embed/christianity2.0
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Wiki Activity

Update 7

embed 2023-09-28 20:13:50 +00:00
parent c4f20786ce
commit 450c7a9a66
128 changed files with 4907 additions and 4740 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

53
ApostlePaulSimonMagusAndMarcion.md

@ -5,18 +5,18 @@ https://timsteppingout.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/the-apostle-paul-simon-magus-and
I think the connection between Simon Magus and the Apostle Paul is
fairly compelling. In Acts of the Apostles 8, Simon Magus, a baptized
member of the inner circle, tries to buy a seat at the Apostles’ table:
member of the inner circle, tries to buy a seat at the Apostles' table:
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the
word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria…When Simon saw that
the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he
offered them money ^19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that
everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria...When Simon saw that
the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he
offered them money ^19 and said, "Give me also this ability so that
everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
20 Peter (Cephas) answered: “May your money perish with you,
20 Peter (Cephas) answered: "May your money perish with you,
because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money.
Compare Peter’s scorn and the money issue with Paul’s description of an
Compare Peter's scorn and the money issue with Paul's description of an
event in Galatians 2:
James, Cephas^ (Peter) and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me
@ -24,21 +24,21 @@ event in Galatians 2:
grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles,
and they to the circumcised. ^10 All they asked was that we should
continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do
all along… When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
all along... When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he stood condemned
Here, we have a rift between Peter and Paul where Paul called into
question Peter’s ideological commitment to Mosaic law. The final word
here was to “remember the poor” – a reference to money exchange of some
question Peter's ideological commitment to Mosaic law. The final word
here was to "remember the poor" - a reference to money exchange of some
sort. Are we talking about the same story here, told by 2 different
participants? Seems plausible to me.
How does Marcion fit in? According to Robert Price, Marcion was the
first person to really use Paul as a foundation for his theology –
Price says Marcion “discovered” Paul’s letter to the Galatians
(Tertullian used the word “finding” in his book “Against Marcion” –
[11]book 4, chapter 3 – I’m up in the air about whether Tertullian
meant he discovered it – I’d have to see the original Latin to get
first person to really use Paul as a foundation for his theology -
Price says Marcion "discovered" Paul's letter to the Galatians
(Tertullian used the word "finding" in his book "Against Marcion" -
[11]book 4, chapter 3 - I'm up in the air about whether Tertullian
meant he discovered it - I'd have to see the original Latin to get
better insight). The story of Marcion goes that he was a wealthy
shipyard owner who lived in Northern Turkey. He was a prominent
member of, and had donated a large sum of money to the Roman church.
@ -46,29 +46,34 @@ After Marcion was deemed a heretic, sometime in the 130s, the church
returned that money to him, and ex-communicated him (or whatever the
church did at the time).
I think this hypothesis fits – at least tentatively: Marcion invented
Paul, who was in turn originally demonized by some groups in the early
I think this hypothesis fits - at least tentatively: Marcion invented Paul,
who was in turn originally demonized by some groups in the early
Christian church, but eventually converted to Simon Magus for the
purpose of reintegrating Paul into the canon, notice that in Acts, as
well as a couple epistles, a character named Apollos is introduced as a
man educated in the Greek tradition, hailing from Alexandria.
well as a couple epistles, a character named Apollos is introduced as
a man educated in the Greek tradition, hailing from Alexandria.
In previous posts, I’ve linked Apollos to Philo of Alexandria to create
a plausible link between Philo’s earliest notions of a Judaic messiah
In previous posts, I've linked Apollos to Philo of Alexandria to create
a plausible link between Philo's earliest notions of a Judaic messiah
and the eventual historicized Christ.
I think it’s equally as plausible that Apollos in the Pauline texts and
I think it's equally as plausible that Apollos in the Pauline texts and
Acts was simply a representation of Apollonius of Tyana, whose life
greatly resembles both Jesus Christ and Paul.
I think the great link here, to get from Paul to the proto-orthodoxy
is the Valentinians. It’s well-known that the Valentinians did not
is the Valentinians. It's well-known that the Valentinians did not
secede from the church; rather, they remained in the church, on the
lookout for people who were ready to receive gnosis. The Valentinians
were fond of Paul (and claimed Valentinus received instruction from
Paul’s disciple Theudas, as well as revelation from Jesus). The
Paul's disciple Theudas, as well as revelation from Jesus). The
Valentinians were also fond of the Johannine texts, which probably
originated in Western Turkey. Who lives in Western Turkey? Polycarp.
All signs point back to Polycarp, whose disciple was Irenaeus, who in
180 was quite zealous to deem Marcion and Valentinus as heretics.
---
Editor's Note: "remember the poor" may refer to as "remember the Poor"
would refer to [[EbioniteChristianity]]. The Greek NT texts were written
in all captial letters, without punctuation.

