How should we read Paul?

Righttruth said:

Excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"

Views of a Truth Seeker

Here are keen and relevant observations of a truth seeker: “I entered Southern Seminary thinking that this issue would very soon find a resolution. It did not. It only became more intense and prominent as the seminary years progressed. The hard commandments of the Sermon on the Mount increasingly seemed tailor made to my central interests in the violence of Christendom that was World War II. But to my dismay, the Seminary faculty did nothing to relieve my growing concern. A typical response was to assure me that no one could keep those commandments. “They are only meant to convict us of sin so that we will trust in the blood of Jesus for forgiveness.” I could never match those assurances with anything from the utterances of Jesus but found them contradicted on every hand.

Martin Luther, inspired by Paul, concluded that the Epistle of James was “an epistle of straw.” I, inspired by Jesus and James, have finally concluded that Paul was an apostle of straw. I still acknowledge Paul’s great zeal for Christ, but it was zeal for a Christ misunderstood. Paul’s suffering for Christ bespeaks his great love for him, but it was love for a Christ misconceived. His preaching of Christ was among the most effective the world has ever seen, but it was of a Christ mis-preached. What follows is an effort to present Paul as I have come to know him, minus his halo but yet clothed with a kind of respect that seems at times contradictory, even to me. Seeing Paul, as he really is – warts and all – does not detract from my admiration of the work he performed.

It is very unlikely that any of the early disciples thought of their own writings as scripture, with the possible exception of Paul [The author doubts even this]. I will explain this possible exception below. And would Peter have been one who characterized Paul’s letters as scripture? Hardly! (This assumes that Peter authored the Petrine epistles, which many doubt. I have no problem with Peter’s authorship, provided we allow for redactions such as this.) Could Paul have seen himself as filling the vacancy? No, for he would surely have made that his claim. The fact is that the remaining eleven were instrumental in the selection of Matthias to fill this vacancy as even Luke informs us in The Acts, and had Paul seen himself as being Judas’ replacement, Luke would certainly have seen him as such. I believe, nevertheless, that Paul was Judas’s successor – as traitor! Judas betrayed him in his flesh; Paul betrayed him in his spirit. I see him as one who was, at a certain level, a man of great integrity who could persuade and deceive others only because he had first persuaded himself, which contributed to the effectiveness of his ministry. He preached in all sincerity what he really believed. Furthermore, a portion of his doctrine is wonderfully and gloriously true, which renders it all the more deceptive as even Paul could have understood from the standpoint of one who could accuse other “apostles” of disguising themselves as “servants of righteousness” (II Corinthians 11:15). Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-4). This is his unequivocal assertion of one of his most basic convictions. But look at what he did: And he came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (Acts 16:1-3).

If this isn’t inconsistency and compromise, I would not know how to define these things. Of course, one could defend Paul here by saying that the Galatian letter was written long after he had Timothy circumcised, and his views matured during the interval. Let us then say that is the case, and look at the implication: His views changed from one thing to another during the period when he was preaching his gospel throughout the world. The Truth, however, did not change during that period, for that is unchanging. He therefore could not have been preaching the Truth during this period of changing views, yet he claimed to be preaching the same gospel from beginning to end. This leaves us with no basis for believing that he ever preached the True Gospel! Did he really see a bright light? And did he really hear a voice? I believe he did, although it is questionable that others saw or heard them. The contradictions in the accounts of his revelation are sufficient to cause us to question his objectivity at the moment and his veracity afterwards.

In his defence before the Jerusalem crowd as Luke related in Acts 22:9 he said, “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” But then Luke described Paul’s experience in Chapter 9 thusly: The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7) Paul claimed that the gospel which was preached by him is not man’s gospel, for he said, “I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Are we to believe that Jesus communicated directly to Paul the doctrine of his return to earth in Paul’s lifetime? He said above, “. . . this I declare unto you by the word of the Lord.” If so, Jesus was also mistaken. But in this case, Jesus can no more be identified with Truth. I much prefer some other option, such as that Paul was the one mistaken; that he had visions during which he believed he was communicating with Jesus, when he actually was not. He therefore received his gospel, not from Jesus, but from whatever source it was that communicated with him during his visions. This is not the place to expand on the significance of this. Here it is only necessary to demonstrate that Paul could be in error in a case in which we can be certain he erred, for this alone is sufficient to justify our questioning everything he taught about Jesus Christ.

