Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 2:12am

Soul Winner I answered PDN's question in post #29. The theology you're arguing by here is Pauline. At least we are agreed that there was a major division, indeed nothing short of all out war as you say. Personally I take the word of the brother of Jesus and his closest friends over that of this lying spouter Saul who hardly knew them and had never known the man they mourned. That you would prefer his character over that of James the Just is incredible to me.

As for your attack on my sources whatever of Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh, who merely expressed well the points of the case, the site at Geocities is well referenced and presented to academic standards. It uses the same sources you wish to introduce but in doing so applies to them the process of reasoning and of reading between the lines, these oldest of human arts. Did you go to the site and follow the line of reasoning? Paul was arrogant and not a very nice man at all.

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 3:06am

Soul Winner wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is thus:

Saul of Tarsus a devout Jew and zealous for the Law of Moses brought up in the strictest sect of the Jews who persecuted Christians

Was under orders from the Temple to persecute the followers of Stephen at the time they were run out of Jerusalem. However did not persecute Jewish Christians such as the Apostles who were left unmolested in Jerusalem

Soul Winner wrote: »

because they preached a new doctrine contrary to the Law of Moses and threw them into jail and stood by, watched and even held the coats of those who stoned Stephen the first Christian martyr.

Again it was the Graeco-Jewish community of followers that were persecuted, all the brothers and sisters and apostles of Jesus stayed within the law and were not persecuted

Soul Winner wrote: »

Then was suddenly and dramatically turned from this Righteous path by the Devil disguised as Jesus to preach Grace and Peace to the unclean non Jews???

Is that what you believe happened?

Firstly I don't think you could call Sauls path a righteous path by any stretch. He was a murderer and a thug. He had a serious affliction of some nature, perhaps epilepsy. You seem to attatch great importance to the visions of this thug. If the Council of Jerusalem had believed in his vision then they would not have been so clearly antagonistic towards him and wanted Gentiles to become Jews.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I refer you again to the quote from Matthew in my first post. Jesus didn't have much time for His natural relatives when it came to doing the will of the One who sent Him.

It's not just his relatives like his Mother and James it's Cephas and John and the other Apostles.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just because Paul never met Jesus personally does not give you a basis to say that Jesus could not have chosen him out to further His message

Yes it does by logic. I cannot choose somebody out to further messages if I have never met them. It just can't happen. Perhaps you know of a mechanism whereby it can?

Soul Winner wrote: »

which was the good news of the Gospel which Jesus purchased with His own blood.

This I feel is Pauline nonsense, absolute illogical babble

Soul Winner wrote: »

The apostles in Jerusalem became redundant because of James.

This is priceless stuff, you can see the whole split clearly yet rather than blame it on Paul being untrue to Jesus you blame it on all his closest friends and family being untrue to him. You can't just single out James, he didn't make himself the leader of the group.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Gospel they started out to preach so powerfully became a mere add on to the laws and traditions James preached, the very things Jesus died to remove. No wonder Jesus had to go outside of the other Apostles and pick someone trained in the Law so that he (Paul) could explain its meaning in type to them and to the world in general. To Paul was given this great commission not the other apostles. If anything Paul got them back on the right track, especially Peter. Like I said to you over in the other thread, without Paul we would not be even having this debate and Christianity would be but a splinter group off Judaism today. Praise God for Paul.

Here again you are speaking more of the Pauline heresy

You can decide to follow Jesus or Paul but not both, they had different teachings. Jesus picked all the right men from the outset before he died. That you imply he was incapable of this shows little respect for Jesus and too much for Saul.

Soul Winner · 18-12-2007 3:27am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Paul was arrogant and not a very nice man at all.

Are you serious? A nice man? Never has a so called “nice man” reformed the church in its history. Give me courage, tenacity and intelligence over 'nice' any day of the week.

James' argument for works of the law versus Paul’s' argument for faith in God's promises

James:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:20-26

Abraham and Rahab? The liar and the Harlot. Saved by works. Is he for real? Abraham told his wife to lie to the Egyptians if they asked her if he was her husband. He said tell them I’m your brother. She was so beautiful Abraham knew that the Egyptians would kill him to get her. Saved by works? And Rahab ran a whore house. She also lied when the soldiers came for the spies. She hid them in straw and said that they went where they did not go. She lied and whored and James says she was saved by her works? Give me a break man, she was saved by her faith.

Now listen to Paul. Tell me if this rings true or not:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Romans 4

“By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” Hebrews 11:31

You can have James I’m sticking with Paul.

Soul Winner · 18-12-2007 4:20am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Was under orders from the Temple to persecute the followers of Stephen at the time they were run out of Jerusalem. However did not persecute Jewish Christians such as the Apostles who were left unmolested in Jerusalem

Stephen preached "Jesus" he did not preach Stephen. There was no followers of Stephen. Where are you getting this garbage from? It seems you'd squeeze any argument to fit your anti Paul cause. Were those who were converted because of Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 called followers of Peter or of Jesus? It's a rhetorical question you don't need to answer.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Again it was the Graeco-Jewish community of followers that were persecuted, all the brothers and sisters and apostles of Jesus stayed within the law and were not persecuted"

Exactly, those who still preached that you had to keep the law were not persecuted only the true Christians who preached Christ risen and no more need of the law were the one's being persecuted.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Firstly I don't think you could call Sauls path a righteous path by any stretch. He was a murderer and a thug. He had a serious affliction of some nature, perhaps epilepsy. You seem to attatch great importance to the visions of this thug. If the Council of Jerusalem had believed in his vision then they would not have been so clearly antagonistic towards him and wanted Gentiles to become Jews.

I wasn't calling his path a righteous path, I was making a point which obviously went right over your head. The council of Jerusalem added nothing to Paul as he wrote to the Galatians. He had to withstand Peter to his face at Antioch because he was being a hypocrite. He did eat with the non Jews until he seen the crowd from Jerusalem coming. They all fell fowl of the leaven of the Pharisees that Jesus Himself warned against. Paul was a thug and a murderer, but so was God's anointed King David, and Moses killed three thousand after receiving the law of God. Paul was zealous for the law of God. Jesus forgave him his sins and set him on a different path. The path of unfolding the secrets of the Old Testament types and shadows.

SubjectSean wrote: »

It's not just his relatives like his Mother and James it's Cephas and John and the other Apostles.

Nope wrong there, Peter and John were with Jesus all the time in his earthly ministry and I bet were there when He said this about his relatives. Again you are twisting everything to rationalise your empty argument to suit your anti Paul stance

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes it does by logic. I cannot choose somebody out to further messages if I have never met them. It just can't happen. Perhaps you know of a mechanism whereby it can?

Yes, by the mechanism of when you've died for the sins of the world and God raises you from the dead and gives you a name above every name that by your name every knee shall bow and puts all your enemies under your feet and gives you all authority in heaven and on earth.

SubjectSean wrote: »

This I feel is Pauline nonsense, absolute illogical babble

One man's meat is another man's poison. What you call babble I call enlightenment and vice versa I suppose.

