• 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!

Paul's Dung.

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I've often been told, and many churches teach, that a layman is unqualified to interpret the Bible. It is said that only those with the proper seminary or divinity school training and various letters (B.D., M.D., D.D.) after their name are the only ones with the proper credentials necessary to understand the scriptures. I've been told that it is blasphemy for me to question their judgments of Biblical matters. It sounds good and logical, but the wisdom of man is foolishness to God (1 Cor 1:20), so maybe there is more to the story.

There was a man named Saul of Tarsus who had attended what was arguably the finest school of his time and was taught by a Pharisee and Doctor of the Law, held in the highest of esteem by his colleagues, whose name was Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).

That school would be comparable to our finest divinity schools of today, Princeton, Yale, or Harvard. Not only did Paul attend this school, but he excelled in his studies. After his graduation, Saul became one of the premier religious leaders of his time. He certainly had all the right credentials to qualify him as an expert in the Jewish religion.

He was so motivated by his studies that upon graduation, he made it his mission in life to have anybody arrested and killed who went against the Mosaic law. That of course would have been the Christians. There was no question as to Saul's knowledge or commitment to his religion. He called himself, and rightfully so, a "Hebrew of Hebrews." Quite a claim to make, but Saul could rightfully make just such a claim

Here is the scriptural basis for the above:

Acts 22:3,

I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
2Cor 11:21-22,

21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.
22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.​

Phil 3:4-6,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.​

Saul was certainly no slouch in matters of God and theology. He was tops in his class and tops in his profession. Had he lived today, perhaps he would have a Doctor of Divinity degree from Harvard or Yale. Surely no mere layman could ever question Saul's judgments on the scriptures. Saul, with his education and theological degrees, was certainly more qualified in matters of God than those who lacked the worldly credentials he himself possessed. Or was he?

One day Saul was on his way to Damascus to find and arrest more Christians, but he had a slight interruption to his plans. He met Jesus and was converted to the very religion he had been persecuting. His name was then changed to Paul, whom all Christians know as the author (inspired by God) of the seven church epistles, Romans through Thessalonians. Acts chapter 9 has the whole story of his conversion.

So, what did Paul think of his education and high position after his conversion?

Phil 3:4-8,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,​

Paul actually called his pedigree, his education, his diploma, his profession, his hight position, his perfect following of the law, dung!

According to the Bible, in Paul's day, a degree in divinity in no way guaranteed a knowledge of Christ. In fact, Paul felt that his degree was absolutely worthless in the face of a true knowledge of the scriptures. The scriptures themselves declare God and his son, Jesus Christ. Paul learned that there is no need to look elsewhere for that knowledge.

In Philippians 3:8, Paul came to the conclusion that If a person can read, then he is eminently more qualified to interpret the scriptures than any intellectual with a degree in divinity. In fact, the higher the degree, the less knowledge of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many ministers and priests today feel the same way as Paul regarding their education and degree? I think the number would approach zero. If it's between Paul's doctrine or that of a Doctor of Divinity holding minister, I'd choose Paul any day of the week!
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Pretty offensive, really. And Paul misquotes the Tanach time after time. He was a fraud and a liar.

You have some nerve to just go ahead and call the Jewish religion 'dung'.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Pretty offensive, really. And Paul misquotes the Tanach time after time. He was a fraud and a liar.

You have some nerve to just go ahead and call the Jewish religion 'dung'.
I didn't call it any such thing. I didn't write any of those scriptures. I'm just the messenger.

I understand you don't believe in the New Testament. That's fine, although I think it is to your detriment.

BTW, you don't suppose any Christian might find your comment on Paul's character offensive? I've never seen anything written by a Christian that so denigrates Moses. Well, I suppose somewhere, sometime, some Christian did say such a stupid thing, but it's rarer than hen's teeth. On the other hand, there is no shortage of Jews who denigrate Christian belief in the New Testament.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I didn't call it any such thing. I didn't write any of those scriptures. I'm just the messenger.

I understand you don't believe in the New Testament. That's fine, although I think it is to your detriment.