So, Paul’s doctrine of Jesus’ soon coming was clearly erroneous, being falsified by two thousand years of history Paul quotes at times without any regard to the context in which the passage is found in the Old Testament. Justification by Faith Justification by faith only and apart from works of the law can be said to be a major theme of Paul’s gospel. Indeed, I suppose this could be said to be his gospel, his good news, in a nutshell. After stating his case in Romans 3, he goes on in Chapter 4 to call forth the example of Abraham to cement his case.

A similar argument is also presented in the Galatian letter. Focusing on the statement in Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (or justification), Paul proceeds to set forth the idea that this justification came to Abraham before he was circumcised, and therefore is independent of circumcision so that the uncircumcised Gentiles are as qualified to receive it as are the Jews. Then, secondly, that it is independent of the law or of works of the law. Abraham believed God and had faith in his promise, even in the knowledge of the barrenness of Sarah’s womb and his own advanced age. As Paul explained, No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:20-22). So it is on this basis that Paul seeks to establish Abraham as the prime example of justification by faith only, and not by works. This, however, is not the entire story. If we examine the wider contest of Genesis, we must conclude that Abraham’s blessing came through both faith and works of law, and especially through the latter. God spoke to Abraham and said, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice (Genesis 22:17, 18). No mention here of faith, only that Abraham obeyed the voice of the Lord – a work of obedience to law! Then, later, when God extended the same blessing to Isaac, it was because Abraham had . . . obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5).

So that when Paul wrote, The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:13), he chose to ignore the full explanation of the Genesis text. To cap it all off, nowhere in Genesis can I find that God promised Abraham that his descendants would inherit the world! He only promised them the Land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). The Epistle of James may have been written for the purpose, in part, of countering this “faith only” doctrine of Paul. James also appeals to Abraham, specifically to the offering of Isaac as sacrifice, and concludes, “Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness;” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. ( James 2:20-24) He advances a collection of six quotations from various contexts of the Old Testament to put this point, the universality of human sinfulness and depravity, to rest once for all.

Let us list them all for closer examination, after which I will comment on each one briefly: 1. Romans : (3:10-12) None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one (Psalm 14:1-3). 2. (3:13a) Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive (Psalm 5:9). 3. (3:13b) The venom of asps is under their lips (Psalm 140:3). 4. (3:14) Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness (Psalm 10:7). 5. (3:15-17) Their feet are swift to shed blood, in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they do not know (Isaiah 59:7, 8). 6. (3:18) There is no fear of God before their eyes (Psalm 36:1). Psalm 14:1-3 appears on first reading to say exactly what Paul wishes it to say. But if we read the balance of the psalm, it becomes evident that the psalmist did not intend what Paul asserted, for in v. 4 we have the evildoers set apart from my people with a clear distinction made between them. Then in v. 5, these evildoers will be in great terror, for God will be with the generation of the righteous, who are then identified with the poor, but the Lord is his refuge. The Psalm closes with v. 7: O, that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad. Clearly, the Psalmist allows for two categories of human beings, the evildoers and the generation of the righteous, who are identified with Israel in the last verse. The “no, not one” must then refer only to the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord, presumably Gentiles in contrast to Jacob and Israel. Paul, who seeks by this to prove his point, that all are under condemnation of sin without exception, has not properly regarded the context and has as a result drawn something out of it contrary to the intent of the Psalmist. He has tampered with God’s word. There is no denying it. Paul has here used the Word deceptively. He has tampered with it to make it appear that his position is supported thereby. Not only is this premise not supported by the passages quoted as its support, but neither is it true to the thought of the Old Testament, as Holmes Rolston would have us believe.

The thought of the Old Testament, beginning with Cain and Abel, consistently allows for two categories of human beings, the wicked and the righteous, in the manner I have demonstrated above. If Paul’s premise is true, it cannot be established by reference to the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms. Now we know why his opponents charged him with tampering with the Word of God, and why he was compelled to issue denials in his defense. It is not surprising to see Paul applying this prophecy to the coming of the Christ (Messiah) in the work of Jesus. This is a common application, but he interprets the word for faithfulness as faith, applying it to the conviction of the truth of the redemptive work of Christ, which is not justified when its context is considered. The Septuagint similarly errs in using the Greek, pistis, to translate the Hebrew word, for this does mean faith, as Paul understood it. Since Paul was using the Septuagint, this may explain how he came to misunderstand the word in its context. And he made it the cornerstone of his gospel so it looks suspiciously like he has again been found tampering with God’s Word. This is only one more of the numerous incidents where it......

