Reconciling Paul

[sandy whitelinger]

I asked this question within another thread and recieved no coherent answer. I'll try again with an exclusive thread.

Can you reconcile these three statements by Pul which seem to offer a contradiction?

"...The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17b KJV

"For not the hearers of the law arejust before God, but the doers of the law shall bejustified." Romans 2:13

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:38 KJV

 

[outhouse]

Your taking these out of context.

Introduction to New Testament History and Literature (Yale, RLST 152); 26-lecture course by Dale B. Martin | Virtual Professors

#16, then go to 23 minutes in and he starts on Romans and goes into it

 

[Ken Brown]

I asked this question within another thread and recieved no coherent answer. I'll try again with an exclusive thread.

Can you reconcile these three statements by Pul which seem to offer a contradiction?

"...The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17b KJV

"For not the hearers of the law arejust before God, but the doers of the law shall bejustified." Romans 2:13

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:38 KJV

Hi Sandy, the Apostle Paul understood that the Law is Spiritual. It takes FAITH to believe and accept that concept. The Law can only justify those who do it, and it takes faith to accomplish that. An example of this is the Passover. Those who have through faith acknowledged that Yeshua is their Passover Lamb can accomplish what the Law required of them to do with respect to killing and eating of the Passover. By this acknowledgement, we can conclude that a man is justified by faith in Yeshua being THE Passover Lamb, without deeds of the Law (actually killing a physical lamb). Hope this helps in your understanding. KB

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Its rather simple, you reconcile the statements by taking the pragmatic approach - scatter enough contradictory comments and everyone finds something they like - Paul wanted to recruit (not sure convert applies) the masses, therefore to do so he commented in ways he thought would appeal to his intended audience. Alternatively to perhaps be less abrasive, you can suggest it is meant to be metaphorical, that the reader is supposed to read what they like into the mess by pretending to be able to discern the divine will supposedly guiding paul to write these truths and being able to determine which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts metaphorical.

 

[Ken Brown]

Its rather simple, you reconcile the statements by taking the pragmatic approach - scatter enough contradictory comments and everyone finds something they like - Paul wanted to recruit (not sure convert applies) the masses, therefore to do so he commented in ways he thought would appeal to his intended audience. Alternatively to perhaps be less abrasive, you can suggest it is meant to be metaphorical, that the reader is supposed to read what they like into the mess by pretending to be able to discern the divine will supposedly guiding paul to write these truths and being able to determine which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts metaphorical.

Hi II, why do lawless men twist and distort Paul? KB

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Lawless men twist and distort paul because they exist and because they are reading that book and attempting to use it to support their own position. If they were reading the quran they would distort what it says to support their position, were they reading the torah they would distort that and so forth. Such people wish to do as they want, for them such texts and religious traditions exist to be used to support their beliefs, not to change their beliefs. Likewise, such people can indeed write (or claim authority to officially interpret) such texts and preachings with the intention of claiming authority to arrive at such an end because of divine revelation or so forth.

It exists independent of religion, yet at times religion might perhaps allow such people greater influence than they ought.

 

[outhouse]

Hi Sandy, the Apostle Paul understood that the Law is Spiritual.. KB

He did, but Paul is clearly speaking against the law for a specific reason and none of yopur post addresses the real reason.


It would do you well to watch the video link I posted. There is valuable information on thi stopic.

 

[outhouse]

Hi II, why do lawless men twist and distort Paul? KB

This would be all false.

Please, listen to the professor. Paul was a bit extreme, excuses wont help.

 

[outhouse]

Paul wanted to recruit (not sure convert applies) the masses, therefore to do so he commented in ways he thought would appeal to his intended audience. .

Paul wasnt really trying to convert the masses, in his time this was still sort of a covert operation. Its why Paul spent so much time in prison. So even with what we have he still got himself in trouble. Had he went to the masses we never would have known about him because he would have been killed from the start.

He knew his audience in the houses he started and he was dealing with specific issues. We dont even know if he won a few of these arguements, but when he write Romans it was his first epistle that was a general epistle to all. It was sort of his masterpiece of his distinct teachings.

Alternatively to perhaps be less abrasive, you can suggest it is meant to be metaphorical, that the reader is supposed to read what they like into the mess by pretending to be able to discern the divine will supposedly guiding paul to write these truths and being able to determine which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts metaphorical

Unless one studies the exact historical context, these epistles will confuse just about anyone.