BTW, you don't suppose any Christian might find your comment on Paul's character offensive? I've never seen anything written by a Christian that so denigrates Moses. Well, I suppose somewhere, sometime, some Christian did say such a stupid thing, but it's rarer than hen's teeth. On the other hand, there is no shortage of Jews who denigrate Christian belief in the New Testament.
It is true that Paul was a liar and he misquotes the Tanach, and I can bring examples. Maybe that is offensive, but his letters and other writings of Christian scripture have led directly to the maltreatment of Jews for centuries, and I take not lightly to that.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
It is true that Paul was a liar and he misquotes the Tanach, and I can bring examples. Maybe that is offensive, but his letters and other writings of Christian scripture have led directly to the maltreatment of Jews for centuries, and I take not lightly to that.
I can relate to the maltreatment. Christians didn't always enjoy the freedom to read the Bible for themselves. Plenty were killed for doing just that.

In any case, man has always been afraid of those who believe other than themselves. How many wars with all the death they bring have been fought in the name of some religion or another? But I understand and acknowledge that it is simply the nature of man. I never take it personally, no more than I'm offended by a dog barking or a cat meowing. Dog's just bark, cat just meow, and people are just cruel to each other.

I walk with God and that is the best thing anyone can do to put light into a dark world. My sufficiency if from God, not man.

2Cor 3:5,

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency [is] of God;
Hope you don't mind a bit of New Testament writing, but it does say what it says It works for me as well as anybody who believes it.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Let's be fair... Christians and Jews have mistreated other groups of people than each other. And, yes they've been mistreated themselves.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Let's be fair... Christians and Jews have mistreated other groups of people than each other. And, yes they've been mistreated themselves.
You are right on. I wonder what group of people has not been mistreated at some time or another. I think that's just what people do to each other. All in all, it's better to focus on God's works than those of man.

When Christ appears again, he'll set the world right. Actually, he'll deep six this world and make a whole new one. Until then it's just a mess and it'll stay a mess. The best way to alleviate any suffering or mistreatment is by speaking the word to anybody who'll listen. Put some light into an otherwise dark world.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I've often been told, and many churches teach, that a layman is unqualified to interpret the Bible. It is said that only those with the proper seminary or divinity school training and various letters (B.D., M.D., D.D.) after their name are the only ones with the proper credentials necessary to understand the scriptures. I've been told that it is blasphemy for me to question their judgments of Biblical matters. It sounds good and logical, but the wisdom of man is foolishness to God (1 Cor 1:20), so maybe there is more to the story.

There was a man named Saul of Tarsus who had attended what was arguably the finest school of his time and was taught by a Pharisee and Doctor of the Law, held in the highest of esteem by his colleagues, whose name was Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).

That school would be comparable to our finest divinity schools of today, Princeton, Yale, or Harvard. Not only did Paul attend this school, but he excelled in his studies. After his graduation, Saul became one of the premier religious leaders of his time. He certainly had all the right credentials to qualify him as an expert in the Jewish religion.

He was so motivated by his studies that upon graduation, he made it his mission in life to have anybody arrested and killed who went against the Mosaic law. That of course would have been the Christians. There was no question as to Saul's knowledge or commitment to his religion. He called himself, and rightfully so, a "Hebrew of Hebrews." Quite a claim to make, but Saul could rightfully make just such a claim

Here is the scriptural basis for the above:

Acts 22:3,

I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
2Cor 11:21-22,

21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.
22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.​

Phil 3:4-6,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.​

Saul was certainly no slouch in matters of God and theology. He was tops in his class and tops in his profession. Had he lived today, perhaps he would have a Doctor of Divinity degree from Harvard or Yale. Surely no mere layman could ever question Saul's judgments on the scriptures. Saul, with his education and theological degrees, was certainly more qualified in matters of God than those who lacked the worldly credentials he himself possessed. Or was he?

One day Saul was on his way to Damascus to find and arrest more Christians, but he had a slight interruption to his plans. He met Jesus and was converted to the very religion he had been persecuting. His name was then changed to Paul, whom all Christians know as the author (inspired by God) of the seven church epistles, Romans through Thessalonians. Acts chapter 9 has the whole story of his conversion.

So, what did Paul think of his education and high position after his conversion?

Phil 3:4-8,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,​

Paul actually called his pedigree, his education, his diploma, his profession, his hight position, his perfect following of the law, dung!

According to the Bible, in Paul's day, a degree in divinity in no way guaranteed a knowledge of Christ. In fact, Paul felt that his degree was absolutely worthless in the face of a true knowledge of the scriptures. The scriptures themselves declare God and his son, Jesus Christ. Paul learned that there is no need to look elsewhere for that knowledge.

