Paul's Dung.

[rrobs]

.[/QUOTE]
So the whole Bible falls to pi

Paul doesn’t speak in Ephesians because Paul didn’t write Ephesians.

Never heard that before

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), this seems like a contradiction. Paul taught salvation by faith alone, while Jesus taught salvation by both faith and works.

I would never thinking of anybody who studies the Bible anything other than a workman of God's word, and that of course is a good thing! I'm sure God is glad when anybody opens the book.

Here is the first paragraph of one of my posts:

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.
​

Many make the mistake of not seeing to whom God is speaking and when He says it. Here's a verse that will explain what I just said:

Lev 4:2,

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
​

God was not speaking to anybody and everybody. What follows about the commandments of the Lord is meant for Israel. It's like the address on a letter. A letter addressed to you announcing your won a sweepstakes worth $1,000,000 would mean you and only you would reap the benefits of $1,000,000. You could show your letter to all your friends and they would read it with the understanding they weren't going to get $1,000,000. The letter was addressed to you, not to the friends to whom you showed it. Very simple. The Bible is no different. Basically, at various times God address or deals with one of three groups of people; Jew, Gentile, Church of God.

In the Old Testament there was only Jew or Gentile. God chose Israel (the Jews) as his chosen people. Romans says that at that time the Gentiles were without God and without Hope. They were flat out of luck.

Jesus came for Israel. He did not come for the Gentiles. Read Matt 15:24. So whatever Jesus said in the Gospels, he said to Israel. The Gospels are addressed to Israel. Always keep that in mind.

The Church of God did not come into existence until after Jesus died and rose from the dead. That resurrection changed everything in a huge way. Grace replacing the law is but one glaring example of what Christ accomplished by his death and resurrection. Anyone born again of God's spirit belongs to the Church of God. It is a church that God Himself is building, not mere men.

The Church of God is made of both Jew and Gentile. In fact, in the age of grace, God says there is no Jew or Gentile, but that Christ is all and in all.

Col 3:11,

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.​

Now follow closely; when Paul said he counted all his theological knowledge as dung, to whom was he speaking. To whom did he address that letter?

Philippians! Now it gets really good and the contradiction you saw goes poof!

Phil 1:1,

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints [born again believers] in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
​

Jesus said something very true to Israel in the age of law. Paul says something quite different to the saints (1 Cor 6:11) in this age of grace. Different time, different people.

So we are left with two choices:

1. There is a contradiction in God's word
2. Things changed when Christ rose from the dead.

While that may make for an interesting poll, I know the answer and no amount of polling would change my mind.

It's imperative to keep the times and people straight when researching the Bible. Doing just that one thing will clear up hundreds of so called contradictions in the Bible. I hope you can see some of this. It'll open up the Bible in a big way to you if you just do that one thing.

​

 

[Rival]

Never heard that before

I would never thinking of anybody who studies the Bible anything other than a workman of God's word, and that of course is a good thing! I'm sure God is glad when anybody opens the book.

Here is the first paragraph of one of my posts:

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.
​

Many make the mistake of not seeing to whom God is speaking and when He says it. Here's a verse that will explain what I just said:

Lev 4:2,

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD [concerning things] which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
​

God was not speaking to anybody and everybody. What follows about the commandments of the Lord is meant for Israel. It's like the address on a letter. A letter addressed to you announcing your won a sweepstakes worth $1,000,000 would mean you and only you would reap the benefits of $1,000,000. You could show your letter to all your friends and they would read it with the understanding they weren't going to get $1,000,000. The letter was addressed to you, not to the friends to whom you showed it. Very simple. The Bible is no different. Basically, at various times God address or deals with one of three groups of people; Jew, Gentile, Church of God.

In the Old Testament there was only Jew or Gentile. God chose Israel (the Jews) as his chosen people. Romans says that at that time the Gentiles were without God and without Hope. They were flat out of luck.

Jesus came for Israel. He did not come for the Gentiles. Read Matt 15:24. So whatever Jesus said in the Gospels, he said to Israel. The Gospels are addressed to Israel. Always keep that in mind.