2
BnaiAmenEbionites.md

@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ used by modern Christianity. The few preserved quotes of Yeshu (Jesus)
that survive in them radically reorientate the true believer toward
the true role and teachings of Yeshua.
*Copyright © 1999-2016. The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.*
*Copyright C 1999-2016. The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.*
### References

6
GospelOfThomas1.md

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Parent: [[GospelOfThomas]]
## Gospel of Thomas
== Gospel of Thomas
\nhttps://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas_one.tsv\n
@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ Parent: [[GospelOfThomas]]
**[96](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas96.html)** Jesus [said], "The Kingdom of the Father is like a certain woman. She took a little leaven, [concealed] it in some dough, and made it into large loaves. Let him who has ears hear."
**[97](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas97.html)** Jesus said, "The Kingdom of the [[Father]] is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking [on] a road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty."
**[97](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas97.html)** Jesus said, "The Kingdom of the [Father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking [on] a road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty."
**[98](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas98.html)** Jesus said, "The Kingdom of the Father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man."
@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ Parent: [[GospelOfThomas]]
**[100](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas100.html)** They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to Him, "Caesar's men demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give God what belongs to God, and give Me what is Mine."
**[101](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas101.html)** [Jesus said,] "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For My mother [gave me falsehood], but [[My]] true [[Mother]] gave me life."
**[101](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas101.html)** [Jesus said,] "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to Me. And whoever does [not] love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to Me. For My mother [gave me falsehood], but [My] true [Mother] gave me life."
**[102](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas102.html)** Jesus said, "Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat."

58
HealingCommentary.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
Parent: [[Commentaries]]
== HealingCommentary
Places in the NT where people are healed or demons cast out.
Healing is a hallmark of Jesus' ministry.
|| Matt. 12:22 | Healing of a blind and dumb demoniac ||
|| Matt. 12:9-13 | Healing of a man's withered hand ||
|| Matt. 15:21-28 | Exorcism of a Canaanite (Syro-Phoenecian) woman ||
|| Matt. 15:29 | Healing of large numbers of crippled, blind and mute ||
|| Matt. 17:14-21 | Exorcism of a possessed boy ||
|| Matt. 20:29-34 | Healing of two blind men at Jericho ||
|| Matt. 8:1-4 | Cure of a leper ||
|| Matt. 8:14-15 | Cure of Peter's mother-in-law's fever ||
|| Matt. 8:29-34 | Expulsion of demons in Gadara ||
|| Matt. 8:5-13 | Cure of centurion's son (servant) ||
|| Matt. 9:1-8 | Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaum ||
|| Matt. 9:18-26 | Raising (curing) of Jairus' daughter ||
|| Matt. 9:20-22 | Healing of a woman with a hemorrhage ||
|| Matt. 9:27-31 | Restoration of two men's sight ||
|| Matt. 9:32-34 | Healing of a mute demoniac ||
|| Mark 10:46-52 | Healing of two blind men at Jericho ||
|| Mark 1:23-28 | Cure of a demoniac ||
|| Mark 1:29-31 | Cure of Peter's mother-in-law's fever ||
|| Mark 1:40-45 | Cure of a leper ||
|| Mark 1:40-45 | Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaum ||
|| Mark 3:1-6 | Healing of a man's withered hand ||
|| Mark 4:35-41 | Expulsion of demons in Gadara ||
|| Mark 5:21-43 | Raising (curing) of Jairus' daughter ||
|| Mark 5:24-34 | Healing of a woman with a hemorrhage ||
|| Mark 7:24 | Exorcism of a Canaanite (Syro-Phoenecian) woman ||
|| Mark 7:31-37 | Healing of a deaf-mute ||
|| Mark 8:22 | Restoration of a man's sight at Bethsaida ||
|| Mark 9:13-28 | Exorcism of a possessed boy ||
|| Luke 13:10-17 | Healing of a woman on the Sabbath ||
|| Luke 14:1-6 | Healing of a man with dropsy ||
|| Luke 17:11-19 | Healing of ten lepers ||
|| Luke 18:35 | Healing of two blind men at Jericho ||
|| Luke 4:12-19 | Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaum ||
|| Luke 4:33-37 | Cure of a demoniac ||
|| Luke 4:38 | Cure of Peter's mother-in-law's fever ||
|| Luke 5:12-19 | Cure of a leper ||
|| Luke 6:6-11 | Healing of a man's withered hand ||
|| Luke 7:1-10 | Cure of centurion's son (servant) ||
|| Luke 7:11-17 | Raising of the son of the widow of Nain ||
|| Luke 8:26-39 | Expulsion of demons in Gadara ||
|| Luke 8:40 | Raising (curing) of Jairus' daughter ||
|| Luke 8:43 | Healing of a woman with a hemorrhage ||
|| Luke 9:37-43 | Exorcism of a possessed boy ||
|| John 11:1-44 | Raising of Lazarus from the dead ||
|| John 4:46-54 | Cure of centurion's son (servant) ||
|| John 5:1-15 | Cure of a sick man at Bethesda ||
|| John 9:1-38 | Healing of the blind man Bartimaus ||
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

