How to understand Paul

[joeb]

On 1/20/2016 at 10:03 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

God's CHARACTER was questioned.  Just because 2/3s in Heaven remained loyal, does not mean they had no doubts.  Doubts fester.  

God wanted His character to be clearly revealed.  The incarnation and death of His only Son DID THAT for the loyal Heavenly beings.  It remained to win the hearts of as many humans as could be won, before the earth self-destructed.  God must to allow the conflict to continue until no other humans can be won for Christ during this "age". 

The judgment of Daniel 7:9-10 is the formal declaration in Heaven that this age is complete.  Every human who can be won - during this age - has been won.  Christ is formally given dominion of the earth.  With that dominion comes the right to depose Satan - who will be imprisoned for 1000 years.  With the dominion comes the RIGHT to say which humans will live within His dominion.  He knows each one of them.  It won't take Him any time to decide who they are. 

 

 

You misunderstood me.  The devil and his angels no longer have access to heaven and since the death of Christ have no power to tempt for their character is fully exposed.  Tne sophistry was fully exposed and thus has lost it's power. That exposure answered any and all doubts that they may have held for it fully vindicated the character of God.  The entire universe other than the planet earth understands that the devil is a liar and a murderer and always has been.

[Wingnut]

9 hours ago, jackson said:

Science is wonderful and i admire the advances that have been made over the centuries, but when finite, fallen men come up with theories that contradict the word of God, I reject them out of hand.

 

 

There is a DVD called "Dinosaurs and the Bible" by Dr. Kent Hovind . It is quite informative. He has a lot of information  on dinosaurs living before and after the flood  but sadly for me  his manner is rather flippant and joking. If you are interested, you could Google him. But again, it is best to live by faith and not need "proof" so called.

 

Jackson, there is such a thing as old earth creationism (OEC) which believes there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 which should read "And the earth was BECAME without form and void.

I like watching Kent Hovind because he is quite entertaining and has a mouth on him (which I hope his recent stint in prison for tax evasion will have cured).

While his faith is commendable, his knowledge of TRUE science is dismal.  He is the poster child for what is wrong with young earth creationism (YEC), which is basically to stick one's head deeper into the ground while saying a dozen "Praise the Lord"'s.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/16/2016 at 7:03 AM, Wingnut said:

Nicodemus came to Jesus thinking he was OK and Christ told Nic he needed to start over (be born again).  Nothing in Nic was worth keeping.

Wingnut, it's no wonder you have a hard time understanding Paul, when you can't even read a plain factual story without twisting it and adding to it in order to misinterpret it.   The story of Nicodemus (John 3) doesn't tell us what Nicodemus was thinking.  If Nicodemus was thinking he was okay, he probably wouldn't have been consulting with Jesus, he would have been at home watching television (or whatever the entertainment was at that time). Nor does the story tell us that "Nothing in Nic was worth keeping."  If nothing was worth keeping, then it seems God went to a whole lot of  wasted effort to save sinners when he could have just destroyed the sinners (in which there was nothing worth keeping)  to "start over" with new non-sinners. Apparently God thinks there's something worth keeping.

On 1/16/2016 at 7:03 AM, Wingnut said:

For both, by OC standards, they were doing great, but by NC standards, both had zero.

The NC starts with belief in Jesus.  Without this one has nothing.  Both Nic and the RYR left without belief in Jesus, so both left empty.

You need to go back and understand God's covenant with Israel before you start contrasting it with the "new" or renewed covenant that God makes with Israel and Judah.  You seem to be simply regurgitating the man-made traditions of those who followed neither the example of Jesus nor the example of Paul.  And your contrast seems to depend entirely on a shallow interpretation of Paul (which would break your own guideline for establishing doctrine).

The Bible does not actually say whether "Nic and the RYR left without a belief in Jesus" or not, so your assertion that "both left empty" is just an empty assertion.  If the RYR did not believe what Jesus said, he probably would have just wandered away unconcerned, playing with his iPhone or whatever.  The only reason he would be grieving about Jesus' answer would be if he had faith that Jesus was teaching the truth.  Later in the story Nicodemus shows up doing things that a believer would do (see John 7:50 and John 19:39), which casts some doubt on your assertion that he left empty.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/17/2016 at 4:31 PM, Wingnut said:

The difference is that Christ's parables are simple and clear, whereas Paul, not so much.