The Church of God did not come into existence until after Jesus died and rose from the dead. That resurrection changed everything in a huge way. Grace replacing the law is but one glaring example of what Christ accomplished by his death and resurrection. Anyone born again of God's spirit belongs to the Church of God. It is a church that God Himself is building, not mere men.

The Church of God is made of both Jew and Gentile. In fact, in the age of grace, God says there is no Jew or Gentile, but that Christ is all and in all.

Col 3:11,

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.​

Now follow closely; when Paul said he counted all his theological knowledge as dung, to whom was he speaking. To whom did he address that letter?

Philippians! Now it gets really good and the contradiction you saw goes poof!

Phil 1:1,

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints [born again believers] in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
​

Jesus said something very true to Israel in the age of law. Paul says something quite different to the saints (1 Cor 6:11) in this age of grace. Different time, different people.

So we are left with two choices:

1. There is a contradiction in God's word
2. Things changed when Christ rose from the dead.

While that may make for an interesting poll, I know the answer and no amount of polling would change my mind.

It's imperative to keep the times and people straight when researching the Bible. Doing just that one thing will clear up hundreds of so called contradictions in the Bible. I hope you can see some of this. It'll open up the Bible in a big way to you if you just do that one thing.

​

This is flat out wrong. See my own faith. Look at people like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons. None were Jewish. They were blessed. This idea that the nations never received G-d's blessings or attention is absurd. Look at Jonah, to whom does he go? Israelites? No, he goes to Ninevites. There were plenty of gerim toshavim / G-dfearers in the first century bce and before. The notion that G-d is cruel and does not look over all His creation and all souls is distinctly absurd.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've often been told, and many churches teach, that a layman is unqualified to interpret the Bible.

A layman is ignorant of the Bible. A lot more churches teach that all you need is a mouth to interpret it, which is the other extreme. I think the middle is that yes you need a good amount of education or independent study to interpret it, but you don't need to be an interpreter to be moral. The greatest error is teaching people that they are less than moral, but noble classes tend to do that and many other things to undermine independence. The noble class is historically afraid of lower classes becoming educated. It teaches people to be dependent. Ask yourself why your high school never taught about stocks and bonds. Its the same with History and the Bible. Yes you do need a strong education to interpret the Bible, however. I am not saying its easy nor should it be.

 

[sojourner]

Never heard that before

Yeah. Colossians is doubtful, too.

In fact, the only undisputed books Paul definitely wrote are:
Romans, both Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thess. And Philemon.

 

[rrobs]

This is flat out wrong. See my own faith. Look at people like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons. None were Jewish. They were blessed. This idea that the nations never received G-d's blessings or attention is absurd. Look at Jonah, to whom does he go? Israelites? No, he goes to Ninevites. There were plenty of gerim toshavim / G-dfearers in the first century bce and before. The notion that G-d is cruel and does not look over all His creation and all souls is distinctly absurd.

Very astute observation. Allow me to explain. My post was not meant to cover every aspect of the Bible. How could it?

Yes, God did indeed make promises and give blessings to Abraham and others which Israel did not partake in. Israel had their deal with God and Abraham had his deal. That actually goes towards proving my original assertion which was that God says different things to different people.

Not speaking of Abraham in my post in no way negates the truth that God does make different promises to different people. In the end, all the folks you mentioned as well as Israel were necessary for our salvation. They all had their parts in the logos. I didn't mean to offend you by my omission.

 

[rrobs]

Yeah. Colossians is doubtful, too.

In fact, the only undisputed books Paul definitely wrote are:
Romans, both Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thess. And Philemon.

We should just get rid of the Bible is what you say is true. It'd be worthless. Less than worthless!

 

[blü 2]

BTW, you don't suppose any Christian might find your comment on Paul's character offensive?