178
JWO_01_01_Introduction_0002.md

@ -2,56 +2,56 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## If A Later Prophet Diminishes A Prior Prophet, He Is A False Prophet
The Bible commands us in (Deut. 4:2) to not “diminish” any of the
The Bible commands us in (Deut. 4:2) to not "diminish" any of the
words of prior Prophets. Thus, this prohibits adding prophets who
contradict earlier prophets.
For example, because Jesus and Moses came before Paul, the principle
of priority applies so that Jesus’ and Moses’ words are to be used to
test the validity of Paul’s words for inspiration.
of priority applies so that Jesus' and Moses' words are to be used to
test the validity of Paul's words for inspiration.
The Bible also tells us to ignore prophets with signs and wonders that “come to pass” but whose words contradict or “diminish” the earlier validated prophets. If they “seduce us from following” the commands of God through His earlier prophets, God commands us to treat them as false prophets despite true “signs and wonders.” (Deut. 13:1-5). (For more detailed discussion, see the chapter entitled “Must We Apply The Bible’s Tests For a True Prophet to Paul?” on page 37.)
The Bible also tells us to ignore prophets with signs and wonders that "come to pass" but whose words contradict or "diminish" the earlier validated prophets. If they "seduce us from following" the commands of God through His earlier prophets, God commands us to treat them as false prophets despite true "signs and wonders." (Deut. 13:1-5). (For more detailed discussion, see the chapter entitled "Must We Apply The Bible's Tests For a True Prophet to Paul?" on page 37.)
Jesus was frequently concerned about the “signs and wonders” prophets
Jesus was frequently concerned about the "signs and wonders" prophets
to come who would mislead Christians. (Matt. 7:15-23, viz., v. 22;
24:11, 24.) Jesus warns of these false prophets again in (Mark 13:22-23).
They “shall show signs and wonders to seduce , if possible, even the
elect.” Jesus’ words are quoting (Deut. 13:1-5), and thus He intended
They "shall show signs and wonders to seduce , if possible, even the
elect." Jesus' words are quoting (Deut. 13:1-5), and thus He intended
us to apply that passage to discern true from false prophets.
Jesus in (Matt. 7:15-24) refers again to these same “signs and
wonders” prophets. Jesus says He will deny He ever knew them even
though on Judgment Day they are able to say they did “marvelous works
in Your name,” and many “prophecies in Your name.” (Matt. 7:22). Jesus
rejects them because they are workers of “anomia.” anomia is not
Jesus in (Matt. 7:15-24) refers again to these same "signs and
wonders" prophets. Jesus says He will deny He ever knew them even
though on Judgment Day they are able to say they did "marvelous works
in Your name," and many "prophecies in Your name." (Matt. 7:22). Jesus
rejects them because they are workers of "anomia." anomia is not
lawlessness. These signs and wonders prophets obviously come with the
appearance of an angel of light, doing amazing signs and wonders, and
even true prophecy. They are not going to be notorious workers of
lawlessness. Such sinners could not deceive “if possible, the elect.”
Rather, Jesus’ real meaning could only be the second Greek dictionary
definition of anomia which is “negator of the Law (of Moses).” 1 The
lawlessness. Such sinners could not deceive "if possible, the elect."
Rather, Jesus' real meaning could only be the second Greek dictionary
definition of anomia which is "negator of the Law (of Moses)." 1 The
false prophet who will do many miracles and signs and wonders in Jesus
’ name will be one who is a “negator of the Law (of Moses).” Jesus is
' name will be one who is a "negator of the Law (of Moses)." Jesus is
warning us that this false prophet to come is one who says he is a
Christian, has sign and wonders, and preaches Christ, but he will be a
“negator of the Law of Moses.”
"negator of the Law of Moses."
Thus, for example, even if Paul came with true signs and wonders, this
does not make him a true prophet if his words diminish the Law of
Moses, or otherwise contradict earlier validated prophets, such as
Moses.
These are not radical propositions. What is radical is looking in the direction of Paul to see whether he can be validated Biblically. Mainstream Christian commentators say, for example, that the prophetic words of Moses and Jesus must be used to validate any ‘holy book’ or person. For example, Muncaster states:
These are not radical propositions. What is radical is looking in the direction of Paul to see whether he can be validated Biblically. Mainstream Christian commentators say, for example, that the prophetic words of Moses and Jesus must be used to validate any 'holy book' or person. For example, Muncaster states:
Importance of prophecy is stressed in the Bible with commands to:
1. Test everything ...including ‘holy books’ and people.
1. Test everything ...including 'holy books' and people.
2. Use prophecy ...to determine if something is from God. 2
1. See “Why Anomia Means Negator of Mosaic Law” on page 60.
1. See "Why Anomia Means Negator of Mosaic Law" on page 60.
2. Ralph O. Muncaster, The Bible Prophecy Miracles: Investigation of the Evidence preceded Paul. To survive God’s tests, Paul must not only have true prophecy in God’s name of unlikely events, he must never seduce us not to follow a single command God gave previously. God commands us to be able to defend Paul’s inclusion in the Bible as much as any other writer.
2. Ralph O. Muncaster, The Bible Prophecy Miracles: Investigation of the Evidence preceded Paul. To survive God's tests, Paul must not only have true prophecy in God's name of unlikely events, he must never seduce us not to follow a single command God gave previously. God commands us to be able to defend Paul's inclusion in the Bible as much as any other writer.
### Canon History: Additions to Scripture Have Not Been Scrutinized
@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ any legitimizing prophecy.) Thus, the 397 A.D. list suddenly dropped
previously accepted books, but without any explanation.
The 397 A.D. list also added items previously routinely ignored. In
particular, most of the ‘canon’ lists prior to 397 A.D. excluded
particular, most of the 'canon' lists prior to 397 A.D. excluded
Second Peter as an obvious pseudograph. For some unexplained reason,
these three bishops in 397 A.D. suddenly accepted Second Peter. Second
