Paul vs "the law" (can humans earn righteousness?)

Desert Snake · Aug 18, 2015

leibowde84 said:
See, that's what I have a problem with. I can't envision Jesus being petty enough to demand belief in his divinity for him to provide righteousness. I am no saint, but I feel like even if I was in Jesus' shoes, I wouldn't hold belief against anyone. As long as you have an open mind and strive to live a decent, generous, and fulfilling life, righteousness will be achieved.

Your argument is based on a fictional scenario. It isn't what the Bible states, or teaches, etc. It doesn't make sense in any actual Scriptural, or traditional belief paradigm.

leibowde84 · Aug 18, 2015

q konn said:
Your argument is based on a fictional scenario. It isn't what the Bible states, or teaches, etc. It doesn't make sense in any actual Scriptural, or traditional belief paradigm.

Scripture and traditions arent the only way that God reveals himself. Reason is much more powerful and accurate, IMHO. Tradition has no inherent value, and just like scripture, it is plagued by ancient man's lack of understanding of reality and the cosmos. We are tasked, as I see it, with contemplating these things honestly in order to attain a better understanding of God. I am in no way limited by the unknown authors of the Gospels and St. Paul. Paul, remember, based his authority on nothing more than a claimed vision of Christ.

Desert Snake · Aug 18, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Scripture and traditions arent the only way that God reveals himself.

And I did not say it was.

Reason is much more powerful and accurate, IMHO. Tradition has no inherent value, and just like scripture, it is plagued by ancient man's lack of understanding of reality and the cosmos.

This is an arbitrary separation and dismissal of traditional truths, teachings. Merely because something is traditional, does not make it false; that pre-emptive bias is a common mistake in reading religious works, imo.

We are tasked, as I see it, with contemplating these things honestly in order to attain a better understanding of God.

I agree, to the extent that I disagree with xians etc on various things.

I am in no way limited by the unknown authors of the Gospels and St. Paul. Paul, remember, based his authority on nothing more than a claimed vision of Christ.

Who is? Who said you should be? Aren't you actually talking about very specific theological beliefs and teachings, taught in the Epistles? I could just as easily claim that various books in the Bible are false additions, etc. It is personal belief, though, not Scriptural teachings. So, the Bible does not ''agree'' with you, essentially. You are imo presenting some ideas/arguments, as apples and oranges, though; ie just because you may disagree with some portions of the Scripture, does not make the other Scripture 'truth', to your, basically, fictional ''version'' of the Bible events. So, you cannot intone that others are being ''unreasonable'', in their beliefs, you merely disagree with them.

leibowde84 · Aug 19, 2015

q konn said:
And I did not say it was.

This is an arbitrary separation and dismissal of traditional truths, teachings. Merely because something is traditional, does not make it false; that pre-emptive bias is a common mistake in reading religious works, imo.

I agree, to the extent that I disagree with xians etc on various things.

Who is? Who said you should be? Aren't you actually talking about very specific theological beliefs and teachings, taught in the Epistles? I could just as easily claim that various books in the Bible are false additions, etc. It is personal belief, though, not Scriptural teachings. So, the Bible does not ''agree'' with you, essentially. You are imo presenting some ideas/arguments, as apples and oranges, though; ie just because you may disagree with some portions of the Scripture, does not make the other Scripture 'truth', to your, basically, fictional ''version'' of the Bible events. So, you cannot intone that others are being ''unreasonable'', in their beliefs, you merely disagree with them.

In regards to tradition, I did not claim that traditions were all wrong. I merely said that something being repeated for a long time neither shows it's truth or falsity. Something being a tradition has absolutely no bearing on it's validity. That is a misconception that I feel has dramatically damaged the Church in which I grew up (RCC).

Sleeppy · Aug 21, 2015

Simplelogic said:
A mans ability to do good or evil. Its more than just a "choice".

Choosing to do anything - good and/or evil - is an illusion afforded to creation. God however, having all knowledge and lacking nothing, is a perfectly zealous Creator. In other words, God is not capable of obtaining the so-called "future" knowledge (of good and evil) seemingly being created in a linear fashion, according to human perception, because He is the sole owner of all things.