Wingnut, when you are reading Galatians, you are reading mail that wasn't written to you.  It was written to the believers in a particular time and place.  There was context. And Paul didn't just write his letter spontaneously out of nowhere.  Paul was responding to a particular situation, where people had been using particular words and phrases to promote something that Paul opposed.  Those words and phrases in that context may not have been referring to the same things we would use those words and phrases for today.  I suspect that the original readers of Paul's letter understood exactly what he was saying and they apparently thought it was a valid and worthwhile message, otherwise they probably wouldn't have saved the letter for others to read later.  When you say that Paul's analogies and metaphors are not clear, you're just admitting that you don't know the context.  Of course, none of us today know that context as well as Paul and the original readers did.  And we may seriously misunderstand the context due to changes in thought, language, and culture in the nearly 2000 intervening years.  That should caution us to refrain from interpreting Paul in a way that would make Paul's writings disagree with Scripture that was written earlier, especially since Paul himself claims to believe and teach in agreement with Old Testament Scripture.

[Kevin H]

Paul's comments about women were written to specific churches with specific problems:

Corinth was a city with only a small native population. Most of the people there were sailors and business men who have moved there for a few months to a few years to conduct business then return to their homes. Often these business men brought their families with them.

Now unless you were a Jew, most people were illiterate. The men knew their own language and Greek and did business in Greek and some Latin as well. The wives would have only known their local language. In church the people could either try to translate into all the many languages there, or have services in Greek and then after church the husbands could give a translation of the message to their wives. But meanwhile the poor women had to listen to a talk in a language that they could not understand. It would be so easy to get into sub discussions with their friends who spoke their language, and church could get very noisy. The context of the verse for women to be quiet in churches are things that brought disruption to the meetings. Paul was not talking about woman pastors like Pricilla and her assistant pastor Aquila.

As for Timothy: When Timothy was in Ephesus there was a woman's movement going on based on uneducated women seeing themselves as superior to the educated and to men. They were going into public meetings and worship services (including Pagan worship services) and was demanding the males to submit to them and demanding to each everyone in the city with their anti-education and anti-male beliefs.

[Wingnut]

Let's try to understand Romans as an example of understanding Paul

I chose this book simply because "the law" is mentioned 50 times in this book.  My hope was to understand Paul's teaching on "the law" since everyone seems to have different ideas as to what Paul teaches on "the law"

In accordance with #2, I skimmed Romans for its storyline.
Below are what I consider the key scriptures from each chapter, and my summary in CAPITALS.

Rom 1
17 The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
EVERYONE IS GUILTY AND WITHOUT EXCUSE

Rom 2
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, 
JEW AND GENTILE EQUALLY GUILTY

Rom 3
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
THE LAW GAVE THE JEW NO ADVANTAGE

Rom 4
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
11 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, 
THE ORIGINAL FAITH WAS FAITH/GRACE

Rom 5
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
THE LAW ONLY EXPOSED SIN ALREADY THERE

Rom 6
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
GRACE IS NOT CARTE BLANCHE TO SIN

Rom 7
1 the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members,
THE LAW CONDEMNS THE LIVING TO DEATH 

Rom 8
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
JUST AS CHRIST LIVED SINLESS IN HIS FLESH HE LIVES SINLESS IN YOURS

Rom 9
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;
THERE IS NO RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT JESUS

Rom 10
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
BELIEF IN JESUS COMES FIRST

Rom 11
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
GENTILES ARE GRAFTED ONTO THE FAITH STOCK

Rom 12
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
AS SUCH THOSE GRAFTED IN NEED TO LIVE RIGHTEOUS

Rom 13
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
LIVING RIGHTEOUS MEANS GIVING DUES TO WHOM IT IS DUE

Rom 14
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
BEAR WITH WEAK BELIEVERS

Rom 15
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles
PAUL EXPLAINS HIS MINISTRY TO THE GENTILES

Rom 16
GREETINGS TO VARIOUS BELIEVERS

Because this is getting long, I am going to post this first before saying what I learned from Romans.

