How to understand Paul

[Wingnut]

Just now, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

Sorry if that offends you Ron.

Let me try to rephrase that.

Christ's attitudes towards women were the only examples of politically correct behaviour towards women, and these attitudes should be emulated.  And there are LOTS of interactions between Christ and women in the NT that we can learn from.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

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."

Christ could create new non-sinners.  I'm not talking about case-by-case redemption of sinners.  I'm talking about destroying all sinners and recreating the earth with non-sinners.  God didn't choose to do that, so God (or the watching beings of the universe) must see some value in sinners that is worth redeeming.

Here's the definition of "sophistry":
A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

Since you have changed your explanation of what it means to start over from "no value" to "no points" you must have seen some validity in what I wrote.  I'll assume you didn't know the meaning of sophistry and ignore the accusation of deliberate deception. 

One of the teachings of the Bible is that God loves sinners, so God must value something in them.  When I read Scripture, I see no mention of "points".  You are perhaps constructing a straw man so you can topple it.

[Wingnut]

30 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

 

Here's the definition of "sophistry":
A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

Since you have changed your explanation of what it means to start over from "no value" to "no points" you must have seen some validity in what I wrote.  I'll assume you didn't know the meaning of sophistry and ignore the accusation of deliberate deception. 

 

Here is the merriam-webster definition of "sophistry" which I had in mind...

"the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false

: a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false".

 

Here is how another site defined it "1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

 2. a false argument; sophism."

 

I stick by my post that I perceived your original argument was sophistry.  

Now that you have elaborated on it, I consider your new argument just wrong.  God has already created a world of "non-sinners" in the form of angels, and that went south too. 

 

This is twice in less than an hour that you have said you were offended where there was no offence intended on my part.

You say that I am accusing you of "deliberate deception".  I don't know where you found that definition of "sophistry"

Have you had a bad day, and would you like to talk about it?

 

[Ron Amnsn]

36 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

I stick by my post that I perceived your original argument was sophistry.

Okay. My definition came from TheSage software dictionary.  It was the only one I looked at. They may have condensed the various definitions too much to come up with a single definition.

 

36 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Now that you have elaborated on it, I consider your new argument just wrong.  God has already created a world of "non-sinners" in the form of angels, and that went south too. 

The outcome in that particular world has nothing to do with the value God places on sinners, unless you believe that God is incapable of replacing sinners with beings that do not sin.

 

40 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

This is twice in less than an hour that you have said you were offended where there was no offence intended on my part.

Correction. It was you who said I was offended. 

Nevertheless, if you were to write 25 offensive things in an hour, the problem would be yours, not the people who correctly recognize offensive material. 

[Wingnut]

10 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Nevertheless, if you were to write 25 offensive things in an hour, the problem would be yours, not the people who correctly recognize offensive material. 

These "25 offensive things" would be what?  Or is the above hypothetical?

On the subject of offending others, I subscribe to Steve Hughes views on giving and taking offence, to be found at...

steve hughes offended 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/16/2016 at 6:42 AM, Wingnut said:

Also, I plan to keep on topic, which is "How to understand Paul"

That is an excellent plan.

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, jackson said:

The Bible was not written to be only rightly interpreted by scientists, archaeologists, historians of ancient cultures and civilizations or even professors of theology. It was written for all men and women who had a heart to know God. It was written in plain simple language and it was to mean exactly what it said. 

The only reason I see for OEC is that archaeologists cannot reconcile their findings with scripture. So be it. Take your choice either for fallen man's evidence or faith in the word.

In divine revelation God has given to men mysteries that are incomprehensible, to command their faith.  (HL 296.1)

 

 

 

Psalm 19:1

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Cosmology and light from stars billions of light years away declare the glory of God in a billions of year old cosmos.

The rocks, with its fossils, or the firmament tell us what He has been doing for those billions of years.

I would be very worried if I could not reconcile my theology with the two witnesses, viz. the heavens and the earth.

For me, the Bible, the heavens and the earth all praise the glory of God, in perfect harmony.

It's an honour to live at a time like this where science is so advanced that it can tell us more about God.

But it's not a salvation requirement to correctly be able to explain the fossils which were laid down between Genesis 1:1 and Gen 1:2.  But its no glory either to not be able to explain "old light" from distant galaxies, or old fossils.

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 1/17/2016 at 6:30 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

    1 Corinthians 7:18-20  “Was anyone called while circumcised?  Let him not become uncircumcised.  Was anyone called while uncircumcised?  Let him not be circumcised.  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.  Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.”

Those who were "called while circumcised" would most likely be those circumcised as 8 day old infants.