Click to expand...

Your cult author displays his ignorance again and again. Let's start here:

1. The supposed "contradiction" between Saul's conversion accounts in Acts.
As has previously been shown, the word translated heard in both these accounts can mean either heard or understood. These accounts are easily reconciled by showing that those around did not understand the voice, though they heard the sound and recognized it as a voice.

2. The "inconsistency with Timothy" and his instructions to the church in Galatia.
Again, as has been previously shown, Paul instructed the Galatians not to be circumcised because the Jews were saying that they had to in order to be saved. Paul affirmed Jesus' own words that the only requirement for salvation was belief in the only begotten Son of God.
When Paul had Timothy circumcised, he did it not for salvation, but so that Timothy could accompany him on his missionary journey to the Jews. The Bible even tells us this. It was not for Timothy's salvation, and I'm sure Timothy knew that. This is neither inconsistency nor contradiction.

3. The treatment of Paul as ignorant of the Old Testament
Paul was a Pharisee. He learned from Gamaliel, one of the most respected pharisees. In order to be a pharisee, one had to know the Torah, the Prophets, and the Wisdom writings to the point of having most of them memorized. He was not ignorant of Old Testament law, and he was a Jew. If anyone had a reason to boast in their works, it was Paul. But instead he preached the good news of salvation by faith alone. Paul would have learned the writings in their original Hebrew, not in the Greek septuagint. To make the claim that Paul knew only the septuagint puts the author's ignorance on full display.

4. The suggestion that Paul's claim of salvation by faith alone is unscriptural
There are many direct quotes from Jesus that can be used to demonstrate the fallacy of this, but the most commonly known one is this:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."
Similarly, there are the words uttered to the thief on the cross - a sinner who repented in what were quite literally the last hours of his life:
"Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."
According to the law, there is no way that Jesus could say that to the thief. He had no chance to atone for his sins. He had no chance to prove his faith by works. Yet Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise that very day.

5. The suggestion that Paul's usage of the phrase "there is none righteous" is wrong.
Jesus Himself said "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God." He also demonstrated, as is affirmed by James and Paul, that whoever breaks even one little part of the law is a sinner and guilty of all of it. The only righteousness any of us have is the righteousness of Christ.

This list could go on and on, with plenty of scriptural and contextual rebuttals. Your author, like you, starts with the premise that Paul is wrong - and why? Because he wants to be one of the "righteous" and wants people who don't agree with him to be numbered among the "wicked." And he wants to be able to prove his "righteousness" by his works, and the "wickedness" of others by their lack thereof or merely their disagreement with him.

Extraneous said:

Its more han that, its the Lords spiritual leading of his sheep.

Click to expand...

extraneous,

Jesus earthly teachings were based in the KOH and the KOG message according to the covenants of Abraham and David that concerned Israel's earthly calling. Do you know what that context is about?
The Lord was spiritually leading of his sheep with Israel under the Mosaic law all through the law period and even before this with the patriarchs etc.
One has to learn the historical and dispensational teachings and understand gradual revelation of how God dealt with men in different ages to better understand our covenant of the death, burial and resurrection and the difference in the callings of the nation of Israel in the KOH reign and the church of jews and gentiles today in the body of Christ and the better promises of the new covenant. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

extraneous,

Jesus earthly teachings were based in the KOH and the KOG message according to the covenants of Abraham and David that concerned Israel's earthly calling. Do you know what that context is about?
The Lord was spiritually leading of his sheep with Israel under the Mosaic law all through the law period and even before this with the patriarchs etc.
One has to learn the historical and dispensational teachings and understand gradual revelation of how God dealt with men in different ages to better understand our covenant of the death, burial and resurrection and the difference in the callings of the nation of Israel in the KOH reign and the church of jews and gentiles today in the body of Christ and the better promises of the new covenant. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

No i dont need to learn all that, thats how you got confused it seems. You actually said that no teacher would dare teach that sermon.

Righttruth said:

Are you saying that the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to Israel only and not to us?