Peter still appears in our common New Testament despite its extremely
@ -83,14 +83,14 @@ analysis to prove this. 4
The next attempt to determine canon was in 1522. Luther published a
version of the New Testament (NT) with a commentary introducing the
entire set. Even though Luther’s NT list simply adopted the list from
entire set. Even though Luther's NT list simply adopted the list from
397 A.D., Luther declared two books uninspired. This was explained in
his 1522 Preface to the New Testament. list of 397 A.D. from the three
bishops of North Africa. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the
Council endorsed our current 27 books of the New Testament. They are
the same as in the Protestant New Testament. The fact there actually
was never a church-wide decision earlier may be surprising, but this
is undisputed fact. In “The Canon,” the New Catholic Encyclopedia even
is undisputed fact. In "The Canon," the New Catholic Encyclopedia even
admits:
According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the
@ -119,14 +119,14 @@ what we decide is Scripture is how it sounds to us. Here is the
official Orthodox Presbyterian Church s (OPC) sole explanation of how
we know something is Scripture from God.
5. Morwenna Ludlow, “Criteria of Canonicity and the Early Church" in
5. Morwenna Ludlow, "Criteria of Canonicity and the Early Church" in
John Barton and Michael Wolter (eds.), The Unity of the Scripture and
the Diversity of the Canon 6
This is a completely impoverished explanation. This Catechism lesson
on how to determine Scripture offers no Bible-based justification for
adding to God’s words. It is all how it sounds to us, e.g., it appears
to us to have power to ‘convert sinners.’ In the next section, we will
adding to God's words. It is all how it sounds to us, e.g., it appears
to us to have power to 'convert sinners.' In the next section, we will
see the reason for this weak explanation. We will discover why no
Christian can say prophetic inspiration was ever the sole grounds for
everything we included in the New Testament. This embarrassing fact is
@ -144,11 +144,11 @@ reasons at various
6. The Larger Catechism of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (170
A.D.7-350 A.D.). This list included the Apocalypse of Peter. No one
considered that work afterward as canon. Another example is that in
380 A.D., the Syrian Apostolic Canon adopted a blatant forgery— the
380 A.D., the Syrian Apostolic Canon adopted a blatant forgery- the
Constitution of the Apostles. No one else gives it any credibility
then or now. Why do they come and go? No one knows.
Furthermore, the lack of institutional memory affected the evaluation of various books’ genuineness. For example, the Epistle of Jude was included in the very early Muratorian list of 170/350 A.D., but then is repeatedly disputed in the 300s period on grounds that Jude was not cited earlier. Yet now we know it was in the early Muratorian list itself. James Catholic Encyclopedia's Lord directly gave him a message. (jE. g ., 1Cor. 14:37; 1Tim. 2:11; 1Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess.4:l-2,8; 1 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 4:17. cf 1Cor. 7:25, 40.)
Furthermore, the lack of institutional memory affected the evaluation of various books' genuineness. For example, the Epistle of Jude was included in the very early Muratorian list of 170/350 A.D., but then is repeatedly disputed in the 300s period on grounds that Jude was not cited earlier. Yet now we know it was in the early Muratorian list itself. James Catholic Encyclopedia's Lord directly gave him a message. (jE. g ., 1Cor. 14:37; 1Tim. 2:11; 1Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess.4:l-2,8; 1 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 4:17. cf 1Cor. 7:25, 40.)
If the intent in putting the NT together early on was simply as a
reading list, then we can understand why the issue of inspiration was
@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ in the history of any Christian denomination?
### No Scholarly Discussion Anywhere of Inspiration
With the exception of Eusebius around 325 A.D. saying Jesus’ words on
With the exception of Eusebius around 325 A.D. saying Jesus' words on
the fall of the temple of Jerusalem prove Jesus was a Prophet, there
is never any discussion why we should believe anyone else in the NT is
inspired. Never once will you find a discussion based on the
@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ never been addressed anywhere in church history!
This error is then perpetuated today by scholars who realize one can
never find any early or later analysis for the lists being
developed. 10 They resort to claims that the books of the New
Testament are somehow self-authenticating. These works’ own existence
Testament are somehow self-authenticating. These works' own existence
allegedly forced themselves upon us by some magical power. This is the
view of Metzger, whose book on canon formation is regarded as the
modern standard of how to defend the formation of the Christian
@ -184,18 +184,18 @@ canon; instead they came to perceive and acknowledge the
self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed
themselves as canonical upon the church . 11
9. “Canon of the New Testament,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia (
9. "Canon of the New Testament," in the Catholic Encyclopedia (
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)(last accessed 8/27/05).
10. The article “Canon of the New Testament,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia is most illuminating in this regard. One can see various theories put forth today why a work was accepted as New Testament canon. Some say it is because the work can be linked to an apostle as the voice behind the writing. But this is not true in Jude’s case, nor in Barnabas’ work {Hebrews), nor of Luke. In light of this, we are left concluding the criterion must have been a work’s “evangelical character.” We are thus reduced to a completely subjective criterion: does it fit the evangelistic message we prefer? This is the worst reason to accept something as canon. The only thing never considered is to ask whether a Biblical standard for inspiration was applied. If we asked the proper question, the answer comes back in the negative. Everyone knows several NT works on their face must no longer be regarded as inspired because they lack any validating prophecy.