I don't think it included those, but I could be wrong.  What would motivate a circumcised follower of Jesus to want to become uncircumcised, if Paul was just referring to presence or absence of a foreskin?  I certainly have no desire to become uncircumcised.  I've heard that some Jewish young men who wanted to compete naked in the Gymnasium sometimes wanted to become uncircumcised.  But how many followers of Jesus would be part of that crowd?  (None, I think.)  For an Israelite who was circumcised on his eighth day, what would be the benefit to "become uncircumcised"?

I think Paul was referring to those Gentiles like Nicolas (the proselyte who was appointed a deacon in Acts 6:5) who had already been through the traditional man-made proselyte program prescribed by Oral Law, which culminated in ritual Circumcision with a vow to keep both God's Law of Moses plus the traditions of Oral Law.  I can certainly understand why people like this could want to be released from their vow to keep Oral Law that they had made on the day they became Circumcised. For them becoming unCircumcised could look very inviting?  (By contrast, an Israelite who was circumcised on his eighth day had never been required to make the vow to keep Oral Law that Gentile proselytes were required to make, so when Israelites became followers of Jesus, they were free to live as Jesus did, not bound to the traditions of Oral Law.)  However both the OT and the NT tell us we should keep our vows so if Paul was talking about the Circumcision program of Oral Law, then he may have been telling the Gentiles like Nicolas to continue living according to Oral Law as they were doing when they were called to become followers of Jesus.

This is where the rest of the context that we don't have becomes important.  If the Corinthians had sent Paul a question about the ritual Circumcision of Oral Law for proselytes, they would know that Paul was referring the Circumcision program of Oral Law.  Then when he says "Circumcision is nothing and unCircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters," the Corinthians would have known exactly what Paul meant and there would be no reason to think Paul was teaching against the commandments of God, which include the circumcision of Abraham's covenant (removal of the foreskin, without the extra man-made requirements and vow of Oral Law).

[Wingnut]

12 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I Then when he says "Circumcision is nothing and unCircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters," the Corinthians would have known exactly what Paul meant and there would be no reason to think Paul was teaching against the commandments of God, which include the circumcision of Abraham's covenant (removal of the foreskin, without the extra man-made requirements and vow of Oral Law).

The "commandments of God" refer to the 10 commandments.

[Ron Amnsn]

33 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

The "commandments of God" refer to the 10 commandments.

They do now, in Christian circles.  However, that's not how the Bible uses the term "commandments".

In Scripture the "10 commandments" are actually referred to as the "Ten Words".  There are many more commandments than just ten.

Here's one example: When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Matt 22:36) which of the Ten Commandments did Jesus respond with?  None.  Jesus responded with a commandment from the Law of Moses (Deut 6:5).  And the second-greatest commandment that Jesus identified was also a commandment from God's Law of Moses (Lev. 19:18) rather than from the Ten Words.

The Jews consider the Ten Words of the covenant document to be sort of like the table of contents to the rest of God's Law.  For instance, the Ten Words say, "Six days shall you labor and do all your work" and the rest of the Law of Moses teaches us how to do our work.

[phkrause]

14 hours ago, jackson said:

The Bible was not written to be only rightly interpreted by scientists, archaeologists, historians of ancient cultures and civilizations or even professors of theology. It was written for all men and women who had a heart to know God. It was written in plain simple language and it was to mean exactly what it said. 

The only reason I see for OEC is that archaeologists cannot reconcile their findings with scripture. So be it. Take your choice either for fallen man's evidence or faith in the word.

In divine revelation God has given to men mysteries that are incomprehensible, to command their faith.  (HL 296.1)

 

 

Exactly Jackson!

[phkrause]

12 hours ago, Wingnut said:

But it's not a salvation requirement to correctly be able to explain the fossils which were laid down between Genesis 1:1 and Gen 1:2.  But its no glory either to not be able to explain "old light" from distant galaxies, or old fossils.

I do agree its not a salvation issue to be able to understand all the fossil records, etc. But this is where our Faith in God comes in to play!! Do we believe the Bible and except that there are things that we will never understand until we are able to ask Jesus? I'm pretty sure that if there were more between Genesis 1:1 and 2, that God thought needed to be added, it would've been there.

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I don't think it included those, but I could be wrong.  What would motivate a circumcised follower of Jesus to want to become uncircumcised, if Paul was just referring to presence or absence of a foreskin?  I certainly have no desire to become uncircumcised.  I've heard that some Jewish young men who wanted to compete naked in the Gymnasium sometimes wanted to become uncircumcised.  But how many followers of Jesus would be part of that crowd?  (None, I think.)  For an Israelite who was circumcised on his eighth day, what would be the benefit to "become uncircumcised"?