Click to expand...

righttruth,
The Sermon on the Mount was addressed directly to Israel only. This is why in Matthew 10 Jesus said go to the lost sheep of Israel and not to the gentiles.
This does not mean that the sermon has no value to us because all the bible is for us in the proper perspective.
You tell me what you know about the KOH and the KOG message was about according to the nation of Israel and then I will be glad to address it. Jerry Kelso

Extraneous said:

No i dont need to learn all that, thats how you got confused it seems. You actually said that no teacher would dare teach that sermon.

Click to expand...

extraneous,
Where did I say that no teacher would dare teach that sermon? I said the whole bible is for us in the proper perspective.
The sermon on the mount is full of spiritual principles. As christians we are in a spiritual war and can be caught off guard at any time. Why would a preacher not preach on being pure in heart or a peacemaker etc.
The problem is most people do not understand the KOH and the KOG message and what it is about and they just like at Jesus teachings are under the context of moral law alone or the new covenant when they were under the Mosaic law period.
Now if you think you know something tell me what the KOH and the KOG in connection with the Mosaic law and why that is important to understand before you go expounding what it means to new covenant believers in the church. Jerry Kelso

Righttruth said:

Excerpts from "Did Saint Paul Deviate From The Gospel?"

Views of a Truth Seeker

Here are keen and relevant observations of a truth seeker: “I entered Southern Seminary thinking that this issue would very soon find a resolution. It did not. It only became more intense and prominent as the seminary years progressed. The hard commandments of the Sermon on the Mount increasingly seemed tailor made to my central interests in the violence of Christendom that was World War II. But to my dismay, the Seminary faculty did nothing to relieve my growing concern. A typical response was to assure me that no one could keep those commandments. “They are only meant to convict us of sin so that we will trust in the blood of Jesus for forgiveness.” I could never match those assurances with anything from the utterances of Jesus but found them contradicted on every hand.

Martin Luther, inspired by Paul, concluded that the Epistle of James was “an epistle of straw.” I, inspired by Jesus and James, have finally concluded that Paul was an apostle of straw. I still acknowledge Paul’s great zeal for Christ, but it was zeal for a Christ misunderstood. Paul’s suffering for Christ bespeaks his great love for him, but it was love for a Christ misconceived. His preaching of Christ was among the most effective the world has ever seen, but it was of a Christ mis-preached. What follows is an effort to present Paul as I have come to know him, minus his halo but yet clothed with a kind of respect that seems at times contradictory, even to me. Seeing Paul, as he really is – warts and all – does not detract from my admiration of the work he performed.

It is very unlikely that any of the early disciples thought of their own writings as scripture, with the possible exception of Paul [The author doubts even this]. I will explain this possible exception below. And would Peter have been one who characterized Paul’s letters as scripture? Hardly! (This assumes that Peter authored the Petrine epistles, which many doubt. I have no problem with Peter’s authorship, provided we allow for redactions such as this.) Could Paul have seen himself as filling the vacancy? No, for he would surely have made that his claim. The fact is that the remaining eleven were instrumental in the selection of Matthias to fill this vacancy as even Luke informs us in The Acts, and had Paul seen himself as being Judas’ replacement, Luke would certainly have seen him as such. I believe, nevertheless, that Paul was Judas’s successor – as traitor! Judas betrayed him in his flesh; Paul betrayed him in his spirit. I see him as one who was, at a certain level, a man of great integrity who could persuade and deceive others only because he had first persuaded himself, which contributed to the effectiveness of his ministry. He preached in all sincerity what he really believed. Furthermore, a portion of his doctrine is wonderfully and gloriously true, which renders it all the more deceptive as even Paul could have understood from the standpoint of one who could accuse other “apostles” of disguising themselves as “servants of righteousness” (II Corinthians 11:15). Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-4). This is his unequivocal assertion of one of his most basic convictions. But look at what he did: And he came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (Acts 16:1-3).

If this isn’t inconsistency and compromise, I would not know how to define these things. Of course, one could defend Paul here by saying that the Galatian letter was written long after he had Timothy circumcised, and his views matured during the interval. Let us then say that is the case, and look at the implication: His views changed from one thing to another during the period when he was preaching his gospel throughout the world. The Truth, however, did not change during that period, for that is unchanging. He therefore could not have been preaching the Truth during this period of changing views, yet he claimed to be preaching the same gospel from beginning to end. This leaves us with no basis for believing that he ever preached the True Gospel! Did he really see a bright light? And did he really hear a voice? I believe he did, although it is questionable that others saw or heard them. The contradictions in the accounts of his revelation are sufficient to cause us to question his objectivity at the moment and his veracity afterwards.