10. The article "Canon of the New Testament," in the Catholic Encyclopedia is most illuminating in this regard. One can see various theories put forth today why a work was accepted as New Testament canon. Some say it is because the work can be linked to an apostle as the voice behind the writing. But this is not true in Jude's case, nor in Barnabas' work {Hebrews), nor of Luke. In light of this, we are left concluding the criterion must have been a work's "evangelical character." We are thus reduced to a completely subjective criterion: does it fit the evangelistic message we prefer? This is the worst reason to accept something as canon. The only thing never considered is to ask whether a Biblical standard for inspiration was applied. If we asked the proper question, the answer comes back in the negative. Everyone knows several NT works on their face must no longer be regarded as inspired because they lack any validating prophecy.
11 .Metzger, 12 who He truly was.) We trust the Holy Spirit then inspired the twelve apostles to recollect Jesus’ words accurately, as Jesus told them the Spirit would do. (John 14:26). Thus, the apostolic gospels are all reliable Scripture.
11 .Metzger, 12 who He truly was.) We trust the Holy Spirit then inspired the twelve apostles to recollect Jesus' words accurately, as Jesus told them the Spirit would do. (John 14:26). Thus, the apostolic gospels are all reliable Scripture.
However, no other New Testament figure than Jesus uttered fulfilled
prophecy “in the name of the Lord” of highly unlikely events. That
prophecy "in the name of the Lord" of highly unlikely events. That
includes Paul.
Yet, when someone proposes to treat Jesus’ Words Only as the inspired
Yet, when someone proposes to treat Jesus' Words Only as the inspired
part of the New Testament, they receive resistance. Why?
No one would mind treating Jesus as the sole inspired prophet of canon
@ -208,15 +208,15 @@ different explanation.
Let me pause to note here the authority retained by the epistles of
John and Peter, and the bishop-fetters of James and Jude. First, Jesus
taught us to heed the twelve apostles’ words as authoritative
taught us to heed the twelve apostles' words as authoritative
messengers (apostoli means messenger) rather than as teachers. He
would not even let them call themselves teachers. (Matt. 23:8-11). But
they carried a very important message. Jesus, speaking to the twelve,
warned that whoever would not “receive you, nor hear you” shall be in
warned that whoever would not "receive you, nor hear you" shall be in
danger of judgment. (Matt. 10:14-15). The message they carried was so
important that if rejected, the listener would be in danger of
judgment. Jesus said the message they were to deliver was to teach the
nations “to observe ( tereo an inspired prophet. Rather, it is because
nations "to observe ( tereo an inspired prophet. Rather, it is because
they are putting forth the teachings and commandments of the inspired
Prophet.
@ -229,30 +229,30 @@ judges. In this capacity, their judicial decisions are binding in
heaven. (Matt. 16:19). This did not extend to the twelve apostles a
constant prophetic authority. Their every word did not become thereby
inspired legislation from God. We would say a judge who starts to
legislate is an activist judge violating the scope of his office’s
legislate is an activist judge violating the scope of his office's
authority. Likewise, the twelve apostles did not have authority to
legislate merely because they had judicial authority to ‘bind and
loose.’
legislate merely because they had judicial authority to 'bind and
loose.'
Let’s review this with some care because it has been a source of
Let's review this with some care because it has been a source of
misunderstanding by Catholics and Protestants.
The twelve apostles had authority from Jesus to “bind and loose.”
The twelve apostles had authority from Jesus to "bind and loose."
(Matt. 16:19). This is a clear reference to the power of a judge. In
court, a judge could let go of a criminal defendant by ordering the
“loosing” of a leather strap. A judge could also order his arrest and
condemnation by “binding” him with such a strap. This fits exactly the
"loosing" of a leather strap. A judge could also order his arrest and
condemnation by "binding" him with such a strap. This fits exactly the
role Jesus said the apostle would have in the regeneration: the twelve
apostles would be the “twelve judges” sitting on “twelve thrones” over
the “twelve provable as prophetic, then Jesus commands us to follow
apostles would be the "twelve judges" sitting on "twelve thrones" over
the "twelve provable as prophetic, then Jesus commands us to follow
the higher authority of inspired Scripture. In the case of these four
authors, I know of nothing they ever said that contradicts the words
of a validated prophet.
### Paul Alone Must Be Tested by Deuteronomy’s Test for False Prophets.
### Paul Alone Must Be Tested by Deuteronomy's Test for False Prophets.
Returning to the point at issue, what motivates the resistance to the
proposition of using Jesus’ Words Only (JWO) as the test of orthodoxy?
proposition of using Jesus' Words Only (JWO) as the test of orthodoxy?
It principally comes from a desire to protect Paul. There is no
concern to protect the inspired status of the Epistles of John, Peter,
James or Jude. This is true because none of these writers ever claimed
@ -272,21 +272,21 @@ Jesus as the sole prophetic authority in the New Testament, we have a
dilemma. Paul had many novel and unusual lessons of what the gospel
represents. If Paul is no longer on par with Jesus, then Pauline
salvation doctrine would lose its grip and legitimacy. A different
salvation doctrine would emerge. If we only had Jesus, then Jesus’
salvation doctrine would emerge. If we only had Jesus, then Jesus'
message on initial justification by repentance from sin would emerge
unmolested. (Luke 18:10 etseq.; (Mark 9:42) etseq having repented from
sin) or hell whole (/.<?., not having repented from sin). (Mark 9:42
et seq.) Jesus’ message is not comforting at all to those engaging in
et seq.) Jesus' message is not comforting at all to those engaging in
sin after becoming a Christian. We will lose the assurance we are
still saved despite our unrepentant sinning. To some, this assurance
is the essence of saving faith. If we lose Paul, then we lose the very
gospel that comforts us. We would then be forced to accept Jesus’ very
gospel that comforts us. We would then be forced to accept Jesus' very
different and uncomfortable gospel.