I think Paul was referring to those Gentiles like Nicolas (the proselyte who was appointed a deacon in Acts 6:5) who had already been through the traditional man-made proselyte program prescribed by Oral Law, which culminated in ritual Circumcision with a vow to keep both God's Law of Moses plus the traditions of Oral Law.  I can certainly understand why people like this could want to be released from their vow to keep Oral Law that they had made on the day they became Circumcised. For them becoming unCircumcised could look very inviting?  (By contrast, an Israelite who was circumcised on his eighth day had never been required to make the vow to keep Oral Law that Gentile proselytes were required to make, so when Israelites became followers of Jesus, they were free to live as Jesus did, not bound to the traditions of Oral Law.)  However both the OT and the NT tell us we should keep our vows so if Paul was talking about the Circumcision program of Oral Law, then he may have been telling the Gentiles like Nicolas to continue living according to Oral Law as they were doing when they were called to become followers of Jesus.

This is where the rest of the context that we don't have becomes important.  If the Corinthians had sent Paul a question about the ritual Circumcision of Oral Law for proselytes, they would know that Paul was referring the Circumcision program of Oral Law.  Then when he says "Circumcision is nothing and unCircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters," the Corinthians would have known exactly what Paul meant and there would be no reason to think Paul was teaching against the commandments of God, which include the circumcision of Abraham's covenant (removal of the foreskin, without the extra man-made requirements and vow of Oral Law).

Well Ron, I sure wish Paul would have said explicitly, that every man SHOULD be "circumcised in the manner of Abraham".  But he didn't.  And every time he mentions circumcision, he says that physical circumcision doesn't matter.  The "circumcision of Christ" is what counts - the circumcision of the heart.  I believe that is why physical circumcision SYMBOLIZED.  Christ circumcises the heart, and when He returns in glory, He will circumcise our flesh.  The mortal "flesh" will be gone.  It will be transformed.  We will have "spiritual bodies". 

As for "the 8th day", I don't believe the circumcision process will be complete for Israel redeemed - until the 8th millennium. 

Devout Jews of Paul's day believed that they were "Abraham's seed" BECAUSE they were physically circumcised.  But their circumcision counted for nothing, if they refused Christ. 

What did the circumcision MEAN?  To the little infant - it meant NOTHING.  It was actually a commitment by the parents, to bring up the child in the "ways of the LORD".  Little children cannot enter into a covenant.  We don't baptize infants for this reason. 

Baptism is the symbol of entry, into covenant with God through Christ.  Christ is the ONLY door to the Father - not physical circumcision.

When it came to baptism - on the other hand -  it was explicitly commanded by Jesus, and the command was repeated over and over by the disciples and Paul.   

And devout Jews were not excepted from the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus.  This despite their physical circumcision.  Obviously their physical circumcision was NOT ENOUGH to bring them in to "the body of Christ". 

If a man today, WANTS to become circumcised as a symbol of his belief in the "circumcision of Christ" or his belief in the promises of God, I would not try to prevent his doing this.  It is his personal choice.  I would not try to stop parents who wish to commit to raising their child for God, and want to have the child circumcised as a symbol of this.  But these persons must NOT do this in order to gain salvation.  And they should NOT think that this in any way guarantees salvation, or makes them more righteous than others. 

 

 

 

[Robert]

59 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The "circumcision of Christ" is what counts - the circumcision of the heart.  I believe that is why physical circumcision SYMBOLIZED.  Christ circumcises the heart, and when He returns in glory, He will circumcise our flesh.  The mortal "flesh" will be gone.  It will be transformed.  We will have "spiritual bodies". 

Rom 4:9 For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

In other words Abraham was considered righteous by faith before circumcision was given to Him by Christ.

Rom 4:11 And he (later) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised...

Circumcision did not contribute to Abraham's standing before God.  Abraham was already righteous by faith, period!  Circumcision was given Abraham as a sign of righteousness by faith!  Why?  Because Abraham, at Sarah's insistent, tried to help God produce the child of promise (Issac) through Hagar.  This wasn't an act of faith, but of works.  It was an act of unbelief.  

So circumcision was a sign, given to Abraham and his descendants, to place no confidence in any human contribution, but in the promises of God.  The removal of the foreskin from the penis was a sign of the removal of unbelief.  The reason God used this odd sign was because it was this reproductive organ that Abraham used in his unbelief.  

The Jews, especially the Pharisees and "the sect of the Pharisees who believed" (Judaizers - see Acts 15:5) were of "the false circumcision" (compare Phil 3:2 NASB).  What then was "the true circumcision" (Phil 3:3 NASB)? 

"The true circumcision" were those who "glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Phil 3:4) "The false circumcision" was exactly opposite of "the true circumcision".  "The false circumcision" was a sign by which to glory in oneself and and one's ability to merit salvation.  This can seen in the reading in the following:

"...The sect of the Pharisees who had believed (i.e., the Judaziers) stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses". (Acts 15:5)

 What did the Judaizers mean by "necessary"?  Acts 15:1 "Unless you are circumcised ... you cannot be saved".