In his defence before the Jerusalem crowd as Luke related in Acts 22:9 he said, “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” But then Luke described Paul’s experience in Chapter 9 thusly: The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. (Acts 9:7) Paul claimed that the gospel which was preached by him is not man’s gospel, for he said, “I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Are we to believe that Jesus communicated directly to Paul the doctrine of his return to earth in Paul’s lifetime? He said above, “. . . this I declare unto you by the word of the Lord.” If so, Jesus was also mistaken. But in this case, Jesus can no more be identified with Truth. I much prefer some other option, such as that Paul was the one mistaken; that he had visions during which he believed he was communicating with Jesus, when he actually was not. He therefore received his gospel, not from Jesus, but from whatever source it was that communicated with him during his visions. This is not the place to expand on the significance of this. Here it is only necessary to demonstrate that Paul could be in error in a case in which we can be certain he erred, for this alone is sufficient to justify our questioning everything he taught about Jesus Christ.

So, Paul’s doctrine of Jesus’ soon coming was clearly erroneous, being falsified by two thousand years of history Paul quotes at times without any regard to the context in which the passage is found in the Old Testament. Justification by Faith Justification by faith only and apart from works of the law can be said to be a major theme of Paul’s gospel. Indeed, I suppose this could be said to be his gospel, his good news, in a nutshell. After stating his case in Romans 3, he goes on in Chapter 4 to call forth the example of Abraham to cement his case.

A similar argument is also presented in the Galatian letter. Focusing on the statement in Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (or justification), Paul proceeds to set forth the idea that this justification came to Abraham before he was circumcised, and therefore is independent of circumcision so that the uncircumcised Gentiles are as qualified to receive it as are the Jews. Then, secondly, that it is independent of the law or of works of the law. Abraham believed God and had faith in his promise, even in the knowledge of the barrenness of Sarah’s womb and his own advanced age. As Paul explained, No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:20-22). So it is on this basis that Paul seeks to establish Abraham as the prime example of justification by faith only, and not by works. This, however, is not the entire story. If we examine the wider contest of Genesis, we must conclude that Abraham’s blessing came through both faith and works of law, and especially through the latter. God spoke to Abraham and said, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice (Genesis 22:17, 18). No mention here of faith, only that Abraham obeyed the voice of the Lord – a work of obedience to law! Then, later, when God extended the same blessing to Isaac, it was because Abraham had . . . obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5).

So that when Paul wrote, The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:13), he chose to ignore the full explanation of the Genesis text. To cap it all off, nowhere in Genesis can I find that God promised Abraham that his descendants would inherit the world! He only promised them the Land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). The Epistle of James may have been written for the purpose, in part, of countering this “faith only” doctrine of Paul. James also appeals to Abraham, specifically to the offering of Isaac as sacrifice, and concludes, “Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness;” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. ( James 2:20-24) He advances a collection of six quotations from various contexts of the Old Testament to put this point, the universality of human sinfulness and depravity, to rest once for all.

Let us list them all for closer examination, after which I will comment on each one briefly: 1. Romans : (3:10-12) None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one (Psalm 14:1-3). 2. (3:13a) Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive (Psalm 5:9). 3. (3:13b) The venom of asps is under their lips (Psalm 140:3). 4. (3:14) Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness (Psalm 10:7). 5. (3:15-17) Their feet are swift to shed blood, in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they do not know (Isaiah 59:7, 8). 6. (3:18) There is no fear of God before their eyes (Psalm 36:1). Psalm 14:1-3 appears on first reading to say exactly what Paul wishes it to say. But if we read the balance of the psalm, it becomes evident that the psalmist did not intend what Paul asserted, for in v. 4 we have the evildoers set apart from my people with a clear distinction made between them. Then in v. 5, these evildoers will be in great terror, for God will be with the generation of the righteous, who are then identified with the poor, but the Lord is his refuge. The Psalm closes with v. 7: O, that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad. Clearly, the Psalmist allows for two categories of human beings, the evildoers and the generation of the righteous, who are identified with Israel in the last verse. The “no, not one” must then refer only to the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord, presumably Gentiles in contrast to Jacob and Israel. Paul, who seeks by this to prove his point, that all are under condemnation of sin without exception, has not properly regarded the context and has as a result drawn something out of it contrary to the intent of the Psalmist. He has tampered with God’s word. There is no denying it. Paul has here used the Word deceptively. He has tampered with it to make it appear that his position is supported thereby. Not only is this premise not supported by the passages quoted as its support, but neither is it true to the thought of the Old Testament, as Holmes Rolston would have us believe.