The true gift of God is not free will, but it is the awareness of God's will, afforded to limited human perception over 'time'. For this reason, God is called 'eternal'. But of course, we should know that God is not subject to an eternity of time. Time is necessary for beings like us, to experience our inheritances from the Father. An eternity therefore explains the hope of everlasting life alongside the 'infinite' knowledge of God.

Sleeppy · Aug 21, 2015

Simplelogic said:
The entire Bible, except Paul's letters, is about turning from evil to doing good. Just saying.

This is inaccurate.. In many cases, the authors specifically attribute evil to God, either directly or by proxy.

Simplelogic · Aug 21, 2015

Sleeppy said:
This is inaccurate.. In many cases, the authors specifically attribute evil to God, either directly or by proxy.

nope…only people reading Paul's sick concepts back into the scriptures could even suggest this. Name a verse you think proves this and we will see.

Simplelogic · Aug 21, 2015

Sleeppy said:
Choosing to do anything - good and/or evil - is an illusion afforded to creation. God however, having all knowledge and lacking nothing, is a perfectly zealous Creator. In other words, God is not capable of obtaining the so-called "future" knowledge (of good and evil) seemingly being created in a linear fashion, according to human perception, because He is the sole owner of all things.

The true gift of God is not free will, but it is the awareness of God's will, afforded to limited human perception over 'time'. For this reason, God is called 'eternal'. But of course, we should know that God is not subject to an eternity of time. Time is necessary for beings like us, to experience our inheritances from the Father. An eternity therefore explains the hope of everlasting life alongside the 'infinite' knowledge of God.

Except this is not what God says in the tanakh.

Simplelogic · Aug 21, 2015

q konn said:
And I did not say it was.

This is an arbitrary separation and dismissal of traditional truths, teachings. Merely because something is traditional, does not make it false; that pre-emptive bias is a common mistake in reading religious works, imo.

I agree, to the extent that I disagree with xians etc on various things.

Who is? Who said you should be? Aren't you actually talking about very specific theological beliefs and teachings, taught in the Epistles? I could just as easily claim that various books in the Bible are false additions, etc. It is personal belief, though, not Scriptural teachings. So, the Bible does not ''agree'' with you, essentially. You are imo presenting some ideas/arguments, as apples and oranges, though; ie just because you may disagree with some portions of the Scripture, does not make the other Scripture 'truth', to your, basically, fictional ''version'' of the Bible events. So, you cannot intone that others are being ''unreasonable'', in their beliefs, you merely disagree with them.

The argument is that Paul is contrary to the rest of the scriptures. This thread is not about proving the validity of the Tanakh.

savagewind · Aug 21, 2015

Simplelogic said:
nope…only people reading Paul's sick concepts back into the scriptures could even suggest this. Name a verse you think proves this and we will see.

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

Simplelogic · Aug 23, 2015

savagewind said:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

Are you aware of what the women of Midian did to the Israelites? You also have no clue who the nephilim were and why God commanded Hebrews to destroy all of them. You have some studying to do.

savagewind · Aug 23, 2015

Simplelogic said:
Are you aware of what the women of Midian did to the Israelites? You also have no clue who the nephilim were and why God commanded Hebrews to destroy all of them. You have some studying to do.

So then according to you ALL the women and children should be executed for what some women did. Also, please let us know what to look for in a virgin woman, without, you know, raping her.

Sleeppy · Aug 23, 2015

Simplelogic said:
nope…only people reading Paul's sick concepts back into the scriptures could even suggest this. Name a verse you think proves this and we will see.

Numbers 31:14-20

Moses is wroth against the inspectors of the force, chiefs of the thousands, and chiefs of the hundreds, who are coming in from the host of the battle. And Moses saith unto them, `Have ye kept alive every female? Lo, they -- they have been to the sons of Israel, through the word of Balaam, to cause a trespass against God in the matter of Peor, and the plague is in the company of God. `And now, slay ye every male among the infants, yea, every woman known of man by the lying of a male ye have slain; and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves. `And ye, encamp ye at the outside of the camp seven days -- any who hath slain a person, and any who hath come against a pierced one, ye cleanse yourselves on the third day, and on the seventh day -- ye and your captives; and every garment, and every skin vessel, and every work of goats' [hair], and every wooden vessel, ye yourselves cleanse.'

This is truly sick.. To think these men could cleanse themselves of such heinous acts against their brothers and sisters (of which were infants), without acknowledging their blasphemy against the Father..