[Wingnut]

Let's try to understand Romans as an example of understanding Paul Part 2

My main surprise was that although "the law" is mentioned 50 times, Romans is not about "the law".  I would summarise Romans to be saying the following...

Without Christ nobody can be righteous.  Jew and Gentile equally need Jesus.

Here is how Paul develops this argument.

Rom 1 Everyone is guilty and without excuse.  Rom 2 Jew and Gentile are equally guilty.  Rom 3 The law gave the Jew no advantage. Rom 4
The original, God intended faith, was faith and righteousness imputed by grace.  Rom 5 The law only exposed sin which was already present since creation. Rom 6 Grace does not give one leave to sin.  Rom 7
The law condemns the flesh to death.  Rom 8  Just as Christ lived sinless in His flesh, so now He lives sinless in your flesh.  Rom 9 There is no alternative righteousness without Jesus.  Rom 10  Righteousness from Jesus comes from believing in Him first.  Rom 11  Gentiles are grafted onto the faith stock, started by Abraham.  Rom 12  Being grafted onto the faith stock, one now has to live a righteous life.  Rom 13 A righteous life includes paying to all their dues, including respect.
Rom 14  Bear with weak believers.  Rom 15  Paul explains his calling to minister to Gentiles.  Rom 16  Paul greets a whole lot of Gentile believers to prove his ministry to Gentiles.

I see a certain logic and cohesive theme to the whole book of Romans.  
It took me two hours of study to get to this point.

Let's suppose I don't look at Romans as a whole, but dive straight in, here are some FALSE impressions I might come to.

1.  There is no excuse for not believing in God (Rom 1:20)
2.  People not knowing God will be condemned on Judgment Day by their conscience which condemns them (Rom 2:14-16)
3.  A person is justified by faith.  Works are irrelevant (Rom 3:28).  Faith voids the law (but Rom 3:31 refutes this).
4.  The moment a Christian believes in doing righteousness, he must have a works-based salvation and comes back under the law and its condemnation (Rom 4:4).
5.  We don't actually have to live righteous lives because Christ imputes (gives us) His righteousness. (Rom 4:22)
6.  Imputed righteousness exists only in God's eyes, not our lives. (Rom 4:22).
7.  Christ died for the ungodly, so all, including the ungodly were saved at the cross, around 31 AD, no conditions.  The whole world is saved  (Rom 5:8).
8.  Just as death came on all by Adam's sin, so eternal life came on all (without exception) through Christ's death  (Rom 5:18).
9.  Sin causes death.  Wherever death happens, the cause must be sin (Rom 5:21 Rom 6:23).
10.  We are not under the law but under grace, means we are not under any obligation to keep the law  (Rom 6:14).
11.  Serving God in "newness of spirit" bears no resemblance to keeping any laws  (Rom 7:6).
12.  It is OK that Christians serve God in their minds.  the sins of their flesh are irrelevant  (Rom 7:25 Rom 8:1-4).
13.  Fearing God was bondage, now we are children and don't need to fear  (Rom 8:15).
14.  No matter what happens, good or bad, it all serves a good purpose (works together for good) when one is a Christian  (Rom 8:28).
15.  Some are predestined to be saved, others predestined to be lost  (Rom 8:29-30).
16.  Once saved, always saved OSAS  (Rom 8:35,38-39).
17.  The Gentiles are the new Israel [substitution theology] (Rom 9:25).
18.  Christ ended the law  (Rom 10:4).
19.  God has rejected the Jews forever  (Rom 10:21).
20.  We are part of Christ's body, therefore eternally saved, since we died with Christ and were raised with Christ  (Rom 12:5).
21.  We should do whatever the state tells us to do, such as fight  (Rom 13:1).
22.  The king/President serves in place of God, and we should serve him as if serving God  (Rom 13:1-5).
23.  If you have love, you don't need to obey any law, because love trumps law  (Rom 13:8,10).
24.  We should not judge/condemn others, that is God's job  (Rom 14:4).
25.  It does not matter on which day one worships, or what one eats [unlike in the OT]  (Rom 14:6).
26.  Nothing is unclean, unless you think it is  (Rom 14:20,22).

All 26 of the above are false doctrines which I cherry-picked out of context from Romans.  Usually from the context, by reading around the immediate verses, one can see the above ideas are false.  Otherwise one has to do a more thorough study of all scriptures to see they are false.