The thought of the Old Testament, beginning with Cain and Abel, consistently allows for two categories of human beings, the wicked and the righteous, in the manner I have demonstrated above. If Paul’s premise is true, it cannot be established by reference to the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms. Now we know why his opponents charged him with tampering with the Word of God, and why he was compelled to issue denials in his defense. It is not surprising to see Paul applying this prophecy to the coming of the Christ (Messiah) in the work of Jesus. This is a common application, but he interprets the word for faithfulness as faith, applying it to the conviction of the truth of the redemptive work of Christ, which is not justified when its context is considered. The Septuagint similarly errs in using the Greek, pistis, to translate the Hebrew word, for this does mean faith, as Paul understood it. Since Paul was using the Septuagint, this may explain how he came to misunderstand the word in its context. And he made it the cornerstone of his gospel so it looks suspiciously like he has again been found tampering with God’s Word. This is only one more of the numerous incidents where it......

Click to expand...

Why should we take the word of the author?

What theological training does he have?


About the Author
The author is a retired principal and professor of mechanical engineering having served in a couple of engineering colleges in the state of Karnataka. He had his education both in India as well as in the U.S.A., with degrees of Master of Engineering from Bangalore University and Master of Science from the University of Cincinnati, USA. He is a fellow of the Institution of Engineers (India) and a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has been listed in “Who is Who in the World?” published by Marquis, U.S.A., Dictionary of International Biography, Cambridge, U.K., and Asia’s “Who is Who?” He is a freelancer. His letters and opinions have been published in almost all English Dailies (Deccan Herald, Times of India, New Indian Express, Hindu, Vijaya Times, Daily News Analysis, Free Press Journal, and Asian Age); weeklies (India Today, Outlook, Frontline, and The Week) and Reader’s Digest including ASME Mechanical Engineering Magazine. His books, “Wisdom, Human Spirit and Travel”, “Why I Am A Believer in Jesus” (A Story of a Hindu Devanga Brahmin), “Can A Christian Marry, Divorce, and Remarry” and “Artful Argentina and Awesome Antarctica” have been published by Notion Press.

Why I am a believer in Jesus : A Story of a Hindu Devanga Brahmin

by Devaprakash R. Shampur

ISBN: 978-93-83185-26-9

- See more at: https://notionpress.com/read/why-i-am-a-believer-in-jesus#.dpuf

A Hindu Devanga Brahmin is your source?

redleghunter said:

Why I am a believer in Jesus : A Story of a Hindu Devanga Brahmin

by Devaprakash R. Shampur

ISBN: 978-93-83185-26-9

- See more at: https://notionpress.com/read/why-i-am-a-believer-in-jesus#.dpuf

A Hindu Devanga Brahmin is your source?

Click to expand...

Because hereditary Pagan priests from the most notoriously cruel and self-serving of the privilege castes of India are obviously the most reliable source of theological exegesis on the subject of Christian doctrine.

Wisdom, Human Spirit and Travel

by Devaprakash R. Shampur

ISBN: 978-93-82447-31-3

- See more at: https://notionpress.com/read/wisdom-human-spirit-and-travel#.dpuf

Righttruth said:

Miracles are happenings in other religions and in Catholic groups too.

Click to expand...

Would you like to list which miracles were from God and which are false?

I truly don't advise you to do so.

Yet you skirted the point.

The testimony of the TaNaKh and NT is God confirms His Word in Power through His prophets and apostles.

Righttruth said:

I am disputing Paul's invention on interpreter. You can't categorize the Paul's epistles as scripture with man's thinking and accept that in toto. When something is disputed, you can't quote the same source as defense. That is not how truth is found. Show me the concept of interpreter from any other source in the entire Bible or in Paul's letters(other than 1 Corin.) For me, Jesus' words are final, and it rightly so for believers of Jesus, not Paul.

