Paul, a false prophet?

OH BULL! I can translate them just fine without being a "fluent" speaker.

I find it quite funny that you are challenging my "expertise" with the Greek and Hebrew - which I obviously have taken the time to learn, and continue to learn - while, I'm guessing, you can't translate the Greek and Hebrew languages- as you would have said so if you could - and wouldn't be challenging my translations, as you would know they are legit. Yet you are challenging me over this. LOL!

YES! At least as good, perhaps better, AS I don't have a Roman - or any other - political agenda. I want to know what they actually say. I try to do a straight out translation - not even changing word order (which all but one or two of the other translations do - and - which often results in the misunderstandings of the text) if the text can be understood in the original order (though such often leaves the text sounding a little archaic.) LOL!

NOW - as I said before - stop this crap and get back to the debate!

 

But you can't. I read, write and speak Korean (modern day Korean). There are particular phrases in the Korean language that would take two or three pages of printed text in the English language to even come close to giving those phrases an adequate resemblance of what the actual meaning is.

"2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. " Now you should know as well as I do, that a faulty translation can and sometimes will lead to a faulty interpretation of what was being said. Also, you should realize that etymology of the various words and their meanings is also important. You have already indicated that vowels were not used until much later. So, how do you KNOW that the vowels currently used by those scholars are the correct vowels to use, when none were previously used? It would seem, that the placement of the vowels into words that did not use vowels, would be an attempt to alter the words, thus potentially altering the meaning of the original words. Thus my reason for inquiring whether or not you fluently spoke the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages. What you KNOW about the language is the perversion that the languages have been exposed to at the hands of others that did not speak the ancient languages.

I do appreciate that straight forward and seemingly honest answer. On the other hand, you fail to make mention of the fact of whether or not you are using the placement of vowels into words of the original text, according to the rules established by others who do not fluently speak the ancient languages.

This is not crap, it is part of the debate. I suppose it becomes 'crap' when your views and or authority is challenged?

 

You people do seem to love getting bogged down in semantic details .


Paul as a young man ( Saul the 20 year old hot head) was a traditional and nationalistic ( zealot) Jew and follower of the "Teacher of Righteousness ", John the Baptist .
The teachings of Jesus were initially largely considered unacceptable and Jesus was popularly known as the " Man of a Lie" by traditionalists . He was literally judged illegitimate and therefore not the King of the Jews from David's line ( James his younger brother was the true heir) and not a legitimate Priest either -- not having been born in the tribe of Levi .
There were always going to be huge differences between Paul and Jesus even though the two came together in AD 40 mainly for political reasons .
It seems that when Paul took issue with sayings made by Jesus he did so quite wittingly and to broaden his required agenda --- his wish to extend his version of a movement throughout the Gentile world and with specific acceptance to Rome .And of course to maximise converts and central funds ( through tithing ) .

For those surprised at some of these comments , my reference points embrace Pliny , Josephus , the Clementine books and , of course , the Dead Sea Scrolls which , despite initial dispute , were written alongside the Gospels and Acts .
.

 

You are still missing the point. Jesus did indeed say " I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "

Paul clearly puts emphasis on faith in these words and in no way does he contradict that one must be righteous ..
i.e "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?"

This one verse breaks your notion that Paul teaches that righteousness isn't a part of your heavenly gift. (another point that stops your argument dead in it's tracks)

It's NOT a suggestion there guy, Jesus didn't say "should repent," he said do or die .. We are all sinners so you might not want to go there either.

LOL -"one gains" righteousness with salvation"~ Gifedone Are You now contradicting yourself or agreeing with me ?

Jesus' perspective is different than that of Paul and this is why you are having difficulty understanding why Paul Is preaching Jesus.

I did and I agree with it. So did Paul as he is very clear in pinning his hope to Jesus' words,teachings, and his kingdom.

 

"

Sure .. Jesus is the gatekeeper and he has stated what the entrance requirements are.

And Jesus puts the emphasis on works ..

How does it stop my argument ?

So what ? Jesus says to turn from sin .. which is the argument I have been making all along.

Paul says you just need "faith"

Quit being foolish. Jesus says one needs to be righteous to gain salvation not the reverse as you suggest.

