Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[Shermana]

and you ignore the point that Abraham, Noah, Abel, Job and others did not live under the mosiac law.

tell me how they were acceptable to God when they didnt have the help of the mosaic law?

And you ignore every time I mention that Abraham obeyed the "Statutes, judgments, and ordinances" and how the Law says "For all generations".

FOR ALL GENERATIONS.

And you ignore how Noah knew what animals were clean and unclean. We simply don't know if the Mosaic Law corresponded to what they believed or not.

And you ignore that Jesus says that anyone who breaks and teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

And I believe last time I asked you to show me where "Fornication" includes "marrying your sister", you quietly left the conversation.

It's almost as if you're trying to compensate for all the points I've shot down and attempting to dodge out on all the many times your points have been refuted or proven hollow by dismissing every single one of my counter replies like I never gave them.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have yet to explain why one must accept the entire NT to discuss doctrine and why one cannot discuss the validity of certain texts, especially those that are in critical dispute or have a history of dispute among the early church. You keep repeating this but when you are challenged you refuse to answer for this some reason.

I don't think that one has to accept the whole Bible, you don't have to accept any of it, however there is no way to argue scripture unless there is some framework, a basic listing of Books that can be referenced to prove our points. Also, I wasn't joking about being selective myself when it comes to scripture, frankly there are entire chapters in the Bible that I haven't read...i'm not saying that's a good thing, but merely to demonstrate that like you and, seemingly many people, we aren't arguing exactly from the same books/canon
That being said, you have also been far too extreme in your discussion of the OT laws, i'm not changing my opinion on some things, so why argue about it?

 

[Shermana]

I don't think that one has to accept the whole Bible, you don't have to accept any of it, however there is no way to argue scripture unless there is some framework, a basic listing of Books that can be referenced to prove our points

I don't see why there's no way to argue scripture without having the same framework as someone else. That makes no sense. Anyone can argue what the individual books say, or if there's scholarly reason to disclude them, this kind of non-argument is not even something Conservative Christians would try to pull.

Like I said, which you did not contest, by your logic, Ethiopian Christians would not be able to argue scripture with Catholics. Iraneus would not be able to argue scripture with Gnostics.

You're basically trying to say "Unless you accept the same framework as others, you can't argue their framework". Nonsense. By that logic, the scholars who disclude the Deutero-Pauline writings can't argue about them? The Catholics can't argue with Protestants who don't accept the Apocrypha either?

. Also, I wasn't joking about being selective myself when it comes to scripture, frankly there are entire chapters in the Bible that I haven't read...i'm not saying that's a good thing, but merely to demonstrate that like you and, seemingly many people, we aren't arguing exactly from the same books/canon

But I'm arguing ABOUT the same books and canon. You're under some strange assumption that I have to accept those books AS canon in order to discuss the critical issues involving them, let alone how to interpret them.

That being said, you have also been far too extreme in your discussion of the OT laws, i'm not changing my opinion on some things, so why argue about it?[

Why argue about it? Because it's a debate forum. If you find my views extreme, that's fine, because the NT is very extreme if you actually go by what Jesus teaches. Even if you don't want to discuss the verses where Jesus says how anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments will be called the least in the Kingdom, or how heaven and earth will collapse before the Law becomes void, or his response to the Rich man about obeying the commandments, you still have some seriously EXTREME teachings.

Give to anyone who asks from you?

Pretty dang extreme.

Turn the other cheek to someone who slaps you?

Pretty extreme.

Telling the Rich man to sell all his posessions and follow Jesus?

Talk about extreme.

Cannot be Jesus's disciple unless you disown your unbelieving family?

Majorly Extreme.

Now if someone says you actually should listen to Jesus in those regards, would you call them too extreme?

So with that said, your argument about me being extreme, besides being irrelevant to the subject of what the Gospel text (and 1 John) actually says and whether it clashes with what Paul teaches or not, is moot because anyone who takes what Jesus teaches even without the Mosaic Law has to deal with some rather extreme points.

So if you're going to dismiss my views and ignore my counter replies, I'm going to show how wrong your responses are, whether you want to argue or not.

