Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 121 of 219 (213156)
06-01-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
06-01-2005 12:22 PM


Not wild slanders but a reading of the texts
Most translations have "Simon the Canaanite" not "Zealot."
I think almost all Bibles call him ‘Simon the Zealot’ somewhere in their pages. Certainly every one that I have read does, I haven’t read them all obviously, but can you tell me which ones don’t call him a zealot?
Just to support my claim, here are some references:
King James Version 21st century Edition
Luke 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and
Simon called the Zealot
New International Version
Luke 6:15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot
New American Standard Version
Luke 6:15 and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot
New Revised Standard Version
Luke 6:15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot
New Living Translation
Luke 6:15 Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot),
There are other versions that support my statement, and I think you will have difficulty supporting the claim that most translations. . But, who knows, maybe you will.
In any case a member of the Zealot party would have been FAR from happy with this Messiah who turned out not to be leading Israel to victory over the Romans.
So, what makes you think that he wasn’t far from happy? He could be raging, but still couldn’t face the fact that everything he had told people turned out to be hogwash.
Where would he get the motivation from his personal political position to preach this crucified failure of a Messiah?
As I said, the motivation from saving face in front of the population, and having a fairly comfy living.
Judas? What makes him somebody who would promote the Messiah Jesus? He sold him out.
Out of the whole band of them, Jesus included, Judas makes the biggest sacrifice! Jesus would have been nothing without Judas. The poor guy drew the short straw and sacrificed himself for the movement. Jesus didn’t expect to get killed, that’s why he was sweating blood when it became obvious that his movement wasn’t strong enough.
Of course, Judas was a Zealot as well, the name makes it obvious.
Fishermen with personality. So? Nothing there to show they'd make anything up.
But, there is plenty there to show that they could have been Zealots as well. The name itself suggests this.
They'd go back to fishing and ponder their deep disappointment for the rest of their lives if Jesus had not risen from the dead and sent power from heaven.
How do you know that they could just go back to fishing after everything they had said was shown to be untrue? Did the population really take that kindly to being misled? That Jesus achieved nothing wouldn’t make any difference to their lives, they would just keep preaching and hope that the true messiah didn’t turn up.
They weren’t all fishermen either.
They were simple honest men, not at all the kind who would make things up. That's just ridiculous.
How can you psychoanalyse men who lived 2000 years ago?
How do you know what they are capable of and what they aren’t?
One thing I think that we can say that remains consistent over the centuries is human nature. The disciples were human, and thus capable of anything.
Non sequitur. Doesn't matter what you think of his character, this is about the authenticity of teachings that are written down by others. There is no lack of authenticity implied in either case.
The authenticity is secondary to my point. My point was that Buddha was a far nicer person than Jesus and this is reflected in his teachings.
Oh, BTW, Simon Peter (depending on the actual meaning implied by bar Jonah) may also have been a Zealot.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 12:22 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 06-01-2005 2:57 PM Brian has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 122 of 219 (213172)
06-01-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Brian
06-01-2005 2:31 PM


Re: Not wild slanders but a reading of the texts
An interesting note to gMat 10:4 is offered by bible.org, specifically ...
quote:
10tn Grk the Cananean, but according to both BDAG 507 s.v. Kananai'o" and L&N 11.88, this term has no relation at all to the geographical terms for Cana or Canaan, but is derived from the Aramaic term for enthusiast, zealot (see Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), possibly because of an earlier affiliation with the party of the Zealots. He may not have been technically a member of the particular Jewish nationalistic party known as Zealots (since according to some scholars this party had not been organized at that time), but simply someone who was zealous for Jewish independence from Rome, in which case the term would refer to his temperament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Brian, posted 06-01-2005 2:31 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Brian, posted 06-01-2005 4:38 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 123 of 219 (213209)
06-01-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ConsequentAtheist
06-01-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Not wild slanders but a reading of the texts
I don't think that you have to be a member of the Zealot 'Party' to be a Zealot. A zealot was essentially any home rule extremist, and I think the authors of the texts would be well aware of the connotations of the word. The Zealots were not exactly an organised party as such.
The Lutterworth says this:
The Zealots were hotheaded superpatriots and in the vanguard of revolution against Rome. Butit would be misleading to refer to them as a sect or party throughout the late biblical period. Rather, they were home rule fanatics, a largely unorganised movement unified only in opposition to a foreign political control. Their excessive zeal for God and the Law led to a tendency towerads violence. Their roots go back to the time of the Maccabees in the second century BCE and the emphasis on maintaining the exclusive worship of God...... Apparently the founding of the Zealots may be traced to Judas the Galilean and his leading a revolt during the census of Quirinius in 6 CE.
As far as violence goes, we do have Simon Peter cutting off Malchus' ear at Jesus arrest.
Doesn't really sound like Faith's band of flower arrangers to me.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 06-01-2005 2:57 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 5:03 PM Brian has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 219 (213217)
06-01-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Brian
06-01-2005 4:38 PM


