What does this mean?

[John317]

... Fact is, no one knows who the real author of 1st and 2nd Peter was, especially 2nd Peter.

All good Bible scholars will tell you that this is not a fact but an opinion of scholars. You cannot prove that no one knows who wrote second Peter. At best it is an educated opinion, and whoever says second Peter was not written by Peter could be right. But they also could be wrong. I beleive the evidence supports the Petrine authorship of Second Peter, but I admit that I could be wrong. That's the most anyone can say. The same thing can be said of the book of Revelation and the authorship of John the Beloved. The acceptance of the Apocalypse by the Western church also saw a great deal of controversy. That doesn't mean it was not written by the apostle John.

[Musicman1228]

1st and 2nd Peter have been called into question by experts in the field of textual criticism. Whether this is true or not is not relevant to the decision one must make as to whether these two books are 'the very words of God', as the NT has been described.

Making a claim that a writing is the very words of God when there is even a remote chance that it is not comes very close to the sin of grieving the Holy Spirit. If you make the claim that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of 1st and 2nd Peter (whoever that is) and that all the words therein are of God and they turn out not to be, then you may very well be held accountable in the judgement of the sin accusing the Holy Spirit of lying. That is the sin of grieving the Holy Spirit.

For me, I prefer to know (within a reasonable doubt) that what I am using to define truth is written by someone authorized by God for that purpose. If I have any doubt I (personally) decline to use said writing an an authority. Books in the NT that fall into this category are not only 1st and 2nd Peter but also include all of the writings of Paul, the gospel of Luke, Hebrews, James and Jude.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL truth, but this would be impossible if the source that is used to find truth is in itself filled with lies. For me this is not worth the risk.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: And where do you get the idea that Peter approved of Paul's gospel? No he didn't!

The Bible shows that Peter did just that. You choose to reject the testimony of Second Peter. I choose to accept the testimony of Second Peter. You might be right, but you also might be wrong. I believe I'm right, but I could be wrong. I believe God allowed this book to be made part of our Christian Bible, and I don't believe He would have done that if it was a lie. He kept the Old Testament pure and I see no reason to believe that He didn't also keep the New Testament free of false doctrines.

Quote:

DR Rich: Have you read Pseudo Clementine Homely 19 which gives us a picture of how Peter really felt toward Paul?

Please prove that the "Pseudo Clementine Homely 19" [i.e., the false Clementine Homily 19] tells us the truth and can be depended on historically to tell only the truth.

Why would you choose to put more faith in this false homily and reject a text found in the Holy Scriptures?

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Paul himself admitted that he did not agree with the 'pillars' of the new church, one of them being Peter. (See Gal.2)

This is not news. Every good Bible student knows that Paul did not agree with Peter on certain issues, such as Peter's refusal to eat with gentiles. Peter was wrong to do what he did. But those things didn't have to do with what Peter wrote in his lettes. Read about Peter's attitude in Acts 10 & 11. Peter backslid into his old practices, under pressure from some of the Jewish Christians. Paul saw these truths more clearly than did Peter and James.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: In fact, Paul admitted he did not get anything from the disciples.

True. Paul wanted it to be known that what he was preaching and teaching came directly from Christ and not from the apostles and disciples.

Quote:

Dr Rich: He also said that if anyone, including an angel sent from Heaven preached a different gospel other than what he preached that they should be cursed!

Yes, this is true, and Paul was right. There are not two genuine, true gospels. Paul was telling us that even if someone who claims to be from God teaches a gospel contrary to what God showed Paul, he is not to be believed.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Was Paul talking about Peter here? Hmmm? Please look at Gal. 3:15-29. This is totally against what Jesus said and taught! It's not even correct!

Please tell us what you understand Gal. 3: 15-29 to teach. You may not understand it. Let's discuss that passage.

Paul's gospel agrees with Peter's and Christ's. They are one and the same.

Paul didn't disagree with Peter's gospel. Paul disagreed with what Peter and James did-- not with what those men wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[oldsailor29]

the only part of scripture which is closest to being the very words of God are where God is quoted.