People really do need a historical education on this specific comments of Paul so they can understand why, what, and when.


More or less I do agree with your whole reply.

 

[Ken Brown]

He did, but Paul is clearly speaking against the law for a specific reason and none of yopur post addresses the real reason.

It would do you well to watch the video link I posted. There is valuable information on thi stopic.

Hi outhouse, Paul does not clearly speak against the Law, in fact, Paul's teaching is the most definitive teaching we have for the upholding or fulfilling of the Law. What most do is fall into the trap of following after those lawless men who twist and distort Paul. Paul's teaching was that the Law has two ways to accomplish it, a physical (by works way) and a Spiritual (by faith way). This does not speak against the Law, rather it confirms it. What Paul ran into were those who could not accept the Spiritual side of the Law. They would not acknowledge that Yeshua was THEIR Passover Lamb (or any other Spiritual Fulfillment), but rather would only look at the physical, and deny Yeshua. The whole Law has a hidden or Spiritual side and this is what Paul tried to persuade people to believe, but for some reason there was a hardening in part with the Jews, and they were blind and deaf toward the Spiritual.

So you might want to reconsider how Paul felt and taught toward the Law. One thing I will state, the delusional thinking of those who twist and distort Paul, is the thinking found within traditional christianity. They don't understand Paul or his teachings. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

This would be all false.

Please, listen to the professor. Paul was a bit extreme, excuses wont help.

Hi outhouse, I listened to the professor and he falls into the same dilemma as those who twist and distort Paul, he just doesn't understand Paul's teachings and makes some very wrong conclusions. If the professor even had a slight hint as to how Paul taught about Grace and the Free Gift of Righteousness, then the professor might be able to come out of his confusion, and change his conclusions.

Sure, the professor quotes Paul saying that when you increase sin, you increase Grace, but he really doesn't grasp how increasing sin, increases Grace...no scholars or professors within traditional christianity understand this. And it's really quite simple. All have sinned and THROUGH that sin, all sinners accomplished what the Law commanded the sinner to do, which is SACRIFICE for your sin. Through a sinner's sin, a sinner becomes a DOER of the Law, and Paul taught that ONLY the doers of the Law were Righteous. This Righteousness is the keeping of what the Law said we should do when we fall short of following each and every command fully. The Sacrifice of Yeshua fulfills what each and every sinner was to do in obtaining the righteousness that comes through faith and is the Spiritual DOING of the Law, and it's a free gift that no sinner had to "work" for, save being a sinner.

But this Sacrifice a sinner accomplishes THROUGH their sin, is not a physical animal sacrifice, but rather the One True Sacrifice, Yeshua. Yeshua becomes EVERYONE'S sin offering, thus fulfilling the Just Requirement of the Torah for each and every sinner that acknowledges THROUGH FAITH that Yeshua is THEIR Sacrifice.

Now, Yeshua becoming a sinner's "sin offering," is a GIFT, a free gift that is turned into Righteousness (doing what the Law required for sinners to do). So when you INCREASE sin, this gift or Grace increases all the more, as more sinners are sinning, they are also doing what the Law required them to do for their sin, which is to slay their sacrifice. This professor is completely in the dark about the true understanding concerning the Grace of Elohim, so I really don't think his conclusions are worth much. KB

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, Paul does not clearly speak against the Law,B

Ken, please watch the videos so you can learn about what Paul does and does not teach.

In places he teaches against the laws in Judaism because he is preaching and teaching about his version of Jesus, NOT Judaism. Paul is opposing Judaism and its laws in many areas that do not fit with his gentiles followers.

He then goes back over these laws to clarify his intent so that one does not discount them in way he doesnt see fit.


Do you even know why the Pauline epistles are listed in the NT the way they are?

 

[Ken Brown]

Ken, please watch the videos so you can learn about what Paul does and does not teach.

In places he teaches against the laws in Judaism because he is preaching and teaching about his version of Jesus, NOT Judaism. Paul is opposing Judaism and its laws in many areas that do not fit with his gentiles followers.

He then goes back over these laws to clarify his intent so that one does not discount them in way he doesnt see fit.

Do you even know why the Pauline epistles are listed in the NT the way they are?