Re: boldness, zealotry, Simon the Canaanite
I don't think that you have to be a member of the Zealot 'Party' to be a Zealot. A zealot was essentially any home rule extremist, and I think the authors of the texts would be well aware of the connotations of the word. The Zealots were not exactly an organised party as such.
No, but the point was that a Zealot would have expected the Messiah to deliver Israel from Rome, and THIS Messiah died, not exactly your inspiring moment for a Zealot, not calculated to fire him up to his political purposes, far more likely to send him into hiding, which is what all the disciples did when Jesus was crucified.
As far as violence goes, we do have Simon Peter cutting off Malchus' ear at Jesus arrest.
Doesn't really sound like Faith's band of flower arrangers to me.
Peter was reduced to cowardice shortly afterward if you will recall, and again, the whole lot of them retreated in confusion after Jesus' crucifixion. Even His resurrection and appearance to them didn't inspire any preaching of the gospel. It took the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to accomplish that.
NO WAY could these twelve have invented the facts of the resurrection and the ascension. They had a completely other Messiah in mind, a very earthly kingly military leader after the model of David, and if anyone had told them the full mission of the Messiah they wouldn't have believed it and they certainly wouldn't have expected anyone else to believe it. They had to experience it to believe it, and then they KNEW, and it was only when they knew beyond a doubt that they could preach it with boldness.
I thought you asked me which other translations have Simon the Canaanite so I looked them up but now I don't see that in your post. Oh well, here they are:
King James:
Mat 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Mar 3:18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
========
Simon (the Zealot),
Judas Iscariot (who later betrayed him).
Footnote:
Greek the Cananean.
New Living Translation 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
==========
NKJV-Mat 10:4- Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.
New King James Version 1982 Thomas Nelson
============
NASB-Mat 10:4- Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.
New American Standard Bible 1995 Lockman Foundation
=========
RSV-Mat 10:4- Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Revised Standard Version 1947, 1952.
==========
Webster-Mat 10:4- Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
=============
Young-Mat 10:4- Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who did also deliver him up.
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
============
Darby-Mat 10:4- Simon the Cananaean, and Judas the Iscariote, who also delivered him up.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
=============
ASV-Mat 10:4- Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
American Standard Version 1901 Info
============
HNV-Mat 10:4- Shim`on the Kana`ani; and Yehudah from K'riot, who also betrayed him.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
=============
Vulgate-Mat 10:4- Simon Cananeus et Iudas Scariotes qui et tradidit eum
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info
==========
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Brian, posted 06-01-2005 4:38 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Brian, posted 06-02-2005 6:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 125 of 219 (213222)
06-01-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ConsequentAtheist
06-01-2005 11:43 AM


Re: Dating of the synoptics
ConsequentAtheist writes:
I'm sorry, but which part of
"To the extent that parallels are real, they could just as easily reflect the pseudepigraphic James being written with Paul in hand."
do you think warrants 'substantiation'?
if you read the article you'll find that it's not a straight, one-to-one parallel. It does look as if James is raising points and Paul is specifically addressing them (James: "Was not Abraham our father...", Paul: "Thus Abraham.... ", James: "Listen, my beloved brethren...." - Paul: "But because of false brethren... "). Paul is also referring to James by name.
It could all be circumstantial, of course, but it's an interesting point IMHO.
So, just because the claim is made that Paul looks like he's responding to James, doesn't mean that you can apply it the other way round, without justifying it.
** EDIT for spelling
This message has been edited by Legend, 06-01-2005 05:36 PM