In Philippians 3:8, Paul came to the conclusion that If a person can read, then he is eminently more qualified to interpret the scriptures than any intellectual with a degree in divinity. In fact, the higher the degree, the less knowledge of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many ministers and priests today feel the same way as Paul regarding their education and degree? I think the number would approach zero. If it's between Paul's doctrine or that of a Doctor of Divinity holding minister, I'd choose Paul any day of the week!

I'd choose someone who would not try to get creds as
being under "god's" care with a phony snake story.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I've often been told, and many churches teach, that a layman is unqualified to interpret the Bible. It is said that only those with the proper seminary or divinity school training and various letters (B.D., M.D., D.D.) after their name are the only ones with the proper credentials necessary to understand the scriptures. I've been told that it is blasphemy for me to question their judgments of Biblical matters. It sounds good and logical, but the wisdom of man is foolishness to God (1 Cor 1:20), so maybe there is more to the story.

There was a man named Saul of Tarsus who had attended what was arguably the finest school of his time and was taught by a Pharisee and Doctor of the Law, held in the highest of esteem by his colleagues, whose name was Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).

That school would be comparable to our finest divinity schools of today, Princeton, Yale, or Harvard. Not only did Paul attend this school, but he excelled in his studies. After his graduation, Saul became one of the premier religious leaders of his time. He certainly had all the right credentials to qualify him as an expert in the Jewish religion.

He was so motivated by his studies that upon graduation, he made it his mission in life to have anybody arrested and killed who went against the Mosaic law. That of course would have been the Christians. There was no question as to Saul's knowledge or commitment to his religion. He called himself, and rightfully so, a "Hebrew of Hebrews." Quite a claim to make, but Saul could rightfully make just such a claim

Here is the scriptural basis for the above:

Acts 22:3,

I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
2Cor 11:21-22,

21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.
22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.​

Phil 3:4-6,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.​

Saul was certainly no slouch in matters of God and theology. He was tops in his class and tops in his profession. Had he lived today, perhaps he would have a Doctor of Divinity degree from Harvard or Yale. Surely no mere layman could ever question Saul's judgments on the scriptures. Saul, with his education and theological degrees, was certainly more qualified in matters of God than those who lacked the worldly credentials he himself possessed. Or was he?

One day Saul was on his way to Damascus to find and arrest more Christians, but he had a slight interruption to his plans. He met Jesus and was converted to the very religion he had been persecuting. His name was then changed to Paul, whom all Christians know as the author (inspired by God) of the seven church epistles, Romans through Thessalonians. Acts chapter 9 has the whole story of his conversion.

So, what did Paul think of his education and high position after his conversion?

Phil 3:4-8,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,​

Paul actually called his pedigree, his education, his diploma, his profession, his hight position, his perfect following of the law, dung!

According to the Bible, in Paul's day, a degree in divinity in no way guaranteed a knowledge of Christ. In fact, Paul felt that his degree was absolutely worthless in the face of a true knowledge of the scriptures. The scriptures themselves declare God and his son, Jesus Christ. Paul learned that there is no need to look elsewhere for that knowledge.

In Philippians 3:8, Paul came to the conclusion that If a person can read, then he is eminently more qualified to interpret the scriptures than any intellectual with a degree in divinity. In fact, the higher the degree, the less knowledge of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many ministers and priests today feel the same way as Paul regarding their education and degree? I think the number would approach zero. If it's between Paul's doctrine or that of a Doctor of Divinity holding minister, I'd choose Paul any day of the week!
Three things:
1) Paul wasn’t reckoning having to interpret a language that is no longer used, through cultures that are not well-understood. We need scholars to help us on those circumstances.
2) “knowing Christ” is not the same thing as “biblical exegesis.” You appear to conflate the two.
3) dismissing standing is not the same thing as dismissing scholarship. There are many Bible scholars who are lay people.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
It is true that Paul was a liar and he misquotes the Tanach, and I can bring examples. Maybe that is offensive, but his letters and other writings of Christian scripture have led directly to the maltreatment of Jews for centuries, and I take not lightly to that.

He also directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 7:21 in Romans 10:13
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
He also directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 7:21 in Romans 10:13
Have you considered that things changed after the resurrection and ascension? That what was true before Jesus' death and resurrection is no longer true? Nobody was born again until the day of Pentecost, so, absolutely things changed in a major way. I don't understand why that is that so hard to see. It's pretty simple.