[Dr. Rich]

John317, I have to agree with MM in that when a writing is uncertain as to who wrote it, then (for me) I must treat it as a court would, I would not allow it to be used as evidence one way or the other.

You had a good question about the Pseudo Clementine Homily 19. Please understand that I knew you would be asking this question, (you did this in another thread) and the answer is YES, I can provide evidence to prove that what Peter said about Paul was 'probably' true and not false. Here is the thing. If you read what Peter said to Paul, he said that Jesus' ministry was "ONE YEAR". Well, to most people this would not be understood, but when you check with the bible on the correct time of the ministry of Jesus, it was from one Passover to the next Passover when Jesus was killed. Not too many people are wise enough to catch this, but facts are facts. If someone else wrote this falsely, they probably would have made the time three and a half years.

As for a different gospel, Gal. 3:1, Paul asked the question on who it was that 'bewitched' them. Does not this show that there had to be someone else preaching another gospel? Check out verse 6 where Paul is attempting quote Gen.15:6. Problem is, Paul said Abraham BELIEVED GOD. And that because Abraham believed God, this belief was reckoned to him as righteousness. (My words)

Gen. 15:6 does not say what Paul said, instead it says; "The he believed IN THE LORD; and it was reckoned it to him as righteousness." As to Abraham believing what God said, the opposite was true as found in verse 8 and Abraham certainly did not have faith in what God said when he had a child by his wife's maid!

Gal. 3:15 Paul said the law was only a man's covenant. Verse 16 is nonsense because seed can mean both singular and plural. Clearly, Paul was talking about the ten commandments here and his whole gospel is basically that the law was done away with and that anyone that is under or bound by the ten commandments is cursed. I suppose that would mean Jesus was then cursed, for He obeyed perfectly. It would also mean that those who are mentioned in Revelation 12:17 have to be cursed also--right?

John, I agree with you that Paul wanted those who heard him preach believe that his gospel came straight from the words of Jesus Himself, but there are some big problems here, Jesus never taught that the law was done away with. AND, since only Paul himself was the only witness, it is his word against mine or anyone else. You say you believe him, will fine, go ahead, but please don't force others to believe like you do! After all, it could turn out to be a lie and how would God feel about that, you leading others astray? Wouldn't it be better to turn to the words of Jesus when in doubt?

As to oldsailor, the red letters in the bible also may not be the actual words of Jesus. Paul has Jesus saying "My grace is sufficient for you" and I seriously doubt Jesus would ever say such a thing since His eyewitnesses wrote that Jesus said each of us must carry our own cross and obey the commandments of God.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: the red letters in the bible also may not be the actual words of Jesus. Paul has Jesus saying "My grace is sufficient for you" and I seriously doubt Jesus would ever say such a thing since His eyewitnesses wrote that Jesus said each of us must carry our own cross and obey the commandments of God.

Jesus' words there don't mean that God doesn't expect us to obey God's commandments or carry our own cross. Jesus is telling Paul-- and us-- that by His grace, or through His power, we can do what God requires us to do. It certainly doesn't mean that we don't need to do anything. God is saying there that He won't take away the problems but that He will go through them with us and give us strength so that we can overcome and be victorious in Him.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: I have to agree with MM in that when a writing is uncertain as to who wrote it, then (for me) I must treat it as a court would, I would not allow it to be used as evidence one way or the other.

If you went to court with many books of the Bible, I could produce quite a few "authorities" who would be able show good evidence that you cannot be sure of who wrote them. For instance, who wrote 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles? Can you prove it? Can you prove who wrote the book of Revelation? There are many "experts" who don't believe John wrote it. That's just the beginning. There are also many parts of various books that "experts" think were added later and are not part of the original. That goes for many books in the Old Testament as well as in the New. My point is that if you and I are going to depend on "experts," many of whom don't even seriously believe Jesus is alive and rules today, we're in a bad fix.

"Experts" are OK, but we need to be careful to look closely at the reasons they are saying what they do. Examine their evidence and their faith in God. When they start tearing the Bible down and even disbelieving in Christ, you should know you can't believe them.

