• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Paul misquote scripture on purpose?

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
  1. You don't strike me as a happy or pleasant person Terry.
  2. None of my post was about my beliefs.
  3. You made it an issue and
  4. now you are calling me names?
re: #1. I'm almost sorry that you think so, but if you think I'm a curmudgeon, wait till you skate through RF for a couple of weeks. You'll find me to be one of the nicest ol' farts around here.
re: #2. I find it odd that you think none of your posts was "about your beliefs", to wit:
  • The first sentence of your OP is:
    • Paul abused Scripture by taking passages out of context and giving them meanings that were never intended!
    • If that's not one of your beliefs, what is it? A fact? LOL!
    • Regarding that "whatever it is", unless you were intentionally playing the Devil's Advocate, it sure seems anti-Paul-inian to me.
    • Are you objecting to my characterization of you as an anti-Paul-inian?
  • Your self-description as an "Ebionite" appears every time you post a message.
    • Screenshot_2019-12-01.png
    • In my post #15,
      What's an Ebionite in 2019? Have you been raised from the dead?
    • And in your post #16, you responded:
      The truth is I don't belong to any organized religion. My spiritual beliefs match more with the ancient Ebionites (but not fully by any means) than with any other religious sect so I say it simply to explain what angle I am coming from.
      • If that's not a statement of belief what is?
  • Expounding on the Ebionite beliefs, which you yourself say that your spiritual beliefs match to some degree, in your post #18, you post:
    • 1. Ebionites -- The First Christians
      The earliest Christians were commonly called Ebionites, meaning "the Poor."
      In G. Uhlhorn, "Ebionites," A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (3rd ed.) (edited by Philip Schaff) Vol. II at pages 684–685 [see PDF at this link], we read:
      Ebionites. This designation was at first like 'Nazarenes,' a common name for all Christians, as Epiphanius (d. 403) testifies (Adv. Har. xxix.1) It is derived from the Hebrew Ebion, "poor," and was not given, as Origen supposes, for their low view of Christ. Id. at 684.
      Over one hundred years later, in about 180 AD, Irenaeus -- a Bishop from Gaul (now known as France) -- clearly describes those who persisted in the designation as Ebionites rejected Paul and followed the Law, relying upon Matthew's Gospel. In Against the Heresies, 1.26 Irenaeus says:
      "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God." (Against Heresies 1.26.)
  • So, forgive or not, IMO, you have--contrary to your claim that none of your posts was about your beliefs--repeatedly draped more than one of your posts in your beliefs.
re: #3. I made your beliefs an issue? Au contraire, NP. You did when you self-identified as an "Ebionite" and rode out into RF with your OP's first anti-Paul-inian sentence.
re: #4. You object to me calling you names? Hmmm,
  • Are you an anti-Paul-inian or not? If you aren't, please disabuse me of the belief that you are.by assuring me that you're not, and I'll beg your forgiveness publicly.
  • Are you a "fake-Jew" or not?
    • If you are a genetic descendant of Jews, forgive me for thinking and saying that you're not. The fact that you self-identified as an Ebionite led me to believe that you're not, because my limited experience here in RF is that there aren't that many bona fide real Jews around here but there are a hell of a lot of wanna-be trying to pass themselves off as "nearer-to-HaShem than Moses" Jews.
    • If you're not a genetic descendant of Jews, are you a convert to Judaism or a citizen of Israel?
    • If you're not a genetic descendant of Jews nor a convert to Judaism nor a citizen of Israel, then you're a "fake-Jew", i.e. a Gentile wearing verbal makeup trying to one-up real Jews and Christians alike.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Paul abused Scripture by taking passages out of context and giving them meanings that were never intended!