SubjectSean wrote: »

This is priceless stuff, you can see the whole split clearly yet rather than blame it on Paul being untrue to Jesus you blame it on all his closest friends and family being untrue to him. You can't just single out James, he didn't make himself the leader of the group.

Yes I see the whole split clearly. Paul said if I yet please men I should not be the servant of Christ. James was a man pleaser. He could not hack the persecution of the Jewish Leaders that came from being a true messenger of the Gospel so he placated the them by preaching that new converts must keep the law of Moses. Anyone who preaches a compromised Gospel message is a man pleaser and is not the servant of God. The only thing I can say for James is that he paid the ultimate price for his non denial that Jesus was the Messiah. It took 19 years until he finally had to face down the Jewish leaders and not deny Jesus was the Messiah and then they threw him off a cliff to his martyrdom. It took 19 years though. Paul comes to town and within two minutes there is a riot. That's my kind of Apostle.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Here again you are speaking more of the Pauline heresy You can decide to follow Jesus or Paul but not both, they had different teachings. Jesus picked all the right men from the outset before he died. That you imply he was incapable of this shows little respect for Jesus and too much for Saul.

Oh contraire, it is you who implies He was incapable of continuing this type choosing after the Resurrection. Plus Jesus also chose Judas who was a son of the devil from the beginning, was he one of the "right men" you're referring to? After Judas killed himself Peter in his wisdom decided to cast lots to pick his successor. Acts 1:20. What a genius Peter could be at times. Mathias! Can anyone tell me what notable contribution Mathias has made to Christianity? Where was the faith that would have said: "The Lord knows what he is doing, he doesn't need us to choose for Him" ???

Praise Jesus

Pompey Magnus · 18-12-2007 10:52am

PDN wrote: »

A few names spring to mind:

RT France, former principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford, and author of the Recent new international commentary on Matthew.

...

Craig L Blomberg, author of The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel and Professor of New testament at Denver Seminary.

Are you sure of these sources? I have done a little check on these two at random, Bloomberg and R.T. France, and both seem to indicate the contrary in the articles by them that I read:

Bloomberg:

"One of the reasons John seems so different is because Matthew, Mark and Luke are related to one another at a literary level. Despite important distinctives, their accounts are more similar than dissimilar because Matthew and Luke adopted in general Mark's overall outline and selection of passages, while supplementing them as well."

Link to article

R.T. France:

"Most scholars in fact speak of a written source or sources (in addition to Mark) used by Matthew and Luke. It is not clear why this lost 'document' (known for convenience as 'Q') should be the only or the earliest such record."

Link to article

PDN · 18-12-2007 12:30pm

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Are you sure of these sources? I have done a little check on these two at random, Bloomberg and R.T. France, and both seem to indicate the contrary in the articles by them that I read:

Yes, I am sure of these sources.

Neither of the articles you link to indicate anything contrary to the authors' views that Matthew and John were the actual writers of the Gospels that bear their names.

You seem to be confusing the issue of authorship with that of literary relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that an eye-witness to an series of events would refer to any pre-existing written records before committing pen to paper.

Let me give you a concrete example. I was recently asked to contribute a chapter for a book covering the history of my denomination's congregations in Ireland. Now, I am certainly an eye-witness, since I founded our first congregation and have served as Bishop for a number of years. However, my first step (as with any sensible and careful author) was to gather as much material as possible to determine which events were the most noteworthy and to ensure that I remembered things in the correct chronological order. Therefore I contacted every pastor and minister in our churches and asked them to email me copies of every report or article they had written on these (recent) historical events. One of these reports (which had never been published) was so well written and carefully researched that I used it as a template for my own chapter, although I did add a number of events she had omitted and rearrange some material to reflect my thematic approach rather than a strictly chronological one. When I sent my chapter to the book's overall editor I attached copies of my colleagues' articles and reports (including the unpublished one - let's call it 'Q') so he could place them in our denomination's archives for any future research.

Now, I doubt if anyone will be much interested in reading my literary efforts five years from now, let alone 1900 years later. But imagine that in the year 4000 someone finds my chapter and other subsequent accounts based on the material I sent to the archives. By comparing our writings these future literary critics conclude that later historians used my chapter as a source, but that we obviously shared a common source. No copy of this common source exists, so the literary critics call it 'Q' (the critics are German and quelle means 'source').

Will these future critics assume that PDN was not the real author of my article? After all, since I used other sources then I can hardly have been an eye-witness, can I?

Bear in mind that I was writing about events that occurred a maximum of 15 years ago. Matthew was writing about events that occurred at least 30 years previously, so it is understandable that he may have used other written accounts as templates, including Mark's Gospel.

Now, imagine that in 10 or 20 years time a colleague of mine, also an eye witness to the founding of our churches in Ireland, decides to write a theological work that stresses a particular aspect of our work - that the multicultural and interracial harmony in our churches was a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he chooses some significant events from our history, but omits many of the events recorded in previous written accounts because they are irrelevant to his thesis. He also includes additional material from his own experience as an eye-witness, material that is highly relevant to his purpose but that we had not thought necessary to include in a more general history. This colleague of mine (let's call him John), having spent some of the intervening years in theological research overseas, may indeed use language that explains the history of the denomination in Ireland in the larger context of international debate over immigration and cross-cultural communication.

Our future literary critics will readily see that John, although he covers some of the same events, did not rely as heavily as me on Q. After all, his purpose was completely different. They will also see that John uses language and theological jargon that was unknown in our churches in Ireland in the early 1990s. Therefore they may mistakenly suggest that John was obviously not Irish at all, and therefore almost certainly not an eye-witness. If they are particularly imaginative they may even invent a 'Johannine Community' that reinterpreted the history of our churches.

All of which, if you have had the patience to read this far, demonstrates that apparent literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, and the lack of such relationships to the Fourth Gospel, have no bearing whatsoever on whether they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Therefore France, Blomberg and many others are behaving with impeccable scholarly logic in discussing literary sources etc yet still finding that other evidence strongly supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

Soul Winner · 18-12-2007 2:13pm

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I am sure of these sources.

Neither of the articles you link to indicate anything contrary to the authors' views that Matthew and John were the actual writers of the Gospels that bear their names.

You seem to be confusing the issue of authorship with that of literary relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that an eye-witness to an series of events would refer to any pre-existing written records before committing pen to paper.

Let me give you a concrete example. I was recently asked to contribute a chapter for a book covering the history of my denomination's congregations in Ireland. Now, I am certainly an eye-witness, since I founded our first congregation and have served as Bishop for a number of years. However, my first step (as with any sensible and careful author) was to gather as much material as possible to determine which events were the most noteworthy and to ensure that I remembered things in the correct chronological order. Therefore I contacted every pastor and minister in our churches and asked them to email me copies of every report or article they had written on these (recent) historical events. One of these reports (which had never been published) was so well written and carefully researched that I used it as a template for my own chapter, although I did add a number of events she had omitted and rearrange some material to reflect my thematic approach rather than a strictly chronological one. When I sent my chapter to the book's overall editor I attached copies of my colleagues' articles and reports (including the unpublished one - let's call it 'Q') so he could place them in our denomination's archives for any future research.

