What is requirement for salvation?

[ProDeo]

You have to read in the context of the totality of Jesus’ ministry.

That's right, Jesus' ministry, not anyone else's.

I am still curious to learn about Paul's false teachings.

[DavidGYoung]

The Franciscans would take the same part, including what Jesus said after the rich young ruler had left, and still conclude that keeping the commandments, selling their possessions and giving all that was left to the poor were the requirements for salvation. They might maintain that those last two were in fact parts of the commandments. I'm fairly sure the Hussites would as well.

[RabbiKnife]

The RCC has been adding works to faith for millennia.

[meshak]

The RCC has been adding works to faith for millennia.

So?

[meshak]

You have to read in the context of the totality of Jesus’ ministry.

That's right, Jesus' ministry, not anyone else's.

I am still curious to learn about Paul's false teachings.

He added his own teaching to Jesus' word.

EG, speaking in tongues.

[RabbiKnife]

Which are false?

[meshak]

Which are false?

I just said he added his own teachings to His teachings.

See post#79

[RabbiKnife]

Paul learned his gospel directly from Jesus.

That’s not adding his teaching to Jesus

That’s him writing down what Jesus revealed to him

[meshak]

Paul learned his gospel directly from Jesus.

There is no evidence of it.

[RabbiKnife]

Paul testified to it.
Peter calls Paul’s writings “Scripture.”  The church universal has called and recognized Paul’s writings as scripture for almost 2000 years

As you wiser than Paul, Peter, and the universal body of Christ?

[DavidGYoung]

For about 1500 years the Church Universal regarded the Septuagint as scripture, with only the Tanakh being suggested in its place around 500 years ago by the Protestants.

Which one, if either, do you go with and why?

[RabbiKnife]

I’m not sure you have that right.

The church, including Protestants, have always accepted the Books of Moses, the prophets, the psalms, the histories, and the wisdom literature.

There has never been universal acceptance of the apocryphal writings

[DavidGYoung]

Throughout the history of what we would now call the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, their Old Testament was based on the Septuagint. There were a few variations among the Orthodox, but the writings Protestants call The Apocrypha were always treated as holy writ.

From the Reformation, Protestants started to reject these writings. It has only been five hundred years or so in which you would have found churches where The Apocrypha was not accepted, and by Christians outnumbered by Christians who do accept them and always have done.

[RabbiKnife]

And protestants reject Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma as well.  And everyone rejected the non-canonical NT apocryphal books.  Martin Luther could barely acknolwedge that the Epistle of James was in the NT.

The church prior to Constantine did not universally accept the Apocryphal writings.  The Jews of Jesus' day did not, if memory serves, accept them a canonical.  The ECF were all over the place.  The councils were all over the place. 

The point being?

[meshak]

I’m not sure you have that right.

It is how I read the NT.

Jesus is the author of Salvation, not Paul.

It is your prerogative to put Paul on a pedestal.

good luck with that.