Paul's Dung.

[e.r.m.]

I think I see what you are saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are inferring that I used exegesis? If I'm right on that, could you explain where I'm doing that.

Actually exegesis is the good one. Eisegesis is the bad one. I was not implying that you used eisegesis. In my original post to you I was just saying that seeking the original intent is what we ought to do. And we're on the same page with that.

I've always taken 1 Peter 1:20-21 as saying it is no one individual's prerogative to give their own interpretation. That leaves two possibilities, either there is no interpretation or it interprets itself. I believe in the latter of those two possibilities.

Great.

Most of the Bible is pretty straight forward and simply says what it means. Sometimes context is required to see the true meaning. Yet other times it may be necessary to see how some word or phrase was used elsewhere. Understanding the culture sure helps in some parts of the scriptures. A few other things, but nothing we don't do when reading pretty much anything we read, from the Daily News to the latest Harry Potter book (is he still around?). Of course with the Bible we get the help of God's wonderful gift to each of us, i.e. holy spirit.

Agreed.

You don't need holy spirit to read Harry Potter, but you do for the Bible. It says that somewhere in there.

I think the Holy Spirit would be willing to help anyone seeking John 16:7-11 Acts 17:10-11. You're thoughts are welcome on this.

 

[rrobs]

Actually exegesis is the good one. Eisegesis is the bad one. I was not implying that you used eisegesis. In my original post to you I was just saying that seeking the original intent is what we ought to do. And we're on the same page with that.

Great.

Agreed.

I think the Holy Spirit would be willing to help anyone seeking John 16:7-11 Acts 17:10-11. You're thoughts are welcome on this.

Oops, I got my gesises (not to be confused with Jesus) mixed up! The Greek prepositon "ek" (ex in this case) means to come from the inside to the outside. "Eis" is the opposite, to go from the outside to the inside. We must let the scriptures speak for themselves, exegesis, and not read our own ideas into them, eisegesis.

I think that on a whole church tradition is too often read into the actual scriptures. Paul warned us of that several times, but I think it fell on deaf ears when he said it and it still hasn't rung true in the lives of too many born again believers today. To a large extent tradition seems to overshadow truth in today's Christendom. For the life of me, I can't figure out how anybody could possible read 1 Tim 2:5 (and other places, notably Hebrews) and still think we need priests to whom we confess our sins.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

Are there some Bibles that don't include 1 Tim 2:5? Not to my knowledge!

BTW, the verses you mentioned (John 16:7-11 Acts 17:10-11) were the very ones I was thinking of. Thanks. I was in a hurry last post and didn't look them up. I figured you'd know what I meant though.

 

[e.r.m.]

rrobs,

I think that on a whole church tradition is too often read into the actual scriptures. For the life of me, I can't figure out how anybody could possible read 1 Tim 2:5 (and other places, notably Hebrews) and still think we need priests to whom we confess our sins.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I once saw this documentary on Enron. They released a financial statement to all employees in the company and the financial statement itself said how much trouble they were in. However, the statement came with a commentary telling the employees only to focus on certain parts of that financial statement, which if one did, it made everything seem rosy. The employees went along with the commentary and did not pay attention to the actual real numbers on the page. I think this goes to show how influential or powerful a commentary can be when the scriptures say something different than what the commentary is saying. I think the same dynamic is in effect.

I think the core root of confessing our sins to priest, is when Jesus told the apostles
John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
Jesus never said anything about anyone else having this authority, but the Catholics decided to expand this authority to other people, and make it something ongoing.

 

[Katzpur]

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 didn't call the Jewish religion anything, @Rival. He merely quoted Paul.

 

[Rival]

@rrobs didn't call the Jewish religion anything, @Rival. He merely quoted Paul.

Let's not go around this carousel again lol. I'm done with this thread.

 

[RabbiO]

@rrobs didn't call the Jewish religion anything, @Rival. He merely quoted Paul.

Here you do @Rival a disservice.

It is disingenuous on the part of @rrobs to say that he was simply quoting Paul when he stands behind, he endorses, what Paul wrote.

 

[RabbiO]

@rrobs -

Diploma?

Degree?

Tops in his class?

Tops in his profession?