Now, I doubt if anyone will be much interested in reading my literary efforts five years from now, let alone 1900 years later. But imagine that in the year 4000 someone finds my chapter and other subsequent accounts based on the material I sent to the archives. By comparing our writings these future literary critics conclude that later historians used my chapter as a source, but that we obviously shared a common source. No copy of this common source exists, so the literary critics call it 'Q' (the critics are German and quelle means 'source').

Will these future critics assume that PDN was not the real author of my article? After all, since I used other sources then I can hardly have been an eye-witness, can I?

Bear in mind that I was writing about events that occurred a maximum of 15 years ago. Matthew was writing about events that occurred at least 30 years previously, so it is understandable that he may have used other written accounts as templates, including Mark's Gospel.

Now, imagine that in 10 or 20 years time a colleague of mine, also an eye witness to the founding of our churches in Ireland, decides to write a theological work that stresses a particular aspect of our work - that the multicultural and interracial harmony in our churches was a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he chooses some significant events from our history, but omits many of the events recorded in previous written accounts because they are irrelevant to his thesis. He also includes additional material from his own experience as an eye-witness, material that is highly relevant to his purpose but that we had not thought necessary to include in a more general history. This colleague of mine (let's call him John), having spent some of the intervening years in theological research overseas, may indeed use language that explains the history of the denomination in Ireland in the larger context of international debate over immigration and cross-cultural communication.

Our future literary critics will readily see that John, although he covers some of the same events, did not rely as heavily as me on Q. After all, his purpose was completely different. They will also see that John uses language and theological jargon that was unknown in our churches in Ireland in the early 1990s. Therefore they may mistakenly suggest that John was obviously not Irish at all, and therefore almost certainly not an eye-witness. If they are particularly imaginative they may even invent a 'Johannine Community' that reinterpreted the history of our churches.

All of which, if you have had the patience to read this far, demonstrates that apparent literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, and the lack of such relationships to the Fourth Gospel, have no bearing whatsoever on whether they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Therefore France, Blomberg and many others are behaving with impeccable scholarly logic in discussing literary sources etc yet still finding that other evidence strongly supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

Exemplary analogousness!

Pompey Magnus · 18-12-2007 4:00pm

PDN, that was an impressive explanation alright and indeed plausable. I'm still going to lean towards the assumption that Matthew and Luke are later copies but that is just the skeptic in me.

Out of interest do you believe that the Gospel of Judas was written by Judas? I suspect for that you would be happy enough to write that one off as a later writing by an anonymous non-eyewitness.

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 4:57pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Stephen preached "Jesus" he did not preach Stephen. There was no followers of Stephen. Where are you getting this garbage from? It seems you'd squeeze any argument to fit your anti Paul cause.

This garbage, as you have it, is from Acts. You are wrong to say there was no community of followers attatched to Stephen. If you read Acts 6 you will see that Stephen is chosen foremost from amongst the party of Grecian Jews. It is these people who are his followers.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Exactly, those who still preached that you had to keep the law were not persecuted only the true Christians who preached Christ risen and no more need of the law were the one's being persecuted.

Exactly. The closest friends and family of Jesus were left alone.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I wasn't calling his path a righteous path, I was making a point which obviously went right over your head.

You asked me if I thought it was a righteous path.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nope wrong there, Peter and John were with Jesus all the time in his earthly ministry and I bet were there when He said this about his relatives. Again you are twisting everything to rationalise your empty argument to suit your anti Paul stance

Sorry, you misunderstand me I think, I'm saying that even if you are correct and Jesus did not care for his mother and brothers, the Jerusalem Church led by James was made up of the Apostles and not just his family.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes, by the mechanism of when you've died for the sins of the world and God raises you from the dead and gives you a name above every name that by your name every knee shall bow and puts all your enemies under your feet and gives you all authority in heaven and on earth.

Again this is all Pauline and you may as well tell me about the mechanism by which Santy delivers presents. It is made up nonsense that the people Jesus left behind were in clear opposition to.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I see the whole split clearly. Paul said if I yet please men I should not be the servant of Christ. James was a man pleaser. He could not hack the persecution of the Jewish Leaders that came from being a true messenger of the Gospel so he placated the them by preaching that new converts must keep the law of Moses. Anyone who preaches a compromised Gospel message is a man pleaser and is not the servant of God.

Surely Pauls less stringent requirement to follow Jesus is the real 'man-pleasing' in all of this. Concentrating on the cruxifix, mere faith instead of acts, it's a broad path and there are millions on it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only thing I can say for James is that he paid the ultimate price for his non denial that Jesus was the Messiah. It took 19 years until he finally had to face down the Jewish leaders and not deny Jesus was the Messiah and then they threw him off a cliff to his martyrdom. It took 19 years though. Paul comes to town and within two minutes there is a riot. That's my kind of Apostle.

Josephus indicates that James was killed for political reasons and his death was protested by all kinds of Jews. I don't think his death had anything to do with his brother directly. It was their shared outlook that got them both killed IMO. The rich don't like the poor if they demand justice. The men who will demand it even to death, that's my kind of men.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh contraire, it is you who implies He was incapable of continuing this type choosing after the Resurrection. Plus Jesus also chose Judas who was a son of the devil from the beginning, was he one of the "right men" you're referring to?

Of course Judas was the right man, there'd be no story without Judas.

Soul Winner wrote: »

After Judas killed himself Peter in his wisdom decided to cast lots to pick his successor. Acts 1:20. What a genius Peter could be at times. Mathias! Can anyone tell me what notable contribution Mathias has made to Christianity? Where was the faith that would have said: "The Lord knows what he is doing, he doesn't need us to choose for Him" ???

As you say, Mathias! Who? Not a word of him after that little episode at the start of Acts. Many people consider that this is a redaction to the original source material and that it is the election of James, not Mathias, that was originally recorded. The faith that would have said: "The Lord knows what he is doing, he doesn't need us to choose for Him" was simply not there on account of the fact they did not think that Jesus was God. That would be a most greivous blasphemy to Jews of this nature. However the Grecian Jews, who were in large part apostate from their original religions, had no such qualms about making things up. Saul, for whatever reason, saw he would be best employed in ministering to them. The spooky man!

Praise God

philologos · 18-12-2007 5:49pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

So you say but I fail to see it. The people who wrote the Old Testament say you have the interpretation haywire for a number of reasons ranging from cultural ignorance to mistranslation. There is only Jesus as God in the Gospel of John. It is a bit of early gnostic nonsense IMO

Isaiah 9:6 wrote:

For a child has been born for us;
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
for he is named,
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace

I thought you believed that the whole Bible was nonsense. So what purpose do you have in confining your statement to the Gospel of John can I ask?