Hi outhouse, I watched the professor on the Romans video and it told me that the professor is in the dark concerning his assessment of Paul. Paul circumcised Timothy. Paul paid the expenses of four Jewish believers who were entering the rites of Purification concerning a vow. Paul went through those rites of Purification to prove he does not teach against the law as most thought and rumored that he did. So Paul is misunderstood, and I really don't think the order of Paul's writings has anything to do with understanding him properly. Paul was not against the Law. KB

 

[InformedIgnorance]

@outhouse
No i guess you are right, writing all the various letters and all his missionary journeys to spread the word werent really about conversion converting the masses was indeed the purpose, however the strategy used was of course not preaching to giant gatherings - why would that be necessary.

In context or out of context, a generous application of metaphorical interpretation is the only way to even attempt to make sense of some parts which if a literal interpretation were used (or even many metaphorical interpretations) are directly contradictory with that of other revealed works (and even within his OWN works on occasion)

 

[outhouse]

@outhouse
No i guess you are right, writing all the various letters and all his missionary journeys to spread the word werent really about conversion converting the masses was indeed the purpose, however the strategy used was of course not preaching to giant gatherings - why would that be necessary.

In context or out of context, a generous application of metaphorical interpretation is the only way to even attempt to make sense of some parts which if a literal interpretation were used (or even many metaphorical interpretations) are directly contradictory with that of other revealed works (and even within his OWN works on occasion)

People often make the mistake of thinking Paul started Christianity based on his version.

I am only correcting that false assumption. Oral tradition started after Jesus death, and people returned home all over the Roman Empire with these legends. Paul was not the only teacher nor the first author of Christianity, there were many and books that existed before him, his are just the ones that survived.

In Paul's time the movement was actually quite small, so its not like he was preaching to the whole Roman Empire on a grandstand to the masses.

He did convert some, many thought he was too extreme. he was not viewed as grand theologian, but rather as a martyr early on.

If I'm mistaken please show me where

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hi Sandy, the Apostle Paul understood that the Law is Spiritual. It takes FAITH to believe and accept that concept. The Law can only justify those who do it, and it takes faith to accomplish that. An example of this is the Passover. Those who have through faith acknowledged that Yeshua is their Passover Lamb can accomplish what the Law required of them to do with respect to killing and eating of the Passover. By this acknowledgement, we can conclude that a man is justified by faith in Yeshua being THE Passover Lamb, without deeds of the Law (actually killing a physical lamb). Hope this helps in your understanding. KB

Can you back that up with passages from Romans please.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Your taking these out of context.

Introduction to New Testament History and Literature (Yale, RLST 152); 26-lecture course by Dale B. Martin | Virtual Professors

#16, then go to 23 minutes in and he starts on Romans and goes into it

I'm not going to do that. How about you give me the Cliff's Notes version please.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Its rather simple, you reconcile the statements by taking the pragmatic approach - scatter enough contradictory comments and everyone finds something they like -.

LOL

Paul wanted to recruit (not sure convert applies) the masses, therefore to do so he commented in ways he thought would appeal to his intended audience. Alternatively to perhaps be less abrasive, you can suggest it is meant to be metaphorical, that the reader is supposed to read what they like into the mess by pretending to be able to discern the divine will supposedly guiding paul to write these truths and being able to determine which parts are supposed to be literal and which parts metaphorical.

I disagree with this. I think that within the book of Romans Paul can and does solve the seeming contradiction.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

He did, but Paul is clearly speaking against the law for a specific reason and none of yopur post addresses the real reason.

:clap

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hi outhouse, Paul does not clearly speak against the Law, in fact, Paul's teaching is the most definitive teaching we have for the upholding or fulfilling of the Law. What most do is fall into the trap of following after those lawless men who twist and distort Paul. Paul's teaching was that the Law has two ways to accomplish it, a physical (by works way) and a Spiritual (by faith way). This does not speak against the Law, rather it confirms it. What Paul ran into were those who could not accept the Spiritual side of the Law. They would not acknowledge that Yeshua was THEIR Passover Lamb (or any other Spiritual Fulfillment), but rather would only look at the physical, and deny Yeshua. The whole Law has a hidden or Spiritual side and this is what Paul tried to persuade people to believe, but for some reason there was a hardening in part with the Jews, and they were blind and deaf toward the Spiritual.

So you might want to reconsider how Paul felt and taught toward the Law. One thing I will state, the delusional thinking of those who twist and distort Paul, is the thinking found within traditional christianity. They don't understand Paul or his teachings. KB

Can you justify the OP?