### Jesus’ Words Only Is A Valid New Testament Test for Canonicity
### Jesus' Words Only Is A Valid New Testament Test for Canonicity
Some people respond to the JWO proposition by saying you cannot test
Paul by the standard for a true prophet in the ‘Old Testament. ’ It is
Paul by the standard for a true prophet in the 'Old Testament. ' It is
old. We are under the new. They do not see this is based on a
fallacious presupposition that Paul is inspired. The very notion that
the old is nullified and no longer valid comes from Paul. We cannot
@ -294,44 +294,44 @@ rely upon a teaching of Paul that discards the very source for testing
him. This is precisely what a false prophet would love to do: come
with
13. For a thorough comparison of Jesus’ versus Paul’s salvation doctrine, see the chapter entitled “Does It Matter If We Rely Only Upon Jesus?” on page 447 give you a reason to disregard the Bible’s standard for determining whether he or she is a true prophet. Thus, this idea that we cannot use the ‘Old Testament’ to measure Paul rests on a fallacious presupposition that we can rely upon Paul’s doctrine. (He alone declared the Law abolished and defunct. See Chapter 5.) Such a response fallaciously assumes the validity of Paul, which is the very question at issue.
13. For a thorough comparison of Jesus' versus Paul's salvation doctrine, see the chapter entitled "Does It Matter If We Rely Only Upon Jesus?" on page 447 give you a reason to disregard the Bible's standard for determining whether he or she is a true prophet. Thus, this idea that we cannot use the 'Old Testament' to measure Paul rests on a fallacious presupposition that we can rely upon Paul's doctrine. (He alone declared the Law abolished and defunct. See Chapter 5.) Such a response fallaciously assumes the validity of Paul, which is the very question at issue.
Regardless, even if Paul could conflict with the ‘Old Testament’ and
Regardless, even if Paul could conflict with the 'Old Testament' and
still be a true prophet, Paul could not be valid if he conflicts with
Jesus. There are three passages that set this up as an additional
standard that Paul must pass to be truly canonical. This New Testament
standard requires consistency with Jesus’ words.
standard requires consistency with Jesus' words.
The following New Testament (NT) passages support the proposition that
(a) we need only teach Jesus’ Words in the NT era and (b) any author
who contradicts Jesus’ words is uninspired.
(a) we need only teach Jesus' Words in the NT era and (b) any author
who contradicts Jesus' words is uninspired.
First, Jesus commands us to teach His teachings. He did not authorize
us to come with Paul’s distinct teachings. In (Matt. 28:19-20), Jesus
says we are to “make disciples of all the nations... teaching them to
us to come with Paul's distinct teachings. In (Matt. 28:19-20), Jesus
says we are to "make disciples of all the nations... teaching them to
obey ( tereo ) all things whatsoever I commanded you."
Jesus thus commanded us to teach “whatsoever I commanded,” not anyone
else’s teachings. Jesus also said He was to be our sole teacher; we
Jesus thus commanded us to teach "whatsoever I commanded," not anyone
else's teachings. Jesus also said He was to be our sole teacher; we
should not call anyone else our teacher. (Matt. 23:8-11). Clarke
explains this means “To him [[Jesus]] alone it belongs to guide and lead
explains this means "To him [[Jesus]] alone it belongs to guide and lead
his Church....Jesus is the sole teacher of righteousness. It is he
alone... that can illuminate every created mind.” Thus, Jesus’ words
alone... that can illuminate every created mind." Thus, Jesus' words
are the sole source of NT teaching. No one else can share this honor:.
Apostle John explains this principle. He says if we go “beyond” Jesus’
Apostle John explains this principle. He says if we go "beyond" Jesus'
teachings, we do not have God when so speaking. John writes in
(2John 1:8-11) (Websters’ Bible):
(2John 1:8-11) (Websters' Bible):
(8) Watch yourselves, that we [i.e., transgresses [or goes beyond } 14
and doesn’t remain in the teaching of Christ, doesn’t have God. He
and doesn't remain in the teaching of Christ, doesn't have God. He
who rem a ins in the teaching [of Jesus Christ], the same has both the
Father and the Son.
The phrase “teaching of Christ” in the Greek means clearly “Christ’s
doctrine.” It does not mean teachings about Christ. 15 Canon is to be
The phrase "teaching of Christ" in the Greek means clearly "Christ's
doctrine." It does not mean teachings about Christ. 15 Canon is to be
tested by the words of Jesus, not whether we like your words about
Jesus. Any teacher who contradicts Jesus offers ‘no light’ at all.
Jesus. Any teacher who contradicts Jesus offers 'no light' at all.
Apostle John therefore is warning that if you go beyond or overstep
those teachings from Jesus, John can lose his reward. You are
@ -341,21 +341,21 @@ can become lost and, if so, John will lose his reward. To go beyond
the teachings of Christ, transgressing them, includes teaching
something that contradicts Jesus. Anyone who blatantly contradicts
Jesus
and disobeys Him lies when he says he “knows” Jesus. 16 Thus, everyone claiming to be a prophet who came after
and disobeys Him lies when he says he "knows" Jesus. 16 Thus, everyone claiming to be a prophet who came after
14. The Textus Receptus has proagwn, but the UBS GNT has parabainwn. The word proagwn in the TR means go before or lead forth. It doesn’t make much sense. Thus, some translate this as run ahead to fit the context. It appears the UBS GNT variant is more accurate while still similar in meaning. The word parabaino means “to go aside” or “to go beyond.” Judas fell because he parabaino-e d (Acts 1:25). A good paraphrase would be overstepping, exceeding or going beyond the bounds.
14. The Textus Receptus has proagwn, but the UBS GNT has parabainwn. The word proagwn in the TR means go before or lead forth. It doesn't make much sense. Thus, some translate this as run ahead to fit the context. It appears the UBS GNT variant is more accurate while still similar in meaning. The word parabaino means "to go aside" or "to go beyond." Judas fell because he parabaino-e d (Acts 1:25). A good paraphrase would be overstepping, exceeding or going beyond the bounds.