If however, one had read the 26 doctrines above IN CONTEXT of the story of Romans, it is unlikely one would have drawn the false conclusions which I listed above.

[Robert]

I'm not the least bit interested in your propaganda. Paul was handpicked by God the Father and Christ, our Savior, to expound the gospel - especially to the Gentiles - the good news of salvation "in Christ".  To diminish Paul's writings is to draw off disciples unto yourself.  Shall we follow you, Wingnut, or the writings of Paul? ..

[Robert]

Just now, Robert said:

Paul was handpicked by God the Father and Christ, our Savior, to expound the gospel - especially to the Gentiles - the good news of salvation "in Christ".  

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father....

Acts 13:6 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’"

Quote

To diminish Paul's writings is to draw off disciples unto yourself.  Shall we follow you, Wingnut, or the writings of Paul? ..

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 

Phil 2:2 Beware of the dogs (wolves), beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh....

[Wingnut]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Paul's comments about women were written to specific churches with specific problems:

Corinth was a city with only a small native population. Most of the people there were sailors and business men who have moved there for a few months to a few years to conduct business then return to their homes. Often these business men brought their families with them.

Now unless you were a Jew, most people were illiterate. The men knew their own language and Greek and did business in Greek and some Latin as well. The wives would have only known their local language. In church the people could either try to translate into all the many languages there, or have services in Greek and then after church the husbands could give a translation of the message to their wives. But meanwhile the poor women had to listen to a talk in a language that they could not understand. It would be so easy to get into sub discussions with their friends who spoke their language, and church could get very noisy. The context of the verse for women to be quiet in churches are things that brought disruption to the meetings. Paul was not talking about woman pastors like Pricilla and her assistant pastor Aquila.

As for Timothy: When Timothy was in Ephesus there was a woman's movement going on based on uneducated women seeing themselves as superior to the educated and to men. They were going into public meetings and worship services (including Pagan worship services) and was demanding the males to submit to them and demanding to each everyone in the city with their anti-education and anti-male beliefs.

Kevin, I am glad that we both agree that women ARE allowed to speak in church.

[Wingnut]

9 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Wingnut, when you are reading Galatians, you are reading mail that wasn't written to you.  It was written to the believers in a particular time and place.  There was context. And Paul didn't just write his letter spontaneously out of nowhere.  Paul was responding to a particular situation, where people had been using particular words and phrases to promote something that Paul opposed.  Those words and phrases in that context may not have been referring to the same things we would use those words and phrases for today.  I suspect that the original readers of Paul's letter understood exactly what he was saying and they apparently thought it was a valid and worthwhile message, otherwise they probably wouldn't have saved the letter for others to read later.  When you say that Paul's analogies and metaphors are not clear, you're just admitting that you don't know the context.  Of course, none of us today know that context as well as Paul and the original readers did.  And we may seriously misunderstand the context due to changes in thought, language, and culture in the nearly 2000 intervening years.  That should caution us to refrain from interpreting Paul in a way that would make Paul's writings disagree with Scripture that was written earlier, especially since Paul himself claims to believe and teach in agreement with Old Testament Scripture.

Ron

I agree with you that context is a factor to understanding a message from a person living thousands of years ago.

But I thought translators had nailed the translation of those words so that we know fairly exactly what those words translate to today.

If you look at every single one of the scriptures where Paul is telling women how to behave, they all sound out of step today.

Maybe what was PC back then is not PC today.  I say that Christ was the only timelessly PC person, and that is why I check what Paul says against what Christ says.  If Paul's statements on women sound wrong and jarring, I have to ask if there is something wrong with me, or with Paul.  I think most folks get around this by being dishonest with themselves.  They basically ignore Paul when it comes to his advice to women, or tone it down.  In your case you choose to use context and culture-of-the-day to tone Paul down.

[Wingnut]

9 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

 Nor does the story tell us that "Nothing in Nic was worth keeping."  If nothing was worth keeping, then it seems God went to a whole lot of  wasted effort to save sinners when he could have just destroyed the sinners (in which there was nothing worth keeping)  to "start over" with new non-sinners. Apparently God thinks there's something worth keeping.