So both the Pharisees & Judaizers had skyjacked the real meaning of circumcision (as sign of righteousness by faith) and had perverted it into a sign of "salvation by works".  The latter is to glory in oneself and place confidence in one's achievements whereas the "true circumcision" gloried not in self, but in Christ Jesus and placed no confidence in human works.

These are the issues.  

Robert

PS:

BTW, the same issues are true of the Sabbath. Most SDA have hijacked the true meaning of the Sabbath and perverted into a sign of salvation by works.

In reality the Sabbath is a sign that the believer can add nothing to what God has done "in Christ Jesus."  Hence we rest the Sabbath because God the Father rested from His finished and perfect work of redemption "in Christ Jesus".  See Heb 4:9,10 Our resting is therefore a sign of justification by faith in the doing and dying of Christ.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

36 minutes ago, Robert said:

Rom 4:9 For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

In other words Abraham was considered righteous by faith before circumcision was given to Him by Christ.

Rom 4:11 And he (later) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised...

Circumcision did not contribute to Abraham's standing before God.  Abraham was already righteous by faith, period!  Circumcision was given Abraham as a sign of righteousness by faith!  Why?  Because Abraham, at Sarah's insistent, tried to help God produce the child of promise (Issac) through Hagar.  This wasn't an act of faith, but of works.  It was an act of unbelief.  

So circumcision was a sign, given to Abraham and his descendants, to place no confidence in any human contribution, but in the promises of God.  The removal of the foreskin from the penis was a sign of the removal of unbelief.  The reason God used this odd sign was because it was this reproductive organ that Abraham used in his unbelief.  

The Jews, especially the Pharisees and "the sect of the Pharisees who believed" (Judaizers - see Acts 15:5) were of "the false circumcision" (compare Phil 3:2 NASB).  What then was "the true circumcision" (Phil 3:3 NASB)? 

"The true circumcision" were those who "glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Phil 3:4) "The false circumcision" was exactly opposite of "the true circumcision".  "The false circumcision" was a sign by which to glory in oneself and and one's ability to merit salvation.  This can seen in the reading in the following:

"...The sect of the Pharisees who had believed (i.e., the Judaziers) stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses". (Acts 15:5)

 What did the Judaizers mean by "necessary"?  Acts 15:1 "Unless you are circumcised ... you cannot be saved".

So both the Pharisees & Judaizers had skyjacked the real meaning of circumcision (as sign of righteousness by faith) and had perverted it into a sign of "salvation by works".  The latter is to glory in oneself and place confidence in one's achievements whereas the "true circumcision" gloried not in self, but in Christ Jesus and placed no confidence in human works.

These are the issues.  

 

Robert,

I actually LIKE almost everything you said here.  I erased the part that I don't quite agree with. 

[Robert]

51 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Robert,

I actually LIKE almost everything you said here.  I erased the part that I don't quite agree with. 

Okay

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Well Ron, I sure wish Paul would have said explicitly, that every man SHOULD be "circumcised in the manner of Abraham".  But he didn't.

Yes, that would have been clearer if Paul had actually written that down in a letter that survived until our time. Perhaps he said it verbally in his live teachings. Perhaps there was no need to say it because everyone could read it for themselves in the OT (which was the only existing Scripture at the time), especially in God's covenant with Abraham-- the covenant which we know Paul taught Gentiles they had inherited.

Or perhaps everyone was so zealous for the Law as recorded in Acts, and prophesied in Ezekiel, and prophesied in the promise of the New Covenant, that they were asking to be circumcised right after they accepted Messiah and were saved. In that case the the circumcision problems that were recorded in Paul's letters only occurred when the Circumcision Party did not accept those spontaneous circumcisions as valid and wanted all the spontaneously circumcised Gentile believers to be trained in Oral Law and be re-circumcised according to the traditions of Oral Law, and to vow to keep the traditions of Oral Law.  Having the Spirit inspire all those Gentiles to spontaneously follow OT Scripture, but not to follow the traditions of Oral Law would be a real threat to those man-made traditions that the Circumcision Party loved.

The key issues is whether Paul was authorized by God to overthrow the teachings contained in God's written Word.  Some people say that the same Spirit of God that inspired the OT also inspired Paul to nullify large portions of the OT.  That's not what Paul claimed about his own ministry. Paul claimed "I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place;" (Acts 26:22) Here Paul puts the onus on you (and those who think circumcision is no longer valid) to show that Moses and the Prophets wrote that Gentiles who were grafted into Israel through Messiah would not need to be circumcised to inherit Abraham's covenant.

According to what the Spirit inspired the OT writers to say, a person like Paul should be considered a false teacher if they influence people to turn away from God's Word.  Jesus said essentially the same thing regarding those who would be considered "least" by the Kingdom of Heaven.  You seem to want us to believe that Paul was a false teacher who turned people away from God's Word.