SubjectSean wrote:

No let me explain it to you you analyse the verse out of Matthew and then you rationalise that Jesus completed his task, all was accomplshed and thus the law is revoked. This is all just fine as far as it goes but if this was the case then why were his brothers and closest friends still living under the Law? the very people he left in charge? Paul, he does not follow the Law yet he abrogates it, this is the very opposite of what the people who knew Jesus are doing. They wanted gentile converts to be Jewish. Do you really think Paul would know better than them? This makes no sense and I suspect if you can make it make sense then you aren't being honest with yourself.

His blood was of the "new covenant". Do you understand what the word new means? In light of the word "old" in terms of the covenant. A new agreement would be passed by the blood of Christ, and it would come into being after His resurrection. It makes perfect sense.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 wrote:

The days are surely coming, says the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant which they broke though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord. I will put my law in their hearts and they will be my God and I will be their people

It will not be like the covenant that was given before! That is the purpose of "new" as opposed to "old".

Soul Winner · 18-12-2007 5:50pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

This garbage, as you have it, is from Acts. You are wrong to say there was no community of followers attatched to Stephen. If you read Acts 6 you will see that Stephen is chosen foremost from amongst the party of Grecian Jews. It is these people who are his followers.

Exactly. The closest friends and family of Jesus were left alone.

You asked me if I thought it was a righteous path.

Sorry, you misunderstand me I think, I'm saying that even if you are correct and Jesus did not care for his mother and brothers, the Jerusalem Church led by James was made up of the Apostles and not just his family.

Again this is all Pauline and you may as well tell me about the mechanism by which Santy delivers presents. It is made up nonsense that the people Jesus left behind were in clear opposition to.

Surely Pauls less stringent requirement to follow Jesus is the real 'man-pleasing' in all of this. Concentrating on the cruxifix, mere faith instead of acts, it's a broad path and there are millions on it.

Josephus indicates that James was killed for political reasons and his death was protested by all kinds of Jews. I don't think his death had anything to do with his brother directly. It was their shared outlook that got them both killed IMO. The rich don't like the poor if they demand justice. The men who will demand it even to death, that's my kind of men.

Of course Judas was the right man, there'd be no story without Judas.

As you say, Mathias! Who? Not a word of him after that little episode at the start of Acts. Many people consider that this is a redaction to the original source material and that it is the election of James, not Mathias, that was originally recorded. The faith that would have said: "The Lord knows what he is doing, he doesn't need us to choose for Him" was simply not there on account of the fact they did not think that Jesus was God. That would be a most greivous blasphemy to Jews of this nature. However the Grecian Jews, who were in large part apostate from their original religions, had no such qualms about making things up. Saul, for whatever reason, saw he would be best employed in ministering to them. The spooky man!

Praise God

I’m not getting anywhere with you am I? Maybe it would be better for us to just agree to disagree. You stick James and I'll stick with Paul. One final note though. If you're gonna try and gain entry to life by the Law then you better check yourself to see if you’ve ever broken any of it. The Law requires that you keep it perfectly, perpetually and ignorance is not an excuse, you cannot say that because you didn't know about some thing in the law that that gets you off, it doesn't. You must know it perfectly, do it perfectly all the time. Not one miss in your life time is allowed. If you can do that they you're laughing. If you haven't then I feel sorry for you, but heck, you're the one who wants to be judged by that standard. The only way you can say that the way of faith is an easy road is because you don’t practice it much. The way of Faith is easier than the the way of Law because the Law is impossible. You cheapen and belittle the Law if you believe otherwise. That does not mean that having faith in God is easy. Believe me I know, I've been practising it for 18 years now.

I leave you with a word from Paul:

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Gal 4 21-31

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 6:15pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought you believed that the whole Bible was nonsense. So what purpose do you have in confining your statement to the Gospel of John can I ask?

I don't thnk you ever heard me say the Bible was nonsense. It's a valuable document, precious to our species. I confine my statement to John because it is almost exclusively full of Greek notions that don't come from Hebrews.

Jakkass wrote: »

His blood was of the "new covenant". Do you understand what the word new means?

I do. This all comes down to whether you believe the 'new covenant' that Jesus and John the Baptist talked about was either the same 'new covenant' that the Essenes talked about; or if it was the 'new covenant' that Paul made up.

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 6:32pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

I’m not getting anywhere with you am I? Maybe it would be better for us to just agree to disagree. You stick James and I'll stick with Paul.

No we aren't getting anywhere but you're the first Christian I've ever met that even admits to a split so at least that was something new for me.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I leave you with a word from Paul:

I suppose to repay the favour I'll leave you with a word from the straight talking pseudo-James

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

philologos · 18-12-2007 7:06pm

SubjectSean wrote:

I don't thnk you ever heard me say the Bible was nonsense. It's a valuable document, precious to our species. I confine my statement to John because it is almost exclusively full of Greek notions that don't come from Hebrews.

Or notions that he had recieved from Christ. Most of these things come through dialogue that Christ had said to others.

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 7:06pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Was Isaiah of the Essenes?

No hardly, but they were abundantly aware of him, one of their major prophets AFAIK. They read him in the original Hebrew and saw no indication whatsoever that the messiah was to be God. This they hold in common with all of the Jewish faith.

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 7:10pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Or notions that he had recieved from Christ. Most of these things come through dialogue that Christ had said to others.

I doubt it, most of these ideas come from Greek philosophy. Perhaps you are one of the people who think Jesus was a Stoic or Sceptic?

philologos · 18-12-2007 7:30pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

I doubt it, most of these ideas come from Greek philosophy. Perhaps you are one of the people who think Jesus was a Stoic or Sceptic?

If you look to John 14:9 it comes from Jesus' dialogue. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father". It's not whether I think, it's there on the page.

SubjectSean · 18-12-2007 7:45pm

Jakkass wrote: »

If you look to John 14:9 it comes from Jesus' dialogue. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father". It's not whether I think, it's there on the page.

But only in John and nowhere else, why is it nowhere else in the earlier Gospels? It is because it is not true.

philologos · 18-12-2007 10:02pm

If that is your belief you have to deal with Isaiahs prophesy? Was Isaiah wrong?

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 2:27am

SubjectSean wrote: »

But only in John and nowhere else, why is it nowhere else in the earlier Gospels? It is because it is not true.

Can I ask you a question? What books of the New Testament in your view are reliable historical documents?

philologos · 19-12-2007 3:29pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can I ask you a question? What books of the New Testament in your view are reliable historical documents?

Very few if you take out John and Paul's works.

SubjectSean · 19-12-2007 3:48pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can I ask you a question? What books of the New Testament in your view are reliable historical documents?

They are all reliable historical documents. However, you would want to beware of taking them at face value. Men wrote them. Men rewrote them. For some unknown reason you do not think this could have possibly happened. Yet there is ample evidence. You need to beware of the scribes if you want to get to the truth.