Quote:

You had a good question about the Pseudo Clementine Homily 19. Please understand that I knew you would be asking this question, (you did this in another thread) and the answer is YES, I can provide evidence to prove that what Peter said about Paul was 'probably' true and not false.

OK, you say you can prove from the false homily that Peter "probably" told the truth. Can you do better than that and show that Peter definitely told the truth? I believe I have definite truth in the Bible and not probable truth. If I thought the Bible gave me only probable truth, I wouldn't read it. I can get that from many sources.

Quote:

Here is the thing. If you read what Peter said to Paul, he said that Jesus' ministry was "ONE YEAR".

Do you mean this is what Peter says to Paul in the false homily 19?

Quote:

As for a different gospel, Gal. 3:1, Paul asked the question on who it was that 'bewitched' them. Does not this show that there had to be someone else preaching another gospel?

Sure, there were definitely others who were preaching false gospels. There were people, for one thing, who were preaching that one must be circumcised and become a Jew before one can be saved. There also were various early forms of gnosticism and influences from the mystery religions. Satan was busy trying to bring into the young church all kinds of false teachings. Satan has something to please everyone's tastes, from one extreme to another. The only thing he cares about is that it's false and leads people off the truth path.

Quote:

Check out verse 6 where Paul is attempting quote Gen.15:6. Problem is, Paul said Abraham BELIEVED GOD. And that because Abraham believed God, this belief was reckoned to him as righteousness. (My words)

OK, fine. What is wrong with that?

Quote:

Gen. 15:6 does not say what Paul said, instead it says; "The he believed IN THE LORD; and it was reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Dr. Rich, I thought you read the Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul used the LXX. The LXX has exactly what Paul wrote in Gal. 3: 6. The Greek text of Galatians 3: 6 has episteusen to theo and the LXX at Gen. 15: 6 also has, episteusen to theo.

This proves that Paul quoted the Bible exactly as it reads. Besides, the Hebrew text means the same thing. When it says, "Abraham believe in the Lord," it means that Abraham believed what the Lord told him. It is not saying Abraham believed that the Lord exists.

Truth to tell, the dative definite article plus the dative noun, to theo, could also be translated "in the Lord."

Please take at least a year's class in NT Greek before you start trying to make it appear that Paul didn't know what he was doing or that he was writing untruths. In all due respect, you as a lawyer ought to know better. You're only showing that you don't know what you're talking about. This occurs a lot in your posts, as well as in the posts by Wayfinder when he talks about the original languages, because it's very apparent that neither of you guys know the original languages, yet you write as if you did-- and what you say here about Paul's writings is a good example of this. Still, on that basis, you say that you reject Paul as an apostle. Well, in all frankness, the reason you do it is on account of your misunderstanding. What you have said here about Gal. 3: 6 and Gen. 15: 6 is illustrative of that point. I hope this isn't the kind of thing you say on your radio programs. Of course if you did, though, most of the audience wouldn't know whether it's true or not, anyway, so you would get away with it, and, sadly & tragically, no one would know the difference.

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: ...Gal. 3:15 Paul said the law was only a man's covenant.

Dr. Rich, in Gal. 3: 15, Paul is comparing human agreements with the agreements that God has made. He is not saying "the the law was only" a human agreement. He is saying that in certain respects it is like a human agreement. Paul is illustrating God's covenant from example found in every day life.

Please go back and re-read it. Do you see the phrase just before it, where Paul says, "I speak in terms of human relations"? Literally, Paul is saying he's "speaking according to man," i.e., a human illustration. In other words, Paul does not expect his readers to think he is saying the law is literally a man's contract. That would indeed be foolish.

Quote:

DR. Rich: Verse 16 is nonsense because seed can mean both singular and plural.

Please excuse me here if I am blunt with you, Dr. Rich. The only real nonsense is that you think the word "seed" "can mean both singular and plural." No, it can't-- at least not in the language in which Paul is writing.

In the LXX, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, Genesis 22: 18 reads, to spermati, a dative singular noun with its definite article. Galatians 3: 16 reads, to spermati, the same dative singular noun with its definite article. Gen. 22: 18 could have had the plural definite article and noun, tois spermasin, but it doesn't.