Premier religious leader within the Jewish community?

I presume you think you can provide documentation for each of these assertions.

Go for it.

 

[rrobs]

@rrobs -

Diploma?

Degree?

Tops in his class?

Tops in his profession?

Premier religious leader within the Jewish community?

I presume you think you can provide documentation for each of these assertions.

Go for it.

As a matter of fact I already did provide documentation in the original post. What do you think Paul meant when he said he was a, "Hebrew of the Hebrews? However, as I said before, you don't appear to believe the New Testament is true, so I assume you don't even believe he said that.

I confess I don't have any documentation apart from the New Testament. Josephus, whom you may hold as a higher authority than Paul, is silent. Ditto for Tacitus, Pliny and the other early historians. All I have are the scriptures. I'm OK with that, but I understand you have other ideas.

By the way, I was taking a certain amount of literary freedom in speaking of diplomas, etc. While that is not literally true, it certainly fits with what he did actually say. I figured most readers would have understood that.

 

[Katzpur]

Here you do @Rival a disservice.

It is disingenuous on the part of @rrobs to say that he was simply quoting Paul when he stands behind, he endorses, what Paul wrote.

Point taken. I really wasn't following the thread, so I probably spoke out of turn. Mea culpa.

 

[RabbiO]

By the way, I was taking a certain amount of literary freedom in speaking of diplomas, etc. While that is not literally true, it certainly fits with what he did actually say. I figured most readers would have understood that.

Why would you think that most readers would have understood that you were taking "a certain amount of literary freedom" when you made your comments?

 

[74x12]

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'.

Clearly that's not what Paul is speaking of, but rather he's speaking of his personal pride and place in the Jewish religion. That's what he counted as dung.

 

[rrobs]

Why would you think that most readers would have understood that you were taking "a certain amount of literary freedom" when you made your comments?

I figured most readers were insightful enough to realize back then they probably didn't actually have this thing we call a diploma. I stand by that statement. With all due respect, I think you are just nitpicking.

 

[Trent]

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 entire New Testimony was a made up tall tale by the wealthy, heathen and pagan Gentile Roman Piso Family after the Roman Army murdered the Israelites in Jerusalem and after they plundered and destroyed Yahweh's Holy Temple. Those detestable Romans made up a false religion based on the more than strange teachings that the blood of a man would save them if, and this is a huge if, they simply had "faith and grace" that the man's blood would save them from hades/hell. This new false religion taught that Yahweh's Laws were nailed to the Cross and were a curse to man. It is my guess that those heathen Romans never, ever, imagined that their book of complete fiction would one day be followed by millions upon millions of weak minded people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

heathen and pagan

Heathen and Pagan?! Oh, no!

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Such degrees really don't carry much weight other than the intended faith it's focused on.

The only exception would be those that involve accredited archaeological and historical instruction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It seems Paul went against his own rules in regards to profanity and derogatory remarks.

 

[rrobs]

The entire New Testimony was a made up tall tale by the wealthy, heathen and pagan Gentile Roman Piso Family after the Roman Army murdered the Israelites in Jerusalem and after they plundered and destroyed Yahweh's Holy Temple. Those detestable Romans made up a false religion based on the more than strange teachings that the blood of a man would save them if, and this is a huge if, they simply had "faith and grace" that the man's blood would save them from hades/hell. This new false religion taught that Yahweh's Laws were nailed to the Cross and were a curse to man. It is my guess that those heathen Romans never, ever, imagined that their book of complete fiction would one day be followed by millions upon millions of weak minded people.

The Romans, or any man for that matter, did not have the genius with which Paul's God inspired letters were written. Only God could have come up with the ideas He inspired Paul to write. You just don't understand them, probably because you've not studied them with an objective mindset. I would aver that most, if not all, of your understanding comes from tradition and not the scriptures themselves.

 

[rrobs]

Such degrees really don't carry much weight other than the intended faith it's focused on.

The only exception would be those that involve accredited archaeological and historical instruction.

Paul's education under Gamaliel was every bit as prestigious as the finest archaeological and historical instruction of today, and yet he counted them as dung in comparison to a knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. That's just what the book says. The reader simply accepts that as truth or accepts something else as truth.