SubjectSean · 19-12-2007 4:10pm

Jakkass wrote: »

If that is your belief you have to deal with Isaiahs prophesy? Was Isaiah wrong?

I don't read Hebrew so really I just don't know how Isaiah reads. I know that your 'prophecy' only reads the way you read it in the Septuagint and not in the original Hebrew. Have you read the original? Are you even aware of the differences between the original and the Septuagint? If you follow this link it will show you why you need to be aware of the original and not just take the claims of the Evangelists on face value because there are numerous times in the NT when Jewish scripture is badly interpreted.

http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_2/ts202g.html

[EDIT] The question you should be asking is not if I think the prophecy is wrong, but if your interpretation of it stands up to scrutiny.

BrianCalgary · 19-12-2007 4:55pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

But only in John and nowhere else, why is it nowhere else in the earlier Gospels? It is because it is not true.

You know Sean, I did an exercise once, and found it to be quite enlightening and have done it a few times since.

I took reports on football matches from different sources and compared them. The differences, if you focussed on them were quite astounding.

Your argument here is that: since only John recorded the statement of Christ and no one else did , then Christ didn't say it?

Before I go on, can you confirm my interpretation of what you are saying is correct, or correct me?

SubjectSean · 19-12-2007 5:07pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

there are numerous times in the NT when Jewish scripture is badly interpreted.

I think my favourite example of the duplicitous intent of the scribes has to be Matt 21:7 where the evangelist has misunderstood Zechariah 9:9

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey"

And has conjured up the ridiculous notion of Jesus riding two beasts of burden simultaneously as if he were some type of circus performer.

"They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them and Jesus sat on them" Matt 21:7

You who say our scripture is entirely God-given, do you really think God makes this kind of error?

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 5:09pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

They are all reliable historical documents. However, you would want to beware of taking them at face value. Men wrote them. Men rewrote them. For some unknown reason you do not think this could have possibly happened. Yet there is ample evidence. You need to beware of the scribes if you want to get to the truth.

It would appear that you and you alone have secret access this truth. Please let us in on the truth so we can too!!!

If you believe that all the documents are reliable then why do you harshly reject Paul who wrote two thirds of the New Testament and then at a glance accept the one epistle of James who wasn't added to the cannon until 500AD? You're basis for rejecting Paul is what I would really like to get at. Is it really because you just don't like him as a man? Or do you have information nobody else has that he was of the devil? Do you even believe in the devil? What does Jesus mean to you? Is He your Lord and Saviour or just and intriguing Historical figure?

I do believe men wrote them and for the most part under the inspiration of the holy spirit. The ones we have in the cannon were added there by the early church fathers. Sure they were re-written by men but very little modification form the oldest available manuscripts. Through the centuries there have been bad translation from the original languages but this was down the theological understanding at the time. Take Ephesian 2:1 for instance: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;” Eph 2:1 The "hath he quickened" in this verse was added by the translators, it is not in the oldest manuscripts. And the same goes for Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit " part here was also added by the translators? Why because they just couldn't believe that you can be saved without adding some of you own works to the mix.

There is a lot of this especially in the KJV but other than that kind of thing there is very little difference. For the most part the translations probably aren't strong due to the limitations of certain languages but the meaning can still be gleaned with enough research into the original language. Take Ephesians 1:4 for example: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” if you were to go back into he Greek and read this and then translate it back into English as best you could then it would read something like this: “According as God had chosen us out from among others not chosen in Him for Himself before the foundation of the world” You see the difference? The Greek is a much more precise language than the English as it does not allow for as much ambiguity.

The Greek has what’s known as a middle voice which English does not have. The middle voice in the Greek is when the subject of the verb is doing the action of the verb for himself. If he were doing it for someone else then you would use different voice. The English still retains certain voices like passive voice or active voice but has no middle voice. In Greek there are three words for love (Eros, Phileo and Agapao) where as in English these is only one word word fro all three types Eros erotic love, Phileo is brotherly love (I do for you and you do for me) and Agapao is the total giving of ones self to another without any thought of anything in return kind of love. The kind Jesus said we are to have for each other. In Greek if you are under something then you would use one word whereas if you where under something that was falling you word use a different word. No wonder God in the fullness of time sent forth His Son at a time when a language like this ruled.

Anyway I would like you to answer my other questions please.

SubjectSean · 19-12-2007 5:14pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You know Sean, I did an exercise once, and found it to be quite enlightening and have done it a few times since.

I took reports on football matches from different sources and compared them. The differences, if you focussed on them were quite astounding.

Your argument here is that: since only John recorded the statement of Christ and no one else did , then Christ didn't say it?

Before I go on, can you confirm my interpretation of what you are saying is correct, or correct me?

Yes Brian that's correct, I think the document was produced to counter the 'heresy' of the Jewish Christian church who did not profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus. The main reason I think this is that it contains ideas that would be alien to the first followers of Jesus in Jerusalem but not at all alien to followers of Jesus in lands to the north.

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 5:18pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Very few if you take out John and Paul's works.

You're left with less than one third even if you leave James in

JimiTime · 19-12-2007 6:33pm

What I find interesting is the dispute about the book of James. Is it really disputed as containing falsehoods by christians? It seems Soul Winner is saying its a tad spurious? Would many people find it spurious?

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 7:15pm

JimiTime wrote: »

What I find interesting is the dispute about the book of James. Is it really disputed as containing falsehoods by christians? It seems Soul Winner is saying its a tad spurious? Would many people find it spurious?

If you read the epistle of James and then read Paul’s letter to the Galatians for instance you will find that the two are diametrically apposed to one another. James says you are saved by your works and Paul says you are saved by Faith alone. The epistle of James was not added to the cannon for five centuries after the New Testament whereas Paul's letters were there from the get go. The question must be asked, why was James added so late in the day? I can only surmise that it had to do with a balancing act for the believers of the Faith with works doctrine at that time. They just couldn't believe that God could work through them by faith alone and produce the good works they wanted to achieve by fleshly effort. At least SubjectSean can see the rift (as he calls) a lot of Christians are ignorant to it. They see James and Paul as being in agreement with each other. But if you read them you will see that they are not. And as Paul was picked by Christ himself to go to the Gentiles (or non Jew of which I'm one) then I must side with Paul. And even if I wanted to side with James (which I don't) I would still have to go with Paul because James himself says that Paul and Barnabas are the Apostles to the Gentiles. Plus James only wrote to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Paul wrote to the saints which means the committed ones to God be they of the twelve tribes or not. Paul speaks more to me than James, he is more consistent and better trained on the Old Testament that James was and that becomes very apparent as you read both of them. Don't take my word for it, read them yourself.

PDN · 19-12-2007 7:29pm

JimiTime wrote: »

What I find interesting is the dispute about the book of James. Is it really disputed as containing falsehoods by christians? It seems Soul Winner is saying its a tad spurious? Would many people find it spurious?

