord would return and contradict his own testimony. Paul understood Matt 24 was speaking of the second coming. He shares with the church at Thessalonica the things that must happen before the coming of the Lord will take place. 
2nd Thess 2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.   
If you think Paul's testimony contradicts the words of Jesus you must be freaked out with the Apostle John's testimony in the book of revelation. Those who saw him at the tomb and communicate with him. Jn 21 to Peter The upper room with doubting Thomas Or how about the 500 that saw him after his resurrection I Cor 15:6  after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. How about those who saw him on the road to Emmaus
13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 1u 24
 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance wasas the sun shineth in his strength. 17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead;              

My Reply to Jonas' Analysis on Matthew 24

You are right. Matt 24 is the prophecy scholars dub about the "second coming "-- after Jesus would ascend into Heaven, and thus Jesus teaches any appearance on earth by someone claiming to be Himself prior to that event would be a false imposter. 
So the 500 saw Jesus when? Prior to His ascension. Those at the tomb? Same. Hence, all irrelevant.
Paul's prophecy about the man of sin prior to the return in glory of our Lord is not contradictory of Jesus. This man of sin is someone Paul says makes himself God prior to Jesus' appearance in the heavens as part of the Second Coming. Paul never says this is the only appearance Jesus will make after Jesus' ascension. Thus, Paul never shows us he has a belief Jesus did not actually appear to himself once after the ascension -- instead Paul says Jesus "appeared" to himself after the ascension in the same manner Jesus appeared to the apostles prior to the Ascension. Hence, Paul's prophecy about a man of sin is an irrelevant point.
As to John, perhaps you did not read my article after all. I read everything you write, and respond to it all. I ask you to read my article thoroughly if you don't mind. I truly want to know if there is any escape. For you full well know John does not claim an appearance of Jesus on earth, but that John was harpazo'd - taken into heaven where John saw Jesus in Heaven seated at the right hand of the Father. [Jesus spoke through an angel to John prior to that point. See link.] This was in heaven, not on earth. Hence, another irrelevant point. Matthew 24 is clearly talking about a "parousia" -- which in Greek means "presence" -- on earth after the Ascension. Thus, what John experienced is irrelevant to measure what Paul' saw as an "appearance" of Jesus outside Damascus.
So when you subtract each irrelevant point, it turns out that so far you have found nothing to controvert our Lord Jesus warns us about the Jesus whom Paul claimed to meet outside Damascus. Or is there some flaw in this you can show me once you actually take the time to read what I wrote -- Jesus' Prophecy About the Jesus Who Identified Himself to Paul.
I have learned that truth only comes by a willingess to read and study that which I currently do not agree with, try to find flaws, and if I cannot, I submit to God's truth -- here the one you call your Master -- our Lord Jesus -- the true Jesus. There is real freedom indeed in obeying Jesus, and His words alone. 
So I am still looking for you to answer the evidence in Acts 9 against the prophecy of Jesus in Matt 24:4-5 and 27-28, if you can. If you cannot, I understand. I don't see any means of doing so either.

Jonas' Two Separate Responses
Response #1 October 8th
Fair enough I will study your material and get back with you. I will only deal with post resurrection. I will be out of pocket today. You will hear from me soon. Without having read your article can you tell me if you address John not having been caught up into heaven
 until chapter 4 and how you place the events in chapter one in heaven?  Thanks
Response #2
The reason I asked about Acts 15 is because men came from Judea representing that the
apostles were teaching the Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. Paul went to meet with the
apostles to determine if this was indeed their position on the matter. After much discussion The Apostle Peter stood up and said

 "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even ashe did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon 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, even as they.
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye mustbe circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no suchcommandment: 25 it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
The conclusion the Apostles of Jesus Christ came to was as follows:
1. Why do we tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples. which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.
(could not bear what? The Law of Moses. Surly he wasn't referring to circumcision on the eighth day being a burden.
2. By preaching the Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses the Apostles concluded they were subverting their souls.  ( are you sure based on the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ you are not subverting souls by saying we need to keep the Law of Moses)
3. The Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ called Barnabas and Paul beloved "Men who hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely they were not rebuking them as false brethren. 
These were the words of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. They sided with Paul's position.  The Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law Of Moses.  Be Blessed