If you don't want me to show how hollow your counters are and how you ignore my points and simply repeat yourself, just ignore me and take the hit. It's not my fault that the text itself is extreme. If you don't like the fact that I'm just saying what the text says, and you want to write it off as extreme, well I hope you're prepared to deal with all the other EXTREME teachings.

 

[Pegg]

And you ignore every time I mention that Abraham obeyed the "Statutes, judgments, and ordinances" and how the Law says "For all generations".

FOR ALL GENERATIONS.

And you ignore how Noah knew what animals were clean and unclean. We simply don't know if the Mosaic Law corresponded to what they believed or not.

And you ignore that Jesus says that anyone who breaks and teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

And I believe last time I asked you to show me where "Fornication" includes "marrying your sister", you quietly left the conversation.

It's almost as if you're trying to compensate for all the points I've shot down and attempting to dodge out on all the many times your points have been refuted or proven hollow by dismissing every single one of my counter replies like I never gave them.

i am not ashamed to take my leave from a discussion when reasoning has ceased.

And thats what i feel i have to do when discussing topics with you because you seem to have blinkers on and wont acknowledge that any of the points raised have any merit.

For example, you claim that Sarah was Abrahams Niece. But Abraham himself states that she is his half sister at Genesis 20:12 And, besides, she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, only not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife (this was a common cultural practice at that time)
When you refuse to reason on the scriptures, it is pointless in continuing a discussion with you.

 

[Ken Brown]

i am not ashamed to take my leave from a discussion when reasoning has ceased.

And thats what i feel i have to do when discussing topics with you because you seem to have blinkers on and wont acknowledge that any of the points raised have any merit.

For example, you claim that Sarah was Abrahams Niece. But Abraham himself states that she is his half sister at Genesis 20:12 And, besides, she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, only not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife (this was a common cultural practice at that time)
When you refuse to reason on the scriptures, it is pointless in continuing a discussion with you.

Hi Pegg, just thought I might help out here. The term "brother" or "sister" could refer to a niece or nephew, but in reality, as we today use the term sister or niece, Sarah was Abraham's niece, just like Lot was his nephew. Gen 14:16 refers to Lot as Abram's "brother," but in verse 12 it clearly says Lot was Abram's BROTHER's son. Lot and Sarah were children of Haran (Abraham's brother), which would technically make Sarah his niece. Abraham's father was Terah who had two wives, and one wife gave birth to Abraham, and the other wife gave birth to Haran (Lot's and Sarah's father). Hopefully this helps to clear up any confusion. KB

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hi dyanaprajna2011, I don't believe you are a genius when it comes to understanding Paul, because Paul fully understood how Moses WROTE of Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection. Paul saw what was WRITTEN in the Law of Moses, and I doubt if you have, so you are at a great disadvantage when it come to understanding Paul. KB

Look at it objectively, not through the lens of your faith, which can cloud logical judgement and good reason. Without faith that Paul was divinely inspired, which can only lead to circular reasoning, you can see what was really going on. I think this is one of the main reasons why Paul told his followers to reject knowledge and wisdom that did not agree with faith, even if it was true.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Falvlun, I actually agree with your sentiment. But what I'm addressing is those people who think that Paul was perfect in everything he wrote, and was divinely inspired and could not lie or deceive, and that what he wrote came from the mind of god. I do realize that he was just a person, imperfect, and prone to error in judgement, but there are those who don't think this is the case.

Im just wondering if you checked this verse against other translations? And if you looked at the surrounding verses to help with the context? If you didnt, then i can see how you could easily read these verses in the negative way you did....but in Pauls defense, i would like to show that this verse is not saying what you think it says.

When I was a Christian, I made it a point to learn Greek and Hebrew, in order to check translations against the best authoritative texts. With that being said, unfortunately, the Greek doesn't agree with the more modern translations of the text, the one's you have quoted.

Paul's teachings clash directly with Jesus, James, Jude, 1 Peter, and even the author of Hebrews.