Soul Winner's view of the Epistle of James would not be shared by most Christians. Luther did indeed call it "an epistle of straw" - but we would all be arrested if we followed Luther in everything he said and did.

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 7:52pm

PDN wrote: »

Soul Winner's view of the Epistle of James would not be shared by most Christians. Luther did indeed call it "an epistle of straw" - but we would all be arrested if we followed Luther in everything he said and did.

The only time being arrested is bad is when its for doing something good. What was Luther arrested for that was so bad? Wasn't St Paul the Apostle arrested? Wasn’t John the Baptist arrested and beheaded? The Apostles in Acts 5 were arrested and sure wasn't even Jesus arrested?

PDN · 19-12-2007 8:09pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only time being arrested is bad is when its for doing something good. What was Luther arrested for that was so bad? Wasn't St Paul the Apostle arrested? Wasn’t John the Baptist arrested and beheaded? The Apostles in Acts 5 were arrested and sure wasn't even Jesus arrested?

I didn't say that Luther was arrested. I said that we would be arrested if we followed Luther's example in everything. I was thinking specifically of his anti-Semitic diatribes, which were certainly not good at all. Also, Luther's urging that those who believed in Baptism by immersion (the anabaptists) should be drowned for their heresy would probably get you in the clink today for incitement to violence.

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 8:54pm

PDN wrote: »

I didn't say that Luther was arrested. I said that we would be arrested if we followed Luther's example in everything. I was thinking specifically of his anti-Semitic diatribes, which were certainly not good at all. Also, Luther's urging that those who believed in Baptism by immersion (the anabaptists) should be drowned for their heresy would probably get you in the clink today for incitement to violence.

Agreed that is not good at all but calling James strawy would be ok wouldn't it?

PDN · 19-12-2007 9:01pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Agreed that is not good at all but calling James strawy would be ok wouldn't it?

Mistaken, but hardly criminal. There's some great teaching in James.

SubjectSean · 19-12-2007 9:03pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

It would appear that you and you alone have secret access this truth. Please let us in on the truth so we can too!!!

Hey you're the one who knows they have found the whole of truth and have stopped looking. I'm just a seeker after it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you believe that all the documents are reliable then why do you harshly reject Paul who wrote two thirds of the New Testament and then at a glance accept the one epistle of James who wasn't added to the cannon until 500AD?

I believe they are reliable as historical documents but I don't take their contents in isolation and allow them to stand as testimony to themselves. This would be to deny the gift of critical reasoning, it would also deny the injuctions to listen very carefully and beware of the scribes. I accept pseudo-James because I believe it to be an accurate reflection of the type of religion followed by the very earliest followers of Jesus but I do so for reasons that are extraneous to the NT, it does not come down to one glace.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're basis for rejecting Paul is what I would really like to get at. Is it really because you just don't like him as a man?

I think he was most likely a Herodian. Murderous, sly and manipulative. All things to all men. I think his teachings are opposed to those of Jesus as we have discussed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or do you have information nobody else has that he was of the devil? Do you even believe in the devil?

Ha-Satan is hebrew for 'adversay'. I believe what you call the devil is the adversarial forces that exist within all the myriad systems of the universe and indeed at some level are even vital to their function. I believe that if these forces reach a point where they become dominant within a system then it becomes dysfunctional. I believe the central nervous system of Saul of Tarsus was dysfunctional, I believe this is his illness he talks of. You see the manner in which I blame your devil?

Soul Winner wrote: »

What does Jesus mean to you? Is He your Lord and Saviour or just and intriguing Historical figure?

If everybody did as Jesus said instead of just believing in him then humanity would be evolving away from our animal past towards the Kingdom by now and it might even already have arrived. I believe the only ethic that can put humanity on the right track is the one practiced by Jesus and his early followers, Francis of Assisi, Ghandi and certain other men and women. Still we are far from critical mass.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I do believe men wrote them and for the most part under the inspiration of the holy spirit. The ones we have in the cannon were added there by the early church fathers. Sure they were re-written by men but very little modification form the oldest available manuscripts.

Seriously you cannot say that there has been very little modification because the oldest manuscripts are not the originals or anything like. Given the nature of man and the history of the early movement it would be foolhardy to accept what we have as being a truly representative of the originals.

BrianCalgary · 19-12-2007 9:19pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes Brian that's correct, I think the document was produced to counter the 'heresy' of the Jewish Christian church who did not profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus. The main reason I think this is that it contains ideas that would be alien to the first followers of Jesus in Jerusalem but not at all alien to followers of Jesus in lands to the north.

Now we can get to the football analogy.

If you read two accounts of a match, let's say last weekends Man U - Liverpool match. Read the accounts from each website, you will find differences.

The Man U site may mention Owen Hargreaves contribution to the match, Liverpool may not. A Calgary reporter would definitely mention Owen's contribution, since he is from here.

So if both the Liverpool report and the Man U report do not mention Owens name in them and the Calgary one does, would you then be dismissing the fact that Owen did play because of the bias of the Calgary report?

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 9:32pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Hey you're the one who knows they have found the whole of truth and have stopped looking. I'm just a seeker after it.

Are you though? I must read more of your posts then, maybe there's something I missed.

SubjectSean wrote: »

I believe they are reliable as historical documents but I don't take their contents in isolation and allow them to stand as testimony to themselves. This would be to deny the gift of critical reasoning, it would also deny the injuctions to listen very carefully and beware of the scribes. I accept pseudo-James because I believe it to be an accurate reflection of the type of religion followed by the very earliest followers of Jesus but I do so for reasons that are extraneous to the NT, it does not come down to one glace.

Can't argue with that which is why I'm puzzled as to why you reject Paul.

SubjectSean wrote: »

I think he was most likely a Herodian. Murderous, sly and manipulative. All things to all men. I think his teachings are opposed to those of Jesus as we have discussed.

Even after his conversion? When did he actually murder after his conversion? God became a man for all men. It was what was necessary for us to relate to him. Paul's burning passion was to win souls for Christ not for himself. He was all things to all men in order to relate to them where they lived. What's so wrong with that? And your explanation as to how his teachings differ from Jesus did not hold much water. Can you expound please?

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ha-Satan is hebrew for 'adversay'. I believe what you call the devil is the adversarial forces that exist within all the myriad systems of the universe and indeed at some level are even vital to their function. I believe that if these forces reach a point where they become dominant within a system then it becomes dysfunctional. I believe the central nervous system of Saul of Tarsus was dysfunctional, I believe this is his illness he talks of. You see the manner in which I blame your devil?

SubjectSean wrote: »

If everybody did as Jesus said instead of just believing in him then humanity would be evolving away from our animal past towards the Kingdom by now and it might even already have arrived. I believe the only ethic that can put humanity on the right track is the one practiced by Jesus and his early followers, Francis of Assisi, Ghandi and certain other men and women. Still we are far from critical mass.

That is not what I asked. Please answer the question. What does Jesus mean to you? Is He Lord of your life or just an interesting person? Or both? Or neither?