It's all part of the mystery, which is the subject of this thread. So far only one person actually knew what Paul's mystery is all about, who quoted the scripture that succinctly says what the mystery is. Suffice it to say, it's the best thing God ever came up with. Hard to believe few Christians know what it is. Too many are stuck in the Old Testament and have little idea what occurred on the Day of Pentecost. It's a real coup on the devil's part. It robs the believer of manifesting the power we were given by grace. Didn't Jesus say we'd do all he did and even more? That's a bit of power, I'd say!
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Three things:
1) Paul wasn’t reckoning having to interpret a language that is no longer used, through cultures that are not well-understood. We need scholars to help us on those circumstances.
2) “knowing Christ” is not the same thing as “biblical exegesis.” You appear to conflate the two.
3) dismissing standing is not the same thing as dismissing scholarship. There are many Bible scholars who are lay people.
I guess you have your own ideas on Paul's mystery. I clearly don't have a handle on it. I'd be interested in hearing what you believe it to be.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I guess you have your own ideas on Paul's mystery. I clearly don't have a handle on it. I'd be interested in hearing what you believe it to be.
There’s no mystery. Paul was merely stating his dismissal of Judaic theology. That’s what he’d learned, and he judged it worthless as compared to Jesus’ teachings.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
There’s no mystery. Paul was merely stating his dismissal of Judaic theology. That’s what he’d learned, and he judged it worthless as compared to Jesus’ teachings.
True enough that Paul rejected his Hebrew roots for a knowledge of Christ. That was made clear in the thread I started.

But that's not the mystery I was thinking of. I was talking about the mystery Paul speaks of in Ephesians, mostly chapters 2 & 3.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
True enough that Paul rejected his Hebrew roots for a knowledge of Christ. That was made clear in the thread I started.

But that's not the mystery I was thinking of. I was talking about the mystery Paul speaks of in Ephesians, mostly chapters 2 & 3.
Paul doesn’t speak in Ephesians because Paul didn’t write Ephesians.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
I live in the city of "Saint Paul".

I like your example of him stating his degree and education was dung (sh*t).

But have you heard the parable of the wooden boy in the belly of a whale? That wooden boy became a real boy. And that real boy grew up to be Jesus Christ! :innocent:
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So, what did Paul think of his education and high position after his conversion?

Phil 3:4-8,

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,​

Paul actually called his pedigree, his education, his diploma, his profession, his hight position, his perfect following of the law, dung!
Well it really depends on which version of the Bible one chooses to read. Of 55 Bible versions checked, "dung" only appears 11 times (20%) in Philippians 3:8, with. . . . . .

"refuse" 4 times
"garbage" 10 times
"rubbish" 13 times
"filth" 2 times
"trash" 6 times
"worthless" 2 times
"(less than) nothing" 3 times
"manure" 1 time
"waste" 1 time
"dirt" 1 time
"sewer trash" 1 time.
Obviously, the translators/scholars had a tough time dealing with the word σκύβαλον (skybalon). (Kind of amusing, really.) In any case, it certainly acts as a warning not to take "dung" seriously.

.
 
Last edited:

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Have you considered that things changed after the resurrection and ascension? That what was true before Jesus' death and resurrection is no longer true? Nobody was born again until the day of Pentecost, so, absolutely things changed in a major way. I don't understand why that is that so hard to see. It's pretty simple.

It's all part of the mystery, which is the subject of this thread. So far only one person actually knew what Paul's mystery is all about, who quoted the scripture that succinctly says what the mystery is. Suffice it to say, it's the best thing God ever came up with. Hard to believe few Christians know what it is. Too many are stuck in the Old Testament and have little idea what occurred on the Day of Pentecost. It's a real coup on the devil's part. It robs the believer of manifesting the power we were given by grace. Didn't Jesus say we'd do all he did and even more? That's a bit of power, I'd say!

I don't want to argue with you about the bible. You have probably studied it much more than I have. However, Paul states that "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" and Jesus states that "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my father in heaven." For me, a mere heretical and faithless layman (I called myself that so you don't have to:D), this seems like a contradiction. Paul taught salvation by faith alone, while Jesus taught salvation by both faith and works.
 
Top