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 06-01-2005 11:43 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 126 of 219 (213362)
06-02-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Brian
06-01-2005 8:17 AM


Re: Zealous Zealots
Brian,
Imagine finding you in a NT thread! It's sounding like you accept or at least find most likely an historical Jesus that failed and his disciples not accepting his death?
What do you think of the mythicist position that Paul was preaching a Christ from a higher realm and only later did Mark by midrash create a story of an historical person based on passages from the OT? I'm thinking particularly of Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle, but there are other mythicists.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Brian, posted 06-01-2005 8:17 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Brian, posted 06-02-2005 8:14 AM lfen has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 127 of 219 (213408)
06-02-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
06-01-2005 5:03 PM


Re: boldness, zealotry, Simon the Canaanite
No, but the point was that a Zealot would have expected the Messiah to deliver Israel from Rome, and THIS Messiah died, not exactly your inspiring moment for a Zealot, not calculated to fire him up to his political purposes, far more likely to send him into hiding, which is what all the disciples did when Jesus was crucified.
So, it sent them into hiding during which time they concocted a story that enabled them to save face, perfectly plausible.
It isn’t difficult to imagine Simon the Zealot being disappointed in Jesus and then realising that he would have to face everyone that he had told that Jesus was the main man. It’s human nature to grasp at any get out clause that would enable you to explain what you ‘really’ meant to ridiculers.
Peter was reduced to cowardice shortly afterward if you will recall, and again, the whole lot of them retreated in confusion after Jesus' crucifixion.
No wonder they were confused, they had been taken in by someone who clearly wasn’t the messiah, it must have been devastating.
Even His resurrection and appearance to them didn't inspire any preaching of the gospel.
Well, see this is part of the excuse that they dreamt up. There was no resurrection or appearance, they were just part of this fictitious tale that was made up to save them from further embarrassment.
It took the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to accomplish that.
I have my own opinion of the Holy Spirit and of Pentecost, but I’m trying my best not to insult people
NO WAY could these twelve have invented the facts of the resurrection and the ascension.
They didn’t need to invent anything. Resurrection stories were ten a penny in first century Palestine, Mithras for example. As for ascension stories, the Old Testament would have provided a good example or two for them. They didn’t need to invent anything, just tweak extant tales a little.
You are also assuming that Jesus’ followers were pretty dense and couldn’t think up some excuses.
They had a completely other Messiah in mind, a very earthly kingly military leader after the model of David, and if anyone had told them the full mission of the Messiah they wouldn't have believed it and they certainly wouldn't have expected anyone else to believe it.
Anyone who actually knows anything about the messiah does indeed know that Jesus couldn’t have been the Messiah that the Jews were waiting on, so they had to present something other than what was expected when Jesus died. They could quite easily have borrowed some tales from the available ‘stock’.
They had to experience it to believe it, and then they KNEW, and it was only when they knew beyond a doubt that they could preach it with boldness.
Yes, people can convince themselves that anything is true, if they try hard enough. It says a great deal about the power of the human mind. Some people are convinced that the world was under 20 feet of water and that all life died out 4400 years ago, a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.
I thought you asked me which other translations have Simon the Canaanite so I looked them up but now I don't see that in your post. Oh well, here they are:
No probs, I have misread things myself before.
However, the issue was that you had stated:
They weren't zealots, they were ordinary Jews, many of them fishermen
To which I replied:
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. There's two for a start.
You then implied that Simon wasn’t a Zealot as MOST Bibles have ‘Simon the Canaanite’ rather than Simon the Zealot.
I then said that every Bible that I have ever read identifies Simon somewhere as a Zealot.
Your link actually support what I said, using the same search as you did it shows that ALL the Bibles that you quote from declare that Simon was a Zealot.
Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot),New Living Translation 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NKJV Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; New King James Version 1982 Thomas Nelson
NASB and Matthew and Thomas; James {the son} of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; New American Standard Bible 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,Revised Standard Version 1947, 1952.
Webster Matthew and Thomas, James the [son] of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes,Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
Young Matthew and Thomas, James of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby [and] Matthew and Thomas, James the [son] of Alphaeus and Simon who was called Zealot,J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
ASV and Matthew and Thomas, and James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,American Standard Version 1901 Info
HNV Mattityahu; T'oma; Ya`akov, the son of Halfai; Shim`on, who was called the Zealot;Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
Vulgate Mattheum et Thomam Iacobum Alphei et Simonem qui vocatur ZelotesJerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info
Also, as CA pointed out, the term in Matthew should not be confused with a geographical location.
Is there some sort of problem with Simon being a Zealot, does it make any difference at all?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 06-01-2005 5:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 06-02-2005 9:39 AM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 128 of 219 (213414)
06-02-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by lfen
06-02-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Zealous Zealots
Imagine finding you in a NT thread!
I know, I'll probably get a nosebleed!
It's sounding like you accept or at least find most likely an historical Jesus that failed and his disciples not accepting his death?
I accept an historical Jesus, probably through my heart rather than my head. But, I think that the disciples made up the story about the resurrection and the empty tomb. They accepted his death, but they had to cover it up to save their embarrassment.
But, we have Jesus bone box so their scam has been exposed.
Jesus' Ossuary!
Oh well, he had a good innings, as they say.
What do you think of the mythicist position that Paul was preaching a Christ from a higher realm and only later did Mark by midrash create a story of an historical person based on passages from the OT? I'm thinking particularly of Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle, but there are other mythicists.
I think it is perfectly plausible, it certainly is not beyond the realms of possiblity. When you consider the claims made about Jesus in the NT and then we have no contemporary references to this guy in any external texts then it does support the myth. Added to this the fact that the Gospels contradict each other greatly, contain obvious corruptions of OT texts, and contain historically impossible stories (e.g. Jesus' arrest and trial, then it isnt that far fetched.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by lfen, posted 06-02-2005 12:28 AM lfen has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 219 (213432)
06-02-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Brian
06-02-2005 6:41 AM