When I started to leave Christianity, when I began having problems with it, this was one of my biggest problems. When I actually compared the doctrines and teachings, I found many contradictions between Jesus and Paul.

And yes, those who noted that what is called "Christianity" is basically "Paulinism with a few splashes of text from Jesus" are right. You should notice that virtually all Christian doctrine is bolstered 99% by Paul, with just a few verses from Jesus, generally cherry picked and out of context, to support them.

When I questioned my pastors on certain things dealing with this topic, I've actually had several of those pastors say to me directly, that Jesus taught under the law, and Paul under grace, so what Jesus taught, such as following the law, were not applicable to Christians after Paul.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

John the Baptist was under the 10 Commandments and the 600+ other laws, Jesus was from a priesthood that predated that and it was governed by the laws that applied to the 'sons of God' before Satan and the 1/3 of Angels fell, the same law will apply to everyone in the new earth. Even the 10 Commandments cease to be the law for a resurrected and immortal and sinless people starting on the day the 7th trump sounds

Ge:14:18:
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:
and he was the priest of the most high God.

Heb:5:5:
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son,
to day have I begotten thee.
Heb:5:6:
As he saith also in another place,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Re:21:7:
He that overcometh shall inherit all things;
and I will be his God,
and he shall be my son.
Re:21:8:
But the fearful,
and unbelieving,
and the abominable,
and murderers,
and whoremongers,
and sorcerers,
and idolaters,
and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

 

[Jainarayan]

Perhaps he focuses on the Gosples and teachings of Jesus, but takes Paul's letters with a grain of salt.

Many enlightened Christians do.

I'm not Christian but I like Jesuism. All that should be interpreted from Jesus's teachings, (the red letter versions) is delving into the metaphors (he did not expect someone to cut off their hand for doing the right-hand shuffle or literally pluck their eye out for oggling Christopher Meloni :drool and parables to find the truths he was teaching. Just like the morals of the puranic stories. He didn't need to be expanded on by Paul or anyone else.

 

[Harrytic]

So...you're Torah True, right? Because if you read scripture that way and aren't following the laws, you're in no position to be criticizing others

I'm guessing you don't follow all the old testament laws either!

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm guessing you don't follow all the old testament laws either!

No..................that's because I use the entire NT as my scripture.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I'm guessing you don't follow all the old testament laws either!

No..................that's because I use the entire NT as my scripture.

This is part of my problem with Paul. Jesus never taught to not follow the law of Moses, Paul did. So, which part of the NT do you follow, Jesus or Paul? Because they were both quite explicit in their views. Jesus said whoever teaches one to not follow the law, it were better if he had a stone tied to his neck and drowned, whereas Paul said that the law is no longer applicable. These seem to be in direct opposition to each other.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus never taught to not follow the law of Moses,

Eh, that's not so clear in the NT, because you have "the law of Liberty" expressed in James etc., which actually is not the OT laws. Non-Jews anyways, were not expected to follow all the OT laws, only a few of the more basic dietary/idolatry related ones

 

[Shermana]

i am not ashamed to take my leave from a discussion when reasoning has ceased.

So if you make a claim that you can't back up, reasoning has ceased. Got it.

And thats what i feel i have to do when discussing topics with you because you seem to have blinkers on and wont acknowledge that any of the points raised have any merit.

You mean because I refute your arguments of course.

You said that Fornication includes the prohibition on marrying your sister. When asked to back this claim, you refused. There goes your point. Bye bye point.

For example, you claim that Sarah was Abrahams Niece. But Abraham himself states that she is his half sister at Genesis 20:12 And, besides, she is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, only not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife (this was a common cultural practice at that time)
When you refuse to reason on the scriptures, it is pointless in continuing a discussion with you.[

I made a whole thread on this, and you ignored that in Genesis 11 it explicitly defines her as his niece. And he doesn't say HAlf sister. He says sister. Which can mean sister in law. You seem to not understand that "Daughter of my father" doesn't necessarily mean "direct daughter" just like "Son of" doesn't always mean "direct son". Your disdain for extracanonical sources like Josephus who agrees with my point, as do others, doesn't help either. You basically want to translate the Bible as your way or no way.