Paul's an old dingbat who's not a bad guy really, but he loves telling folk what to do and how to think, and he's very poor on encouraging people to explore the question, what's true in reality? And if he really said what's attributed to him in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 then he's worthy of many buckets of condemnation ─ though if you think those remarks are out of character and much more likely to be someone else's glosses incorporated into the text during copying, I'd probably agree.

I've never seen anything written by a Christian that so denigrates Moses.

Moses at present is going through an existential crisis: his name has always been a problem, Egyptian for 'son' (eg as in pharaoh Ra-messes, 'son of Ra'), and it's been remarked for over a century that no known pharaoh fits the Moses story, and that no Egyptian records support it. Oh, and the bit about being found in a basket on the river is from an older Mesopotamian tale. Now there's archaelogical evidence indicating the story actually arises respecting the Egyptian occupation of Canaan, not in Egypt at all.

With all these interesting things to learn and explore, it's good to be alive!

 

[sayak83]

We should just get rid of the Bible is what you say is true. It'd be worthless. Less than worthless!

Then throw them away. For me, Bible is interesting as it represents the historical process by which humans create religions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Pauline-Letters

Three letters of this corpus, the Pastoral Letters, are pseudonymous and thus are not considered here. Of the remaining 10, the Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are from the hand of a later Pauline follower and II Thessalonians is spurious.

Ephesians appears to be dependent on Colossians, and both, although using the Pauline style, reflect a time and imagery sometimes different from and later than Paul’s genuine letters. Ephesians covers the content of Colossians in more compact form and may be a covering letter for the entire Pauline corpus by a disciple or other later Paulinist.

The earliest book in the New Testament is I Thessalonians, which is concerned with the problem of eschatology. Though II Thessalonians is obvious in its imitation of the style of I Thessalonians, it reflects a later time, elaborates on I Thessalonians, and is thus not viewed as genuine.


This is why you need scholars who are well versed in ancient literature, writing styles and able to look at the sources to know where they come from, which period and which is genuine and which is not. Same for any historical artifact, like art.

 

[Fool]

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!

the mind can be conditioned/groomed to see/ignore what one doesn't/does want to acknowledge.

if you want to tear into the illusion, simply ask a question that the observer has yet to ask and answer for self.

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,


this is how you tear down the belief system and the system has to restructure, reform.

Matthew 23:38
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Luke 13:35
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


so then this is how i come as a thief, to rob and steal. a person's home is their castle and their treasures are their beliefs.


had they known at what hour I was coming, they would have become enlightened.


see you in the funny paper

 

[sojourner]

We should just get rid of the Bible is what you say is true. It'd be worthless. Less than worthless!

Well... what I say is true, according to our best scholarship. But why would that make the Bible “worthless?” Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, either, there are at least three authors of Genesis and at least two of Isaiah, and the canon with which you’re familiar is short some books. According to the Ethiopian canon, the OT has 50 books and the NT 35.

I don’t see how any of that makes the Bible “worthless.”

 

[sayak83]

Well... what I say is true, according to our best scholarship. But why would that make the Bible “worthless?” Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, either, there are at least three authors of Genesis and at least two of Isaiah, and the canon with which you’re familiar is short some books. According to the Ethiopian canon, the OT has 50 books and the NT 35.

I don’t see how any of that makes the Bible “worthless.”

Perhaps to him it does.

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps to him it does.

I asked “why?” What about that causes worthlessness?

 

[OtherSheep]

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!

Paul taught an entirely new religion, based upon mysteries and deep things. A religion entirely different from the faith of his fathers. Saul of Tarsus dismissed as dung, the religion that would be telling us how to know who is a false prophet.

 

[Ponder This]

It seems Paul was of the opinion that 'if you aren't with me, then you are against me'.

 

[OtherSheep]

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), this seems like a contradiction. Paul taught salvation by faith alone, while Jesus taught salvation by both faith and works.

Matthew 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Matthew 23:13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Matthew 24:5 "For many shall come in My name, saying, I am anointed; and shall deceive many."

John 5:43 "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

We have one witness to the conversion on Damascus road... Saul.

 

[OtherSheep]

It seems Paul was of the opinion that 'if you aren't with me, then you are against me'.