Re: boldness, zealotry, Simon the Canaanite
quote:
Is there some sort of problem with Simon being a Zealot, does it make any difference at all?
It doesn't matter. It's an academic point.
But I remain astonished at your ability to imagine that those men could concoct Christianity as a lie. Amazing. But I'm not going to argue it any more, I see no point. People believe whatever they believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Brian, posted 06-02-2005 6:41 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 06-02-2005 10:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 131 by Brian, posted 06-02-2005 11:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 130 of 219 (213474)
06-02-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
06-02-2005 9:39 AM


Re: boldness, zealotry, Simon the Canaanite
quote:
... I remain astonished at your ability to imagine that those men could concoct Christianity as a lie.
I fully agree! In fact, it is amazing that anyone could believe that those men had anything whatsoever to do with concocting Christianity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 06-02-2005 9:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 131 of 219 (213504)
06-02-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
06-02-2005 9:39 AM


Re: boldness, zealotry, Simon the Canaanite
It doesn't matter. It's an academic point.
So, was he referred to as a Zealot or not? What is your conclusion?
But I remain astonished at your ability to imagine that those men could concoct Christianity as a lie.
It's not that much of a stretch Faith, you shouldn't underestimate the human imagination.
I also think that you would need to consider the long drawn out process that took place before Christian beliefs crystallised. The concocting of Christianity didn't take place overnight.
Amazing.
Thank you very much, do you think the book would sell?
But I'm not going to argue it any more, I see no point.
I prefer the word 'discuss' it's more friendly.
People believe whatever they believe.
Indeed they do, it is how and why we arrive at our conclusions that differ.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 06-02-2005 9:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Jabez1000
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 219 (219048)
06-23-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ramoss
04-23-2005 12:15 PM