15. Some try to claim Paul can contradict Jesus and still be canonical as long as Paul’s teaching about Christ is correct. However, the verse is talking about the teachings of Christ in a way that means by Jesus, not about Him. The Greek format is identical to all similar references to teachings by someone yet in these other contexts we would never misconstrue it means teachings about these people, e.g, “doctrine of the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:6, 12); “the apostle’s doctrine” (Acts 2:42); “doctrines of men” (Matt. 15:9); “doctrine of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15); etc.
15. Some try to claim Paul can contradict Jesus and still be canonical as long as Paul's teaching about Christ is correct. However, the verse is talking about the teachings of Christ in a way that means by Jesus, not about Him. The Greek format is identical to all similar references to teachings by someone yet in these other contexts we would never misconstrue it means teachings about these people, e.g, "doctrine of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:6, 12); "the apostle's doctrine" (Acts 2:42); "doctrines of men" (Matt. 15:9); "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:15); etc.
16. John explains: “He that saith, I know him, and does not keep on obeying (tereo) His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4). Here, tereo terrible risk. These principles also prove that Paul is as much subject to this test of 2 John 1:9 as anyone. Hence, even if Paul can explain away the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament and entirely eliminated (he cannot), Paul has to prove he does not transgress Our Lord’s words.
16. John explains: "He that saith, I know him, and does not keep on obeying (tereo) His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4). Here, tereo terrible risk. These principles also prove that Paul is as much subject to this test of 2 John 1:9 as anyone. Hence, even if Paul can explain away the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament and entirely eliminated (he cannot), Paul has to prove he does not transgress Our Lord's words.
To discharge our duty under (Matt. 23:8-11) and 2 John 1:8-11, the
examination must be thoroughly objective and neutral. If anything, we
need to err on the side of favoring protecting Jesus’ words over
Paul’s words. The reason is that
need to err on the side of favoring protecting Jesus' words over
Paul's words. The reason is that
Jesus tells us to love Him above any human being. Also, we receive a
special assurance of “eternal life” if we should have “obeyed” ( tereo
special assurance of "eternal life" if we should have "obeyed" ( tereo
and to be able to prove what is Scripture. It is not established by
tradition. It is not established by presuppositions. Rather, it is
established by testing each book we affix to Scripture by the revealed
@ -364,13 +364,13 @@ before it is accepted as Scripture.
The premature and presuppositional addition of Scripture is what the
Bible prohibits. That is spiritual liberalism. The gullible addition
to God’s word is spiritual liberalism at it worst. Such a liberal
to God's word is spiritual liberalism at it worst. Such a liberal
textual approach does not depend on Biblical-tests for additions. It
depends rather on how nice it sounds, or how long it has been
accepted. However, one cannot presuppose inspiration because you like
the writer s thoughts. That is the worst reason to accept something as
inspired. Man was snared in the garden by new and seductive words from
the serpent who by subtle commentary changed and added to God’s
the serpent who by subtle commentary changed and added to God's
words. This led to taking the fruit of the forbidden tree of
knowledge. Adam and Eve had a liberal understanding on how to test new
messages.
@ -380,19 +380,19 @@ conservative after applying the Deuteronomy test. But that is not what
is going on at all. Paul is a mere messenger of a question. In
presenting the question, Paul never suggests he has an authority on
par with the apostles to give an answer. Paul, like the twelve
apostles are doing, waits for James, the Lord’s brother, to reach a
final decision. (See “James Is the Head Bishop of the Church” on page
apostles are doing, waits for James, the Lord's brother, to reach a
final decision. (See "James Is the Head Bishop of the Church" on page
242.)
In fact, the issue of Paul’s possible apostasy ( i.e et seq later
In fact, the issue of Paul's possible apostasy ( i.e et seq later
Balaam apostasizes by teaching the Israelites that it was pennissible
to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Because Balaam seduced the Israelites
from following the Law, he became a “false prophet” under the
from following the Law, he became a "false prophet" under the
standards of (Deut. 4:2) and 13:5. In other words, Balaam apostasized
against the Law of Moses, and hence became a false prophet.
Jesus Himself in (Rev. 2:14) said His church was threatened from
within by a New Testament “Balaam.” Thus, it was a realized risk
within by a New Testament "Balaam." Thus, it was a realized risk
within the early New Testament church.
Furthermore, there is strong reason to believe Jesus was identifying
@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ were acceptable behavior (e.g., adulterous lust was pennissible if no
adulterous act followed).(Matt. 5:27-28). 19
Josephus in 93 A.D. said the Sadducees likewise faulted the Pharisees
for taking people’s focus off the Law of Moses:
for taking people's focus off the Law of Moses:
What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have
delivered to the people a great many observances by succession
@ -439,10 +439,10 @@ for taking people’s focus off the Law of Moses:
forefathers. (Josephus Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews 13.10.6
(13.297)
19. “People had come to believe that one could lust after a [married] woman, as long as the act of fornication was not committed. But Jesus showed that this understanding was foreign to the actual command by Moses.” Robert A. Hawkins, “Covenant Relations of the Sennon on the Mount,” Restoration Quarterly
19. "People had come to believe that one could lust after a [married] woman, as long as the act of fornication was not committed. But Jesus showed that this understanding was foreign to the actual command by Moses." Robert A. Hawkins, "Covenant Relations of the Sennon on the Mount," Restoration Quarterly
![Picture #2](images/img_0002.png)
![Picture #3](images/img_0003.png)
Hasn’t God Implicitly Approved Our NT List?
Hasn't God Implicitly Approved Our NT List?