 

Nice bit of sophistry there Ron  

Telling someone they need to be "born again" means "Go to START.  Do not score any points."

All people have to "start over" when they come to Christ and become new people.  Christ could not find "new non-sinners" in the world to start over with. Nic had nothing going for him that Christ could use.  This is a newbie sinner approaching Christ.  But he has the baggage of being a Pharisee thinking he is OK because presumably he is a good law-keeper.  Christ cuts Nic off in mid sentence, getting right to the point "Forget all you think you know Nic, be born again."

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Wingnut said:

If Paul's statements on women sound wrong and jarring, I have to ask if there is something wrong with me, or with Paul.

Something is wrong with you! 

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, Robert said:

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father....

 

Yet another verse which includes only TWO divine persons - Jesus Christ and God the Father.  If the Holy Spirit is the "third person of the Godhead", why does Paul only mention the TWO?

[8thdaypriest]

Wingnut,

I don't agree with your view concerning the condition of the earth when Adam and Eve were created. 

I don't agree with your view concerning the 7th millennium - that Christ will reign on the earth, over nations of people who survive the 7 last plagues. 

And I don't agree with your view that historical sources are not needed or helpful to our understanding of the Scriptures. 

I have agreed with your view that our God is NOT a Trinity of three divine persons.

I have agreed with your view that an investigative judgment of humans did NOT begin in Heaven, on October 22, 1844. 

I have agreed with you (not Robert or Samie) that Jesus did not "save" every human who ever existed (or would exist) when He died on the Cross.  (I personally believe He won THE RIGHT to save any person whom He chose.)

What's next?

 

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Something is wrong with you! 

I live to amuse you.

[8thdaypriest]

Wingnut,

For someone who believes we don't need extra-Biblical sources, you sure refer to a LOT of extra-Biblical "rocks".   You use the extra-Biblical sources when it suits you, and call us ignorant for citing history, when it doesn't agree with your view. 

[Wingnut]

14 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Yet another verse which includes only TWO divine persons - Jesus Christ and God the Father.  If the Holy Spirit is the "third person of the Godhead", why does Paul only mention the TWO?

Because the Holy Spirit was busy inspiring Paul and sending Paul on behalf of Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Because there are only two in the Godhead?

[Wingnut]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Wingnut,

For someone who believes we don't need extra-Biblical sources, you sure refer to a LOT of extra-Biblical "rocks".   You use the extra-Biblical sources when it suits you, and call us ignorant for citing history, when it doesn't agree with your view. 

Where did I use extra-Biblical sources? 

[8thdaypriest]

1 minute ago, Wingnut said:

Where did I use extra-Biblical sources? 

All your "science" - so called.

[Wingnut]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

All your "science" - so called.

Care to quote a post so we don't have to play 20 questions  

As far as I know I wrote on Romans today, not science.

And a little bit about Paul and women, still no science.

[Robert]

18 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

I live to amuse you.

As indeed you should....Everyone loves a theological comic. 

[Robert]

7 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Care to quote a post so we don't have to play 20 questions  

As far as I know I wrote on Romans today, not science.

And a little bit about Paul and women, still no science.

No, because you've deliberately twisted and distorted Paul's writings out of their context. In other words your a man on a mission and that is to kill Paul off, again. His first death was caused by Roman. Now your attempting another death and that is to diminish his words and make them as if they were mere dung.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

But I thought translators had nailed the translation of those words so that we know fairly exactly what those words translate to today.

You have far too much faith in the translators.

They don''t have some magic way of knowing what the original context was.  Paul's letters give us only one side of a conversation.  The translators have to reconstruct the other side using clues from history and Scripture, along with the explanations they've heard, such as the ones that Kevin H keeps giving us (without any documentation).  They naturally filter out any of the context that doesn't agree with their own theology or philosophy. 

If the translators imagine the early "church" to be a proto-Protestant religion, they're going to translate Paul's writings in that context.  But the early congregations were not proto-Protestant-- they were still a part of Judaism during the whole time that the New Testament was being written.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

I say that Christ was the only timelessly PC person,

What a degrading statement! 

Political Correctness is in direct opposition to holiness and truth because PC is determined by the changing whims and sentiments of fallen man (which includes women), usually the elite.  In our day that means its determined by Hollywood and the media.