Paul of Tarsus - the Jew
ramoss - Paul , it appears, was vastly influenced by the majority religion of Tarsus. That is not Judaism. That is not the religionous upbringing of Jesus.
Jabez - is there any extra-biblical evidence that could lead one to believe Paul was raised in Tarsus. I ask this because Paul said in Acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." Paul was in Jerusalem when he said this.
In Acts 23:6 Paul says "Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." Paul would have been brought up in a Jewish home and his Father would have not tolerated him going after foreign religions, nor would Paul have made it as a Pharisee unless he practiced Judaeism legalistically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:15 PM ramoss has not replied

  
loko 
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 219 (230057)
08-05-2005 8:21 AM


We must not put the bible before God, there are things that cannot be said by the Spirit so we must decide to follow Paul or Yeshua.
Paul And The Law
-The constant feature on Paul letters are his references to the Law and salvation by faith alone:
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Rom 3:28)
-There is nobody that can be blameless regarding the Law. This is why our sins are forgiven by faith in Jesus and grace. Does this mean that him who has faith doesnt have to observe the law?
You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (gal. 5:4)
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Gal. 5:2)
-According to Paul we must not observe it, but him who observe it has no possible forgiveness from his sins. What is the opinion of Paul about the Law?
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 (gal. 3:13)
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law (1 cor. 15:56)
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 (gal 3:10)
-Is the Law a curse? Is the law the strength of sin? Or the curse and the power of sin is to not fulfil it. Lets look what we have to do according to Paul.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (rom 6:14)
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Rom. 7:25)
-Is this the same as what taught Jesus?
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever (John 8:34-35)
-Do we overcome sin by faith, or by faith with works?
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.(rom. 4:2-5)
-If you sin it doesnt matter because you are under grace, but if you do the works of the law you are the only sinner according to Paul. Lets look to the passage what Paul refers to:
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (gen 22:16-18)
-Abrahams faith implied to obey Gods command but Paul says that its ok him who do not act but has faith. This was not Abrahams case.
Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abrahams children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (John 8:39-40)
-What taught the apostle James regarding this?
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. (James 2:14-23)
-It seems that the "apostle" Paul and the apostle James difer in their points of view. What of them its more close to what Jesus taught?
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (mat 7:21)
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mat 19:17)
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Mat 5:48)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Mat. 16:27)
-Jesus taught that we should follow the commandments. That nobody can be blameless dont justify to dont do anything.
Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. (Luk 13:24)
-Paul says that the Law is abolished and all things are lawful.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (eph 2:14-15)
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 cor.6:12)
-Did Jesus abolish the Law and say that all things are lawful?
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)
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. (Mat 5:29)
-Its evident that there were discrepancies between Paul and the apostles:
But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those superapostles. (2 cor 11:5)
-Paul says that he is blameless:
Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (phil 3:4-6) (blameless persecuting the righteouss? Does not he said that nobody can be blameless regarding the Law?)
-What does an apostle have to do to reach converses?
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 cor 9:20-22)
-What instructions gave Jesus to his apostles?
And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (Mat 10:13-14)
-We can find some new doctrines in Paul letters.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 tim. 11:12)
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (1 Cor. 11:4-6)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (1 cor. 14:34-37) (I havent read this commandment in the law. Doesnt say Paul that we must not follow the Law?)
-Paul also blasphemes and says that he is the Father and the Son:
After all, though you should have ten thousand teachers in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. (1 cor 4:15)
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (gal. 1:15-16)
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Mat. 23:9)
-We must seek what Jesus taught and not what Paul taught, because paul contradicts Jesus.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (rev 2:2)
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (rom 3:7)
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. (2 cor 12:16)

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ramoss, posted 08-05-2005 9:54 AM loko has not replied
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 08-05-2005 11:31 AM loko has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 134 of 219 (230090)
08-05-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by loko
08-05-2005 8:21 AM


One thing I will point out is that Martin Luthor added the term 'ALONE' because that is what he beleived.. but 'FAITh ALONE' is not biblcial

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 8:21 AM loko has not replied

  
loko 
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 219 (230130)
08-05-2005 11:16 AM


luther was another antichristian, but the people who really seek God will not be deceived.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024