My Response 10/13/2013
I just noticed I did not respond to your quote of James in Acts 15:24 where it attributes to James that he said that they (the apostles) gave no command to obey the Law. But you of course agree we are talking about Acts 15 written by Luke, and not inserted later. I already did an in depth study on that verse-- and it first came into existence [as part of the verse] in the 10th Century. Here is a footnote 24 from ch. 5 of Jesus' Words Only:
The KJV atypically accepts one late textual corruption. This is in James' mouth in Acts 15:24. This makes it appear James said the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles. The KJV has it that James says some have tried "subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment." (Act 15:24.) However, the ASV & NIV correctly omits "ye must be circumcised and keep the law," saying instead some tried "subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment." Why did the KJV add the above bolded words? The UBS' Greek New Testament (4th Ed) says this entire phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175 (pg. 476), which dates from the Tenth Century A.D. (pg. 17). The phrase "keep the Law" first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius (pg. 467). Amphilochius died "after 394," and this copy of the Apostolic Constitutions is dated to "about 380" (pg. 31.) All the earlier texts omit both changes to Acts 15:24.
I explained that when the pagan emperor Constantine wanted Christians to worship Sol Invictus in the guise of "Jesus", and stop resting on Sabbath, and move this to Sun-day -- the worship-day of the god Sol Invictus, Paul's status was elevated because he alone aided the notion the sabbath was abolished, and the Law did not have to be followed. See Council of Nicea of 325 AD, and The Sabbath Command.
So around 380 AD and later, this verse begins to appear not in the existing Acts (e.g., the Sinaiticus, and all earlier mss), but only in small variants which then become predominant after the 10th century.
Can you dispute that, and prove 15:24 in the KJV was originally written by Luke? If you cannot, please realize that the NT manuscripts have been tampered with -- 1-2% -- but usually to edge things slightly to help Paul beginning in the late 300s because of this strenuous battle to wipe out Sabbath observance, and replace it with observance of Sun-Day -- first passed as [a pagan] law in 321 AD.

My Request on 10/13 to Response to 10/8 Longer Letter
Here below [reader, see above 10/8] is the letter on the 8th where you said you would respond to my earlier letter on Matt 24 but you were out of pocket for that day. You and I talked about John's revelation later, but the points in this email were not addressed -- whether you have any response, I would like to know because I still believe Matt 24 incontrovertibly is a command of our Savior "not to listen to" Paul's "Jesus' -- as an imposter.
By the way, when you send me comments of what some believe based upon Paul, you know I already know all those teachings, right? I thought you wanted to prove to me that Jesus does not command us to ignore Paul. For that is what you were originally addressing. If Jesus did not do so, then the next question is whether Paul has any authority that is Biblical -- [1 ] as a true apostle appointed by Jesus, and then what kind of authority is that (e.g., just quoting Jesus or teaching apart from claiming Jesus's words are involved?), and [2] a prophet. 
In JWO, I demonstrate Paul is neither. Thus, it is pointless to quote me Pauline doctrine of which I am certainly very familiar unless you can rebut my analysis. It does not overcome my master's commands to not listen to Paul unless you can prove Jesus does not make such commands. Nor do those quotes you provide prove yet Paul is an apostle appointed by Jesus or that Paul is a prophet. If you proved Paul gave a prophesy that came true (he did not), then what about the prophesy about saying the ship would be lost (Acts 27:22-25) but it did not happen? Even if Paul were a prophet somehow despite giving a failed prophecy, if Paul's words seduce people from obeying the Law, then God says He is a false prophet in Deut 13:1-10. The fact Paul gives self-contradictory views on the Law - some of which you recently cited to say Paul does not say the Law is dead (Paul says it lives in us to stir up concupescence -- a blasphemy, FYI) -- does not take away Paul's many indications that we no longer have to heed or obey any of the Law, whether Jew or Gentile. (Romans 7:1-7.) 
So try to answer the most difficult passage from Jesus -- Matt 24. There are more hurdles after that one if you can actually answer Matt 24, which so far has not happened. 
Then there is Matt 5:17-19 where Jesus says those in heaven will call the one who teaches you not to obey the Law "least," contrasted against those who teach otherwise who will be the "greatest" in heaven. And Paul's Latin name of Paulus is shortened form of Pauxillilus which means "least." [See link.] A knock on Paul from our savior.
And a few more from Jesus once you get past Matt 5:17-19, if you can. E.g.,Rev. 2:2 - topic of the entire book Jesus' Words Only.
To repeat, if Jesus did not command us to ignore Paul, or God in the Original Testament did not prophesy against Paul (Deut 29:47 - Benjamite Wolf; Habakkuk 2:2-5 - a man of pride to draw Gentiles away in latter days but the just will live / be justified by hacing a similar faithfulness that this prideful man exhibits -- see this link), and Paul were a true Apostle or Paul were a true prophet who God tells us can abrogate the Law and contradict Jesus of the 12 and thereby supercede the pre-Ascension Jesus, then I would endorse everything you teach.
PS Habakkuk proves to me Paul was extremely faithful and zealous to the experience he had with the “Jesus" he thought was our Jesus. We are justified by such faithful obedience to our similar experiences with the true Jesus. The problem with Paul is God tells us in Habakkuk that this man of pride whose spirit is not right in himself is misleading the Gentiles away from God in the latter days, and thus his personal applaudable faithfulness was misdirected to the wrong Jesus. [See link.]
FINAL NOTE: Today is April 17, 2020. I never heard from Jonas again. Please pray for Pastor Jonas. He is a leader of a very big church.