Glad you agree with the words of Christ. Unfortunately they contradict the words of Paul.

Jesus teaches that the path to heaven is through good works. This is not what Paul teaches.

 

Sure, including being born again.

Actually righteousness..

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Because Paul puts the emphasis on righteousness as well.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?"

LOL..

You said -

But what does Jesus say ? That's right, he says do or die. Sounds like the only way to me. I mean, is there another way into heaven without repentance that you are keeping secret from us all ? You think you can give millions of dollars to a good cause and do all manner of good works but then disobey the commands and still get into heaven ? Welcome to the MOB. LOL

Yes, it is do or die, that is "so what?"

...and [Righteousness] .. Are you telling me that if you have no faith in Jesus' words or his power,not to mention the kingdom of God, that you don't believe in vain ?

Where did I suggest the reverse ? I have been suggesting that you cannot separate the two. Please don't go into definitions again, I'm am aware.

..Or you misunderstand what faith is and why it is necessary as in context to how Paul is using the word.

 

Of course .. after you die, if Jesus sees fit, you will be born again in spirit.

 

Why after you die ? Do you have support for this ?

Jesus fulfills and reinterprets Mosaic Law, particularly the commands via love and wisdom. Also,

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Interesting... You made your judgment before you received the verse that you asked for so that you could make your determination AFTER you actually read it... But yes it does refute your argument that Paul only required "just faith" and not righteousness.

Here:

He was talking to the Church and faith or no faith makes no difference.

Gifedone, I'm not disputing that one needs to keep God's commands but I did give you a verse that does show the necessity for repentance. Jesus said if you didn't repent you would perish. I gave you the verse so excuse my own wording.. Do or die was accurate.

Your i.e is incorrect as I said "with" not "after."

As a matter of fact, you said "you gain" righteousness with salvation." Care to explain that ? ....and I quote you saying this

http://www.politicalforum.com/4706257-post355.html

Verse please ... Romans was spot on if you can understand it. It goes over many a head and I don't mean to sound condescending so I apologize for that but I'd rather you be more specific to what you disagree with .. Paul was right,we are all flawed one way or the other (all though I see no mention of original sin/doesn't make any difference)

You mean the commands ? Which law of the OT are you referring to ?

But it matters Gifedone and it matters because Jesus came and preached the kingdom of God and he preached a lot of things, such as that he would die and resurrect,he forgave sins while he was in the flesh as well. Now if all these things are lies, your belief is in vain.

I said earlier that Paul had a different perspective than Jesus and that is why his teaching is Jesus. Jesus teachings are in himself. .. lol

Salvation by Jesus.(same thing)

But I gave you a verse that distinctly shows that Paul also focused on righteousness as well.

'Faith' in the truth,the way and the life, the words,works and kingdom is necessary when you are not God or Jesus ..

 

Its called resurrection.

Indeed he does.

The focus of paul was faith. This was not the focus of Jesus.

I do not dispute that Jesus taught repentence.

That was a mistake .. one gains salvation with righteousness.

The link I gave is actually based on Romans. I will say that Romans also claims that deeds are important so Paul does not neglect deeds entirely.

If memory serves "The Jews first and then the Gentiles" .. the Jews have the law so will be Judged by the law .. those that do not have the law have the law written into their conscience .. at the end it is the secret thoughts that will be judged (or some such thing)

It was reading Romans as a young warthog that started me doubting the Church doctrine of salvation by faith is Jesus.

I do not think these things are lies ? It is Paul that I have issues with.

I do not believe this of Paul.

Salvation by faith is not the same thing. This doctrine is belief that you have to believe Jesus was God and that Jesus came to forgive our sins.

This is not what Jesus taught IMO.

Paul does talk about deeds. The concept of salvation by faith according to Jesus was faith in the message IMO.

This is a different concept than is generally attributed to Paul. Perhaps Paul did have it closer to Jesus than I thought and it is Church doctrine attributed to Paul that is messed up.

Its late and I would have to read up on it more.

 

"Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. "

Study that closely.

 

That isn't support. This is something I honestly have to read up on because while your interpretation is something to consider and think about, It clashes with my understanding... Well, I'll give you credit for an interpretation I haven't heard before though.