Can you see that the plural (tois spermasin) and the singular (to spermati) are distinctly different words? This difference is the very thing Paul was speaking of.

For saying Paul's words are nonsense, Dr. Rich, I believe you owe the great apostle Paul an apology. Those words cannot be both singular and plural, as you should yourself now be able to see.

Is this something else that you or someone else has said on your radio program? If it was said on the program, I would think you'd need to make it right and correct the false impression it would certainly have given your listeners. Don't you agree? Imagine people hearing it said on your radio program and then going around repeating it without realizing there was absolutely no truth to it!

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: I agree with you that Paul wanted those who heard him preach believe that his gospel came straight from the words of Jesus Himself, but there are some big problems here, Jesus never taught that the law was done away with.

The big problem, Dr. Rich, as I've shown in the last few posts, is that you don't understand what Paul taught. I agree with you that Jesus never taught that the law was done away with, but then neither did the apostle Paul. If I thought that Paul did teach this, I would also reject him and his books. But Paul didn't teach it. One proof of this is in 1 Cor. 9: 20, 21; Romans 3: 31 and 8: 4, to give just a few verses.

Sometime we will have to sit down over a good meal and study this together for several fun hours. I will give you 2 hours or more to make your case, and then it would be my turn to make my case, all right?

My feet are improving, so as soon as I'm able to venture outside again in shoes, I'll let you know when we can meet again. I look forward to it.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

My feet are improving

That's good to hear.

[Dr. Rich]

Sounds great John317, our wheels (feet) are important and I too have problems. I just got my DMV disability flag because of my own problems-but they are not as bad as others, so I seldom use it for parking.

Some time ago on another thread you wrote a great reply on faith and trust and I supported what you wrote. Here is the thing, I (me) do not trust in Paul's writings and the evidence is clear to me that his words have done a great disservice to the ministry of Jesus Christ Himself.

The evidence is this: There are thousands of different denominations or churches in this world and each one of them believes differently than the other. You and I do not see things the same either and just reading over these blogs on all of the different views is evidence enough that SOMETHING happened along the line that caused (causation) all of the mass confusion. For this ONE reason, our study group came together, each of us with our own baggage. We had one rule: leave it (baggage) outside the door in order to truly seek the real truth!

Your stance or objection of not being a learned Greek student/scholar bothers me somewhat since I seriously doubt one has to know another language to fully understand what the Holy Spirit's leading into ALL truth has to do with Greek. If the Holy Spirit is handicapped by this, then we all are in trouble! If I have been led astray then I would have to say that I have honestly been led astray. I don't like being lied to even if the truth hurts. I would much rather believe that my salvation rests upon my relation with God as a 'commandment keeping, Jesus' words follower' than a 'saved by grace alone' human being. It's entirely each person's choice!

[Archie777]

Please compare John 3:5-8 & John 15:1-10 with Romans 11:17-21. I don't see where Jesus said anything about adoption--do you?

Jesus spoke of pruning and purging the parent tree. Rebirth symbolizes grafting Jews and Gentiles into the parent tree. Grafting branches into the parent tree is a type of adoption. Branches from other trees are grafted into the parent tree and begin producing fruit.

Do you think Paul introduced something that contradicts what Jesus said about rebirth and fruit-bearing?

[Dr. Rich]

Archie, yes I do think Paul did introduce something that contradicts what Jesus said. Here is the thing, Paul also said that the branch of the good tree could be grafted back on if it was cut off, but Jesus said that a branch when cut off would be thrown in the fire. This controversy is a serious problem. Paul has two ways to be saved but Jesus only taught one way and one group. If you are not in the Kingdom of Heaven--you are not going to make it. Where do you see anywhere that Jesus said wild branches could be grafted onto this tree?

Never did Jesus say anything about Gentiles being saved. He did say they could change and obey the commandments and His words, but then they would not be a Gentile anymore, would they?

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich:

The evidence is this: There are thousands of different denominations or churches in this world and each one of them believes differently than the other. You and I do not see things the same either and just reading over these blogs on all of the different views is evidence enough that SOMETHING happened along the line that caused (causation) all of the mass confusion. For this ONE reason, our study group came together, each of us with our own baggage. We had one rule: leave it (baggage) outside the door in order to truly seek the real truth!