SubjectSean wrote: »

Seriously you cannot say that there has been very little modification because the oldest manuscripts are not the originals or anything like. Given the nature of man and the history of the early movement it would be foolhardy to accept what we have as being a truly representative of the originals.

So you've seen the originals then? Cool where are they? Would like to see them myself. Many people died over the centuries since Christ to preserve as best they could the record. Burnt at the stake, and tortured to death. These men would hardly have paid such a terrible price if their intention were to change God's word for their own ends would they?

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 9:35pm

PDN wrote: »

Mistaken, but hardly criminal. There's some great teaching in James.

I really like his tongue and bridal analogy I have to say. Great if people could get that one down pat. Especially this poster

philologos · 19-12-2007 9:37pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you read the epistle of James and then read Paul’s letter to the Galatians for instance you will find that the two are diametrically apposed to one another.

From my belief, correct me if I'm wrong. By faith we welcome the Spirit into our lives and this enables us to be put right with the Lord. Also the Spirit leads us towards righteous deeds, or works. Thus I believe they are totally compatible dependent on interpretation.

Soul Winner · 19-12-2007 9:59pm

Jakkass wrote: »

From my belief, correct me if I'm wrong. By faith we welcome the Spirit into our lives and this enables us to be put right with the Lord. Also the Spirit leads us towards righteous deeds, or works. Thus I believe they are totally compatible dependent on interpretation.

Yes that is right. But the good works are the product if the indwelling spirit not fleshly effort. Those who want to be justified by the works of the flesh are still under law and not under grace. Grace is unmerited favour. It cannot be earned. Faith in God's promises is what gets the spirit in you not works of the law which is what James says. You start out in faith, you keep going in Faith and you end in faith. The works will come but they are not what you are judged by if you trust God. And that's what faith is, trusting. When God says something He means it. If you need provision faith grabs the promise "The Lord will provide.” If you're sick, faith grabs the promise, "I am the Lord that heals you" As Paul says if righteousness could come by works of the law then Christ is dead in vain. Listen to what he says to the Galatians here:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Galatians 3:1-14

Now James:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” James 2:14-26

See the difference?

SubjectSean · 20-12-2007 12:06am

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm puzzled as to why you reject Paul.

As I said I don't think the religion he preached is an accurate reflection of what Jesus preached or intended to be preached.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even after his conversion? When did he actually murder after his conversion?

He murdered the Gospel IMO

Soul Winner wrote: »

God became a man for all men.

The force that created the Universe, the great and powerul Father of a myriad of sentient species not just our own; I do not believe It took 33 years out of Its usual timeless functioning in order to come to this insignificant backwater in the guise of a barely sentient ape.

The creation rises like a dough, God does not have to come and blow the air pockets in with a straw because It knows they will arise.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It was what was necessary for us to relate to him.

You can relate to God without thinking that of all the planets and species It chose to became a type of overgrown monkey on Earth and then had Itself nailed to tree in order to pay some imaginary debt we alone owed It. This story makes me not relate to God, it is totally much too much of a monkey story.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Paul's burning passion was to win souls for Christ not for himself. He was all things to all men in order to relate to them where they lived. What's so wrong with that?

Becoming all things to all men is clearly duplicitous.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And your explanation as to how his teachings differ from Jesus did not hold much water. Can you expound please?

How about
Luke.16
[15] But he said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Luke.6
[26] Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

Vs

2Cor.8
[21] for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of men.
Rom.12
[17] Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.
Rom.14
[18] he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
1Cor.10
[33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

No doubt as many examples as I come up with you will theologise your way around (like as not using Pauls own reasoning). However the two philosophies are not compatible.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If I get into metaphysics Atheists will jump all over me for an argument. Basically what I'm saying is that the devil is akin to a broken off piece of God and it clatters around in the works. I think it hit Paul in the back of the head.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That is not what I asked. Please answer the question. What does Jesus mean to you? Is He Lord of your life or just an interesting person? Or both? Or neither?

Jesus is one of many representatives that have come from my Beloved. He was a great man, perhaps even the greatest. I feebly try to copy. Only God is Lord to me but again that is a human word for a human relationship and my Beloved desires mercy that a Lord would not. I hope that has answered your question ok this time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you've seen the originals then? Cool where are they? Would like to see them myself. Many people died over the centuries since Christ to preserve as best they could the record. Burnt at the stake, and tortured to death. These men would hardly have paid such a terrible price if their intention were to change God's word for their own ends would they?

Nobody has seen the originals. That's kind of my point. You say what we have is as good as the originals. I say you can't know that. In fact given human nature it seems prudent to say that what we have is a corruption of the originals whose existance explains the whereabouts of the originals.

SubjectSean · 20-12-2007 12:29am

Soul Winner wrote: »

See the difference?

Ya I sure do

And I'd like to say that Paul in Galatians is clearly preaching against the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem of whom James is leader.

PDN · 20-12-2007 12:32am

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ya I sure do And I'd like to say that Paul in Galatians is clearly preaching against the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem of whom James is leader.

Not 'clearly' at all. Paul is warning the Galatians against the Judaisers who, contrary to the instructions of James and the Jerusalem Church, wanted Gentile believers to be circumcised.

SubjectSean · 20-12-2007 12:48am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Now we can get to the football analogy.

If you read two accounts of a match, let's say last weekends Man U - Liverpool match. Read the accounts from each website, you will find differences.

The Man U site may mention Owen Hargreaves contribution to the match, Liverpool may not. A Calgary reporter would definitely mention Owen's contribution, since he is from here.

So if both the Liverpool report and the Man U report do not mention Owens name in them and the Calgary one does, would you then be dismissing the fact that Owen did play because of the bias of the Calgary report?

I hear what you are saying Brian but it is a little more complex than your analogy allows for IMO. If we say the Calgary report was very late copy in language more usually suited to, for example, the horoscope page than the sports section; and it saw the game of football in some grandiose manner unconceived of in the other two reports, and yet it had at the same time clearly used the existing reports as source material; then yes I would be wrongly dismissing the fact in this case. However I have yet to see a soccer report written in such a manner yet the Gospel of John clearly is.

SubjectSean · 20-12-2007 1:14am

PDN wrote: »

Not 'clearly' at all. Paul is warning the Galatians against the Judaisers who, contrary to the instructions of James and the Jerusalem Church, wanted Gentile believers to be circumcised.

James and the Jerusalem Church wanted gentiles to be Jews IMO and I can't see any logic that would say anything to the contrary. Whatever concession Paul wrested from them at the Jerusalem council it did not acheive 'parity of esteem' in the new covenant between Jew and Gentile as can be witnessed at Antioch. By placing Gentiles under a version of the Law the Jerusalem Council are in no way saying that the Law is rescinded as Paul maintains in his spurious theology. Rather the council reaffirms the Law that has been in place for Gentiles since the time of Noah. My own personal feeling is that Paul's mission to the Gentiles was something of a shock to the Jerusalem Church. When they came round to realising what was actally going on with Pauls mission they sent people to set people straight. They arrive at Antioch when Peter is eating with the Gentiles and when they relay their message to Peter and he no longer sits with the Gentiles all the Jewish Christians at Antioch "joined him in this hypocrisy so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray" Which is shorthand for Paul was left all on his own in opposition to Jerusalem and even Barnabas who had aided him thus far. The people you see him in opposition to at Antioch, these are your Judaisers IMO. The enemies of Paul who he preaches and rails against are none other than emmisaries of the Jerusalem Church.