"Faith is trust, hope, and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept, or entity."

Jesus had faith in the father and if he hadn't, we would not have faith in Jesus. That is the short version.

No worries, everyone needs to brush up from time to time. Peace to you.

 

I just meant that Paul's judgment about righteousness applied to those with and without faith, that whether they had faith or not made no difference as it pertained to my discussion with Gifedone.

Yes, I agree with Eph 2:8,9 ..

 

Thank you... was simply seeking clarification of your intent.

 

I am fully aware of the importance of full nuance of a word in context to culture and date, as well as related exegesis.

Not sure why you added this as all of us are reading translations/interpretations. Also, obviously we are getting a lot of "interpretation" that is wrong - such as the Emmanuel crap - trinity - and Iesous as God.

LOL! I have already said this. Studying their history helps a lot. For instance it helps me translate texts calling YHVH a Sun God - where most try to hide this. They were originally Pagan and kept turning back to these Pagan Gods. Archaeologists have uncovered Temple floors with YHVH in his sun chariot in the middle of the zodiac.

Also as to those later vowels in the Hebrew - The Hebrew Scholars are the closest we are going to get - so why do Christian translators tend to ignore their translation?

I said I check my Hebrew translations with the Jewish Hebrew translators. They are the closest anyone is going to get to ancient Hebrew.

No - it becomes crap when we go over-and-over this - making it a diversionary tactic away from the original debate.

 

If you are interested - this is what it says in straight out, kept in correct order, translation.

Eph 2:8 Thus indeed by grace exists salvation, and thus faith/conviction, and this not from thou; of God is this gift/offering.

Eph 2:9 Not by/from deeds/acts, in order that does not any person boast.

 

The same problem exists even in the study of history. Researchers (archaeologists and others) during the course of their research, form opinions pertaining to that research... they then document those opinions, and if no-one is capable of refuting that opinion, then it becomes the accepted standard on that particular research. Your example of "YHVH in his sun chariot" is a classic example of what I mean about that study and the opinions and private interpretations that they assign to such findings. BTW: what is a 'sun chariot'? Is that some form of wheeled vehicle that transports the sun across the sky? If so, then how does that relate to the "Son of God"?

Personally, I could care less why SOME Christian translators would "ignore their translations." You openly admit that the translations offered by "the Hebrew Scholars are the closest we are going to get.." Your comment is in fact an act of faith in those translators who have arbitrarily injected vowels into words that originally did not contain vowels.... subsequently they have altered the original text and potentially opened the gateway for wrong interpretations. What do those Hebrew Scholars have to say about the subject of 'faith in God' as opposed to having faith in the works of the translators?

I do the same task to give me a closer realization of what might have been meant, however, I do not accept those translators as being the absolute final word on the subject. When I have a doubt, I pray about it and I receive an answer to my prayers in that regard.

The intestines of a human body are full of 'crap' but they are still a vital part of that body. Statements made by people are like those intestines and sometimes will develop a blockage that needs to be remedied. The only way to remedy those blockages is to confront them with inquiry.

 

Where are you getting this translation ?

 

Aso, what exactly are you referring to by "Study that closely"?

 

It is my translation.

 

What are you translating ?

 

The Greek - Eph 2:8-9.

τη γαρ χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι δια της πιστεως και τουτο ουκ εξ υμων θεου το δωρον

ουκ εξ εργων ινα μη τις καυχησηται

 

It is like a billboard announcement to all those Christian Brothers and Sisters who share the spirit of Truth. Something akin to the website promotions to display the Pink ribbon as a reminder to support the fight against breast cancer. It has no significant importance to those that are non-theists.

BTW: Thanks for the private translation.

 

Thought I should add that "δια της" is also "through the," and that might be a better translation - for English speakers anyway. LOL.

There is and unspoken "of" so basically the same meaning.

 

I wasn't criticizing, just didn't know how you got 'salvation' from the Greek..

I'm not a Greek scholar so It is no biggie ..

 

I'm actually interested in your thoughts here.

Do you mean the idea of Grace being a Gift of Faith that cannot be achieved by acts?