But if we look at the differences in people's views BEFORE the cross, we will see that the differenes can't be due to Paul, because there were vast differences among the Jews when all they had were the books of the Old Testament. In fact, those kinds of differences also occur among all the religions. They exist today among Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

I tend to think that many of the differencces are the result of other factors besides the books themselves. Then when we add the work Satan to it, who blinds men's eyes, we shouldn't be surprised to see that people often differ in their understandings. There would be many of those differences, anyway, simply becasue people come from different experiences and also have different abilities to analyze language.

Also-- and not least!-- people have different motives, and some of these motives include NOT wanting to know the truth. The Bible itself tells us that many want to believe a lie. Jesus himself said that whether people know the truth or not depends to a great degree on whether they they want to do the will of God.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: Your stance or objection of not being a learned Greek student/scholar bothers me somewhat since I seriously doubt one has to know another language to fully understand what the Holy Spirit's leading into ALL truth has to do with Greek. If the Holy Spirit is handicapped by this, then we all are in trouble!

I don't mean that people need to know Greek in order to understand the Bible. The things you brought up, concerning Paul's letters, can be understood by people who only know English or Spanish or whatever language the Bible is translated into, quite apart from knowing Greek. Most people do understand it without knowing any Greek at all.

Quote:

Dr Rich: If I have been led astray then I would have to say that I have honestly been led astray. I don't like being lied to even if the truth hurts.

I feel the same way. I want to know the truth no matter what it is.

Let's take the things you said about Paul in your last couple of posts, regarding Gal. 3: 6 and 16. Where did you get those ideas? Did someone tell you those things? I think you can see now that whoever told you those things either didn't know what they were talking about or they were lying to you. Whoever it was, if I were you, I would be careful about believing them again without studying the evidence and having verification.

Quote:

Dr. Rich: I would much rather believe that my salvation rests upon my relation with God as a 'commandment keeping, Jesus' words follower' than a 'saved by grace alone' human being. It's entirely each person's choice!

I don't understand "saved by grace through faith" to mean that it's irrelevant whether I obey God's commandments or follow Christ's words." I believe that Jesus Himself taught that sinners are saved by the grace of God through faith.

I think it's important to have the desire to believe the truth no matter whether it requies us to believe something we don't necessarily like or not. We need to pray that God will show us the truth even if we have to change our likes and dislikes.

[Dr. Rich]

Actually John, you're understanding of faith, trust and grace is close to what I believe and I don't have a problem with that. But I am sure you would agree that almost every Christian Church other then the SDAs basically believe that the ten commandments have been nailed to the cross and there is no need to keep them because we can't. Is it no wonder then, that arguments appear between all of these denominations?

I find it fascinating that 'our' little group had all kinds of believers in it at the start--even from other churches such as Catholics, but then over time, we came to agree that the words of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitness' caused the unity that we did not expect.

As for the 'ideas' in Gal 3, these came when we, as a group, actually read exactly what Paul wrote and compared them with what really happened in Gen. Satan was a master at doing the same thing, by using scripture, but twisting it or tweaking it just a little bit, thereby making it say something that is not correct.

I can't count the times I have read Paul's words claiming that the law and those who want to keep it are cursed, but then Paul quickly would say something later like "may it never be", in order to confuse a reader into believing only what they wanted to hear. Take Paul's confusing language over the Sabbath for instance--he said that let each of us take what ever day they wanted, but he himself kept the Sabbath?

Take Paul's teaching about women in church--where did he get this idea from? Look what this has done to women over these years who have been counted as second class citizens and all the abuse they have taken BECAUSE OF WHAT HE WROTE! But then he also wrote that we are all the same--men, women, jews and greeks--in the sight of God. WHAT? Isn't this confusing?

And then he also wrote that in order to teach someone a lesson, that he gave them over to Satan. WHAT? And then he also said that he considered it a privledge to be killed for his gospel, but when the time came for this, he proved to be a wimp, seeking a way out.