JimiTime · 20-12-2007 1:24am

Got to say, I think the whole James is anti-Paul or vice versa is inaccurate to put it mildly. They are in Harmony. They both say that Faith is essential, but James is saying that just being a hearer or believer is not really cutting it. As he says about the fact that the demons believe but shudder. I think it goes without saying that faith without works is dead. No doubt Paul believed this too, but was saying that no amount of works makes you deserving of saving, which is in agreement with James. Like James says, there are those that look in the mirror and when they look away, they forget the person they are. Its basically saying faith manifests itself in works. There are some foolish folks who just say, 'I believe' and think that thats it. However, the devil believes but condemned himself with his actions. We can believe, and still be wicked in our actions. By Grace we are saved, if we have faith. Works are a manifestation of our faith. Abraham had faith, this was manifested in works with the Issac incident. Job had faith, it was manifested with works. The common theme seems to be, don't be a hypocrite and don't switch on and off. Be the man you should be all the time. True faith manifests itself in every aspect of our life, just saying 'I believe' doesn't cut it. Nowhere do I see James saying works of law is what saves you. He is saying Grace through faith, but not just a wishy washy, 'I believe'.

Soul Winner · 20-12-2007 1:37am

SubjectSean wrote: »

As I said I don't think the religion he preached is an accurate reflection of what Jesus preached or intended to be preached.

The versus of scripture you use to prove that below are taken from Luke. But wasn't Luke the only one who stayed with Paul to the end? And wasn't Luke a gentile?
“Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.” II Tim 4:11

SubjectSean wrote: »

He murdered the Gospel IMO

He saved the Gospel IMO

SubjectSean wrote: »

The force that created the Universe, the great and powerul Father of a myriad of sentient species not just our own; I do not believe It took 33 years out of Its usual timeless functioning in order to come to this insignificant backwater in the guise of a barely sentient ape.

The creation rises like a dough, God does not have to come and blow the air pockets in with a straw because It knows they will arise.

So from whence came this enlightenment of yours?

SubjectSean wrote: »

You can relate to God without thinking that of all the planets and species It chose to became a type of overgrown monkey on Earth and then had Itself nailed to tree in order to pay some imaginary debt we alone owed It. This story makes me not relate to God, it is totally much too much of a monkey story.

Ah the plot thickens!!!

SubjectSean wrote: »

Becoming all things to all men is clearly duplicitous.

I could argue this with a Christian but there is no purchase with you as I really do not know where you’re coming form. I must admit you have me in riddles and that is not easy thing to do. Don’t gloat though I didn’t mean as a compliment.

SubjectSean wrote: »

How about
Luke.16
[15] But he said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Luke.6
[26] Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

Vs

2Cor.8
[21] for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of men.
Rom.12
[17] Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all men.
Rom.14
[18] he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
1Cor.10
[33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

No doubt as many examples as I come up with you will theologise your way around (like as not using Pauls own reasoning). However the two philosophies are not compatible.

It really doesn’t matter anymore. I thought I was arguing with a legalistic Christian. I think you should stick to what you know better and leave the doctrines and arguments within Christianity alone. You clearly haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

SubjectSean wrote: »

If I get into metaphysics Atheists will jump all over me for an argument. Basically what I'm saying is that the devil is akin to a broken off piece of God and it clatters around in the works. I think it hit Paul in the back of the head.

LMAO

SubjectSean wrote: »

Jesus is one of many representatives that have come from my Beloved. He was a great man, perhaps even the greatest. I feebly try to copy. Only God is Lord to me but again that is a human word for a human relationship and my Beloved desires mercy that a Lord would not. I hope that has answered your question ok this time.

It sure did thank you very much, still LMAO

SubjectSean wrote: »

Nobody has seen the originals. That's kind of my point. You say what we have is as good as the originals. I say you can't know that. In fact given human nature it seems prudent to say that what we have is a corruption of the originals whose existance explains the whereabouts of the originals.

I never said what we have is a good as the originals. When did I say that? Re Human nature yes you are onto something there but I don’t believe that it transcends throughout the whole of the human race. There’s good and bad everywhere don’t ya think?

Well I’m glad we cleared up a few things in that last post exchange. You should be more forthcoming with you religious beliefs so people can understand what angle you are coming from. It doesn’t pay to be over ambiguous. Goodnight to you sir :rolleyes:

PDN · 20-12-2007 1:41am

JimiTime wrote: »

Got to say, I think the whole James is anti-Paul or vice versa is inaccurate to put it mildly. They are in Harmony. They both say that Faith is essential, but James is saying that just being a hearer or believer is not really cutting it. As he says about the fact that the demons believe but shudder. I think it goes without saying that faith without works is dead. No doubt Paul believed this too, but was saying that no amount of works makes you deserving of saving, which is in agreement with James. Like James says, there are those that look in the mirror and when they look away, they forget the person they are. Its basically saying faith manifests itself in works. There are some foolish folks who just say, 'I believe' and think that thats it. However, the devil believes but condemned himself with his actions. We can believe, and still be wicked in our actions. By Grace we are saved, if we have faith. Works are a manifestation of our faith. Abraham had faith, this was manifested in works with the Issac incident. Job had faith, it was manifested with works. The common theme seems to be, don't be a hypocrite and don't switch on and off. Be the man you should be all the time. True faith manifests itself in every aspect of our life, just saying 'I believe' doesn't cut it. Nowhere do I see James saying works of law is what saves you. He is saying Grace through faith, but not just a wishy washy, 'I believe'.

I agree. And if you read Romans Chapter 6 then you see Paul is in agreement with James. Grace is not an excuse to sin, as would be the case if it was possible to have faith without accompanying good works. Genuine faith will produce increased holiness and good works. The overall theology is consistent. Salvation is by faith alone, but a faith that does not produce good works is a false faith (or dead) and so cannot justify.

JimiTime · 20-12-2007 1:50am

PDN wrote: »

I agree. And if you read Romans Chapter 6 then you see Paul is in agreement with James. Grace is not an excuse to sin, as would be the case if it was possible to have faith without accompanying good works. Genuine faith will produce increased holiness and good works. The overall theology is consistent. Salvation is by faith alone, but a faith that does not produce good works is a false faith (or dead) and so cannot justify.

Is there a scripture, I think its in romans, where Paul is talking about someone who has never recieved the law, but keeps it for it is written in his heart? I'm just wondering if its relative to what is being discussed. You know the one I mean?

Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

Comments