Thank you.

You're right, it's pointless to discuss with me if you're going to just dismiss everything I say without actually rebutting it and then expecting me to cater to your arguments. You basically just can't accept that there are actually rational counter arguments to what you say and that your own counter arguments aren't necessarily the defacto end-all refutation that can't be refuted. In a way, no better than any other "Apologist".

Thank you for revealing just how dishonest and unwilling to have rational debate you really are, Pegg.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Pegg, just thought I might help out here. The term "brother" or "sister" could refer to a niece or nephew, but in reality, as we today use the term sister or niece, Sarah was Abraham's niece, just like Lot was his nephew. Gen 14:16 refers to Lot as Abram's "brother," but in verse 12 it clearly says Lot was Abram's BROTHER's son. Lot and Sarah were children of Haran (Abraham's brother), which would technically make Sarah his niece. Abraham's father was Terah who had two wives, and one wife gave birth to Abraham, and the other wife gave birth to Haran (Lot's and Sarah's father). Hopefully this helps to clear up any confusion. KB

Thank you Ken Brown, it's nice to see someone else who has a logical capacity for reading what the text says. Perhaps Pegg may eventually realize that what I said is not as unreasonable as she is trying to make it out to be. I think she has some strange concept that "Daughter" and "Sister" only ever mean the direct English translation, that "Sister" can't mean "Sister in law" and "Daughter" can't mean anything but direct daughter. As if "Son" can only mean "direct son".

And perhaps she'd like to explain her claim of why the use of "Fornication" NT forbids marrying one's actual blood-sister.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Eh, that's not so clear in the NT, because you have "the law of Liberty" expressed in James etc., which actually is not the OT laws. Non-Jews anyways, were not expected to follow all the OT laws, only a few of the more basic dietary/idolatry related ones

Is the 'royal law' the 10 Commandments or not? (in the the 1st law covers respect of God)

Jas:2:8:
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
ye do well:

 

[Desert Snake]

Is the 'royal law' the 10 Commandments or not? (in the the 1st law covers respect of God)

Jas:2:8:
If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
ye do well:

I was referring to all the OT laws, dietary, Sabbath, etc.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

You said that Fornication includes the prohibition on marrying your sister. When asked to back this claim, you refused. There goes your point. Bye bye point.

Fornication is any sex outside of marriage so buh-bye to your 'point'.

 

[Shermana]

Fornication is any sex outside of marriage so buh-bye to your 'point'.

Umm, so you're saying that the ban on Fornication doesn't forbid marrying your sister then.

Thanks for agreeing with my point.

Were you attempting to rebut me or something?

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Thank you Ken Brown, it's nice to see someone else who has a logical capacity for reading what the text says. Perhaps Pegg may eventually realize that what I said is not as unreasonable as she is trying to make it out to be. I think she has some strange concept that "Daughter" and "Sister" only ever mean the direct English translation, that "Sister" can't mean "Sister in law" and "Daughter" can't mean anything but direct daughter. As if "Son" can only mean "direct son".

And perhaps she'd like to explain her claim of why the use of "Fornication" NT forbids marrying one's actual blood-sister.

Like in this partial set of conditions?

Le:18:9-17:
The nakedness of thy sister,
the daughter of thy father,
or daughter of thy mother,
whether she be born at home,
or born abroad,
even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Le:18:10:
The nakedness of thy son's daughter,
or of thy daughter's daughter,
even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover:
for theirs is thine own nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter,
begotten of thy father,
she is thy sister,
thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister:
she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister:
for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother,
thou shalt not approach to his wife:
she is thine aunt.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law:
she is thy son's wife;
thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife:
it is thy brother's nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter,
neither shalt thou take her son's daughter,
or her daughter's daughter,
to uncover her nakedness;
for they are her near kinswomen:
it is wickedness.

Yet in Abraham's time Lot and his daughter were making babies and no punishment so the law that Adam and Eve and their children were under was only updated after the 10 Commandments became Law.

Ge:19:36:
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.