You say that the sins of the father do not blunt the teeth of the children, but do you acknowledge the evil ignorance presented in the sacrifice of innocent men, women and children? Or do you subscribe to the reasoning of murderers (of Cain)?

Sleeppy · Aug 23, 2015

Simplelogic said:
Except this is not what God says in the tanakh.

God ≠ Tanakh. God's word has manifested reality. We are only capable of knowing God according to our constraints. There are things God says continually, that the Tanakh has not recorded. There will always be greater righteousness for the son of man to hear, and share. There are always things that the youth hear from God, that their elders will not receive.

Sleeppy · Aug 24, 2015

Simplelogic said:
Are you aware of what the women of Midian did to the Israelites? You also have no clue who the nephilim were and why God commanded Hebrews to destroy all of them. You have some studying to do.

Seriously? Nephilim?
1) Where are they mentioned in Numbers?
2) Remnants of "God's" imperfect flood?
3) Where are these Nephilim now? Historical and/or DNA evidence? Recent or relevant psychological and/or sociological evidence?

Equally convenient and disturbing.

Muffled · Aug 25, 2015

Nakosis said:
Not saying your are wrong but the NT is such a hodge-podge collection of stories it is difficult to be certain of the underlining meaning of a particular gospel. Whereas if I take a book from the OT, I can usually be fairly certain of it's intent.

There is a element of indeterminism in the gospel stories that allows for subjective interpretation. So while I'm sure you are certain, someone else with a differing interpretation can be just as certain.

I believe logic is like math. 1 + 1 = 2 always. There is no indeterminism to it.

Muffled · Aug 25, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Don't you think it's ironic that, in response to our distrust of Paul's definition of "righteousness", you quoted Paul's very definition of the word? That is an illustration of the issue at hand. It seems that Paul's idea of righteousness differed a great deal from Jesus'. Which, should come as no surprise, as Paul never once met the living Jesus, and his claim of a "vision" was shaky at best.

I did not find any definition of righteouness by either Jesus or Paul. I suppose both Jesus and Paul infer that righteousness is a way that men live their lives.

Nakosis · Aug 25, 2015

Muffled said:
I believe logic is like math. 1 + 1 = 2 always. There is no indeterminism to it.

You have to go with what you feel is best.

For me I find there maybe several different ways to put together the same puzzle. The method itself is a bit arbitrary, and can lead to quite a different final picture. So the method is key. Same is true of math and logic.

Desert Snake · Aug 25, 2015

leibowde84 said:
In regards to tradition, I did not claim that traditions were all wrong. I merely said that something being repeated for a long time neither shows it's truth or falsity.

Therefore? Did I say otherwise?

Something being a tradition has absolutely no bearing on it's validity.

So? Tradition can also be correct.

That is a misconception that I feel has dramatically damaged the Church in which I grew up (RCC).

It isn't my misconception. I was stating that I believe that certain traditions actually are correct, I did not say that I believed that because they are traditional/
That being said, you will find that when the parts of the equation get goofed, you will arrive at the wrong answers. That's because the texts are in a format that gives a preclusive basis for figuring out what is being said. If you 'change', the basic theology to suit your theories, etc., the rest of the text won't make sense.
just my opinion, of course, I don't really care what/how you view the Bible, etc.

leibowde84 · Aug 25, 2015

q konn said:
Therefore? Did I say otherwise?

So? Tradition can also be correct.

It isn't my misconception. I was stating that I believe that certain traditions actually are correct, I did not say that I believed that because they are traditional/
That being said, you will find that when the parts of the equation get goofed, you will arrive at the wrong answers. That's because the texts are in a format that gives a preclusive basis for figuring out what is being said. If you 'change', the basic theology to suit your theories, etc., the rest of the text won't make sense.
just my opinion, of course, I don't really care what/how you view the Bible, etc.

Did you say otherwise? Yes: "This is an arbitrary separation and dismissal of traditional truths, teachings. Merely because something is traditional, does not make it false; that pre-emptive bias is a common mistake in reading religious works, imo."

As I said, tradition can be true or false. But, the mere fact that something has been repeated for a long time does not give it any more likelihood of being correct.

Why would you ask these questions if you don't even care how I view the texts?

Paul vs "the law" (can humans earn righteousness?)

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

Jesus in me

Jesus in me

Non-Binary Physicalist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member