To proof-text his doctrine, Paul lifted numerous Scripture passages out of their context and gave them meanings that were never intended. Some of these passages he gave a meaning that the context absolutely nullifies. The following is one classic example:

One of Paul’s unique and fundamental doctrines states that absolutely no one is righteous. To proof-text his doctrine Paul cuts and pastes together no less than 7 snippets of Scripture and presents them as one:

“There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit. The poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18

Each of every one of these snippets Paul took out of context and gave a meaning that its author never intended. The first snippet is our example of how Paul gave a meaning to a passage that only a verse or two later the author says something that completely destroys what Paul said about it. It was taken from Psalm 14. David here begins by speaking specifically of “fools”, who say in their heart “there is no God”.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt. There is none who does good, no, not one. Psalm 14:1-3


David is in no way referring to every human being with the term “the children of men”. He is speaking of the fools who say there is no God and is referring specifically to them as the children of men. It is among these that he says there is none righteous. We know this because he goes on to contrast these children of men with those he calls the generation of the righteous!
Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up MY people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is
with the generation of the righteous
. Psalm 14:4-5

Imagine that, ... “the generation of THE RIGHTEOUS”!! Paul didn’t tell us about this part of the Psalm! So much for his doctrine that no one is righteous.
I am not sure that I accept you as the person to determine what authors of scripture meant, but I will address pat of your post.

You do realize don't you that being "righteous" means different things at different times in the Bible;

One can appear to be righteous before men.

One can appear to be righteous by keeping the law

One can appear to be righteous by doing good deeds.

Paul is not speaking of any of these. He is addressing the fundamental inherent sinfulness of all people which makes them unacceptable in Gods eyes. Gods standard is perfect righteousness, anyone who has done anything wrong does not and cannot meet that standard,

In the OT there were a variety of rituals and sacrifices on a regular basis to deal with sinfulness, and David and all other Jews took part in these. If anyone were righteous as you seem to think David was, they would never have to participate in these services, yet the law said all must on a regular basis.

David was speaking of relative righteousness when compared to others, not perfect righteousness when compared to God.

Paul virtually always speaks about perfect righteousness, what God has and we do not.

Under the new covenant we have the means to be declared righteous through justification. Some of us may have even stopped sinning ( though I really and truly doubt it) yet we have sinned, making us unrighteous.

There will come a time when some are perfectly righteous, you can find out all about it in the book of Revelation.

Otherwise you have misjudged Paul through ignorance ( lack of knowledge).
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
Theoretically yes. The Talmud says that there were 4 people who died without sin, so I guess you could describe them as perfect. However, the Talmud also says that the greatest prophet who ever lived was Moses, and he's not one of the four non-sinners, so I guess it depends how one would define greatness.

What about the lamed-vavniks?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Paul mistquoted and outright butchered many Tanakh verses. He also changed meanings straight to try to make them Christological where no normal person would see anything remotely like what he saw, such as allowing ploughing animals to chew the food as they plough, which Paul somehow remade into meaning financial support for church elders. It's a bizarre and twisted game he played, imo.
Too bad you missed his point, I thought it was fairly obvious. The animal is not muzzled, so he can eat as he works.

Those who work in the church as full time vocation should have financial aid while doing this work.

The ox represents the one working in the Church, the eating of the grain by the ox represents church support for a particular person while he works for the church.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Too bad you missed his point, I thought it was fairly obvious. The animal is not muzzled, so he can eat as he works.

Those who work in the church as full time vocation should have financial aid while doing this work.

The ox represents the one working in the Church, the eating of the grain by the ox represents church support for a particular person while he works for the church.
Or it could be about not muzzling a working ox.

As it was always taken to mean and still is taken to mean in Jewish circles.
 
Or it could be about not muzzling a working ox.

As it was always taken to mean and still is taken to mean in Jewish circles.

Agreed, contrary to Paul's silly rhetorical question:

"Is it for oxen that God is concerned?"

Yes Paul, God is concerned with the human treatment of animals. That's exactly what the passage is about!
 

Alone

Banned by request
Fair enough, the word tells me what to do but I guess I'm missing the part about how to do it, any scripture references would be greatly appreciated?
 

Alone

Banned by request
You may not understand this or you may, as I read through Ezekiel 18 it brings me to tears, cuz it tells me over and over and over turn from repent repent cast off your transgressions don't sin, and yet I have no idea how to do that. It sounds simple enough but finding practical application is my problem?
 
Top