People of other religions also hold their sacred texts as final authority. How do you convince them of the truth?



Considering manipulated Bible as inerrant is as good as claiming person of Pope as infallible.

righttruth,



So you accept all kinds of concoction is noticed in speaking gibberish. That happens because the source itself is non acceptable.



Poor logic: connecting hypocrisy to good deed.



It would mean Paul relied on his wisdom, particularly, in his earlier letters. How far he conformed with the Gospel has to be verified.



Biased Pauline Christians are bound to have tunnel vision and perspective by ignoring the words of Jesus.

Click to expand...

righttruth,

1. Paul's invention on interpretation is your opinion and you have no scripture to back it up.

2. I have stated scriptural fact that Jesus didn't teach the death, burial and resurrection in his earthly ministry under the Mosaic law and the KOH and the KOG message only to Israel. Jesus taught them to repent and that he would forgive their sins. Matthew 4:17 It was about to believe in him.
Matthew 16:22-23 was after the rejection of Israel Matthew 23:37-39 and then Jesus started to tell about his death and resurrection and Peter said he wasn't going to let anyone kill him and Jesus said, Get behind me Satan for you don't savor the things of God. Peter didn't have a clue Jesus was to be the actual sacrifice for redemption. If Peter didn't understand the death and resurrection of Christ at the end of Jesus ministry then he didn't know during his earthly ministry and in his teachings. Give me a scripture that Jesus directly told the jews to believe in his death and resurrection to be saved like the new covenant says. You say I am expressing man's thinking when I gave scripture. You won't even give a scripture to prove your point and that is absurd.

3. Paul and Jesus agreed that the new covenant is the death, burial and resurrection. Jesus told this at the end of his ministry and espoused what the law and the prophets had said about him and what it was all about and this was about the death and resurrection of Christ. Luke 24:44-47.

4. The old covenant has nothing much about the church age and the details of the body of Christ and that was not the purpose. The new covenant was prophesied back in Genesis 3:15 but didn't come to full fruition until Calvary.
The old covenant shows that their would be a new covenant Jeremiah 31:31-32 and that Jesus would bring it about and it was offered to Israel for the Messiah would come through their line. Hebrews 9:15 said it was for the transgressions of the first covenant. It was also prophesied that he would die for the whole world and that Israel would reject him Isaiah 53:3 and not enter the covenants of their earthly calling Matthew 23:37-39. 1 Chronicles 28:7. The church was predestined from the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:5.

I have to go but suffice to say until you show that you provide scripture and actually engage properly and specifically according to the scripture all you say is conjecture and opinion which makes your accusations as absurd as the day is long.
Now what words of Jesus do you think are final that Paul doesn't agree with? Be specific. Jerry Kelso

Righttruth said:

Paul was not a witness in Jesus' earthly ministry. He never heard the elaboration of the parables by Jesus. Therefore, all his epistles should be tested to determine whether they complement the preaching of Jesus or not. Furthermore, any important theological concept cannot be based on Paul's epistles alone. Gospel is the filter one has to apply to his letters.

Click to expand...

You reject Paul when he was commissioned by Jesus Himself?

football5680 said:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Click to expand...

Amen!

If their is fault, it is with the readers interpretation of what Saint Paul wrote, not with what was written.

Click to expand...

And Amen!

Righttruth said:

Paul is also responsible in deviating from Jesus' preaching.

Click to expand...

Since you seem confident of this, please show us where in scripture.

Righttruth said:

Apart from that,Paul craftily came up with suggestions to solve problems of the churches that don't support the way of Jesus!

Click to expand...

Again, please show this in Paul's writing.

ScottA said:

Hahaha...therein lies the problem.

I do get your question, but you are wrong. When it comes to language...we do indeed have a God of confusion:

Genesis 11:8-9
So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

Click to expand...

The word in Hebrew is interesting that is translated as 'confuse' or 'confound'. But it doesn't mean to confuse as we understand that English meaning. It was to make it so they couldn't communicate with each other, but that didn't mean they couldn't communicate with God.

Our God is not one who would confuse us, but he stopped mankind from grouping together against him which oddly today that has been all but reversed by mankind in today's technology.