And then he told people that he purposely became anything they wanted him to be in order to trick them into believing his gospel--and then bragged about it saying how crafty he was. Hmmm?

John, little by little, I started to see just how dangerous Paul's words have become. And that is my take on it.

[Archie777]

R: Please compare John 3:5-8 & John 15:1-10 with Romans 11:17-21. I don't see where Jesus said anything about adoption--do you?

A: Jesus spoke of pruning and purging the parent tree. Rebirth symbolizes grafting Jews and Gentiles into the parent tree. Grafting branches into the parent tree is a type of adoption. Branches from other trees are grafted into the parent tree and begin producing fruit. Do you think Paul introduced something that contradicts what Jesus said about rebirth and fruit-bearing?

R: Archie, yes I do think Paul did introduce something that contradicts what Jesus said. Here is the thing, Paul also said that the branch of the good tree could be grafted back on if it was cut off, but Jesus said that a branch when cut off would be thrown in the fire. This controversy is a serious problem. Paul has two ways to be saved but Jesus only taught one way and one group. If you are not in the Kingdom of Heaven--you are not going to make it. Where do you see anywhere that Jesus said wild branches could be grafted onto this tree? Never did Jesus say anything about Gentiles being saved. He did say they could change and obey the commandments and His words, but then they would not be a Gentile anymore, would they?

Rebirth, grafting is available to Jews and Gentiles alike. Once saved they are neither Jew nor Gentile; they are Christians. Comes a time, though, when backsliders are incapable of repentance. Such sinners are "cut off" and eventually cast into the furnace of fire.

[Musicman1228]

Jesus never speaks of 'grafting' or 'adoption'. He states the 'He is the vine and we are the branches'. This implies that we grow out of the vine and are not 'grafted' to the vine. This is not a semantic difference. It goes to the core of the issue. Jesus said we are to be born again of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3,5). He says that we are to have the same mother that gave birth to "He who is to rule with a rod of iron", i.e. Jesus Christ (Rev.12:17). Jesus also said that a 'servant does not stay in the house forever, but a son does stay forever."

The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John 8:35-36.

I am an adopted son. My father and mother adopted me before me and my twin sister were born. Because of this I have no blood relationship with them. Non-the-less they were my parents. I am only a blood relative to my natural mother and father, even though I don't know who they are. What Jesus wants is for us to become His brothers and sisters by being born of the same Mother that gave birth to Him (Rev.12). We MUST be blood relatives, and we can only do this through HIS blood.

There is a significant difference between how Jesus Christ views this and how Paul views this process.

[Archie777]

It sounds like you're describing a type of metamorphic synthesis.

[Guest]

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

When you become someone else's son, and were not their son before. That IS adoption.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, if what you say is true, then why didn't Jesus explain it like that in John 3? Being BORN makes you a child of who ever bore you--right? One can argue all they want but you can't find anywhere in the words of Jesus that he taught anything other then being born by the Holy Spirit. This agrees fully with Rev. 12:17

[Guest]

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

When you become someone else's son, and were not their son before. That IS adoption.

Dictionary.com is your friend Rich. Look it up.

[phkrause]

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

When you become someone else's son, and were not their son before. That IS adoption.

Dictionary.com is your friend Rich. Look it up.

Good point Richard.

pk

[Archie777]

Dr. Rich, I hear you saying when people experience rebirth the parent tree sprouts a new branch. If so, why did Jesus say it needs to be pruned? Do branches of the parent tree develop harmful foliage?

[Guest]

Paul basically says the same thing here:

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Father. Rom 8:14,15

[Musicman1228]

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

When you become someone else's son, and were not their son before. That IS adoption.

Dictionary.com is your friend Rich. Look it up.

This is why Jesus said "Born Again". Jesus knows the difference between being adopted and being Born Again. Richard, you are trying too hard to defend the position of someone that does not use the same language that Jesus Christ used. That is because Paul did not know Jesus Christ personally, as did the Disciples. You can say 'adoption' is the same as being 'born again' all you want, but that does not make it so. Who do you serve-Jesus Christ or Paul? As for me I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ and Him alone.