Saul seems not to have known that "Luke" means "wolf", when he plagiarized Jesus' ravening wolves statement... and we're not supposed to know that Benjamin is the ravening wolf, in these days.

Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice, and will follow nobody else.

 

[rrobs]

Then throw them away. For me, Bible is interesting as it represents the historical process by which humans create religions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Pauline-Letters

Three letters of this corpus, the Pastoral Letters, are pseudonymous and thus are not considered here. Of the remaining 10, the Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians are from the hand of a later Pauline follower and II Thessalonians is spurious.

Ephesians appears to be dependent on Colossians, and both, although using the Pauline style, reflect a time and imagery sometimes different from and later than Paul’s genuine letters. Ephesians covers the content of Colossians in more compact form and may be a covering letter for the entire Pauline corpus by a disciple or other later Paulinist.

The earliest book in the New Testament is I Thessalonians, which is concerned with the problem of eschatology. Though II Thessalonians is obvious in its imitation of the style of I Thessalonians, it reflects a later time, elaborates on I Thessalonians, and is thus not viewed as genuine.


This is why you need scholars who are well versed in ancient literature, writing styles and able to look at the sources to know where they come from, which period and which is genuine and which is not. Same for any historical artifact, like art.

There is basically one requirement to learn about God, and it's not a degree from Yale.

Matt 5:6,

Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.​

The folks with the degrees tend to have too much academia floating around in their heads which makes them unable to see the simplicity of God's word.

1Cor 1:23-28,

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:​

 

[OtherSheep]

Well... what I say is true, according to our best scholarship. But why would that make the Bible “worthless?” Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, either, there are at least three authors of Genesis and at least two of Isaiah, and the canon with which you’re familiar is short some books. According to the Ethiopian canon, the OT has 50 books and the NT 35.

I don’t see how any of that makes the Bible “worthless.”

Canon is the whole problem. And to let the man who tossed out the First Testament tell us that all scripture is God-inspired is the definition of lunacy.

 

[rrobs]

Well... what I say is true, according to our best scholarship. But why would that make the Bible “worthless?” Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch, either, there are at least three authors of Genesis and at least two of Isaiah, and the canon with which you’re familiar is short some books. According to the Ethiopian canon, the OT has 50 books and the NT 35.

I don’t see how any of that makes the Bible “worthless.”

I said the Bible would be worthless if both Ephesians and Colossians are doubtful, which is what I understood you to say. Somebody else might say the the Gospel of John is a fraud. Actually there are people who say that very thing. So now we have 3 books in the Bible that are purported fraud. Are there any others? I'm sure you could find someone, a scholar probably, who would say that Revelations is fake. On and on it goes. So if all that is true, why bother with it? That's what would make it worthless.

 

[rrobs]

And to let the man who tossed out the First Testament tell us that all scripture is God-inspired is the definition of lunacy.

Who tossed out the First Testament? I hope your didn't mean me, because I did no such thing. However, I'd say many, if not most, Christians tend to toss out the New Testament. They can't conceive of grace. They want to keep working on the flesh by following the Old Testament law and trying to be like Jesus. Many Christians reject the true righteousness of God that comes only by grace. They want to go about establishing their own righteousness. They just think they are that good! Well, God has another idea.

Rom 10:3,

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
​

Nobody was made righteous by the law.

Rom 3:20,

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.​

Rom 3:21-22,

21 But now [New Testament] the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
​

The law was a guide to help man live somewhat decently, without totally annihilating each other. It was only intended as a temporary stopgap until Christ could come and set things right.

Gal 3:23-25,

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
​

If you are humble, you will consider what I say and find even more, way more, of what I'm saying in the Bible. I've not even scratched the surface on the "better covenant."

Heb 8:6,

But now [New Testament] hath he [Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he [Jesus] is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.​

What the heck do Christians think Jesus accomplished by his death and resurrection? Did he just do it as a lark, that it didn't really change anything, that we just keep on trying to be good enough to maybe make it into heaven? That's what I see way too much. What a pity!