2
JWO_02_01_DoesPaul_sLongAcceptanceinNTProveGod_s_0003.md

@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Does Paul’s Long Acceptance in NT Prove God’s
## Does Paul's Long Acceptance in NT Prove God's

82
JWO_02_02_Will__0004.md

@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Hasn’t God Implicitly Approved Our NT List?
## Hasn't God Implicitly Approved Our NT List?
Some raise an intriguing response to the entire notion of testing
Paul’s canonicity. If God intended for us to exclude Paul, why has it
Paul's canonicity. If God intended for us to exclude Paul, why has it
taken this long to address the issue?
Would not God have corrected us earlier? If God is truly sovereign, then He would not have allowed this to happen. As Felgar says in the side-bar quote, “Is God not powerful enough to preserve the sanctity of His word?”
Would not God have corrected us earlier? If God is truly sovereign, then He would not have allowed this to happen. As Felgar says in the side-bar quote, "Is God not powerful enough to preserve the sanctity of His word?"
This has superficial appeal, but it is at odds with the Bible itself.
@ -19,20 +19,20 @@ Yet, the story in (2Kgs. 22:8) et seq.
omy was found in a comer of the Temple. King Josiah had it read aloud. He realized how far Temple practices had fallen below the Bible standard. He tore his clothes in repentance. Deuteronomy was re-affixed to canon. Refonnation began.
Thus, the inspired book of Deuteronomy was lost for hundreds of years
at great damage to the community. If God’s sovereignty means He must
at great damage to the community. If God's sovereignty means He must
act as we suppose, then how could He not have acted sooner in
supernatural ways to preserve His word? Why would generations lack His
revealed word? Apparently, God’s sovereignty does not work in the way
revealed word? Apparently, God's sovereignty does not work in the way
we assume. Rather, the Israelites had a responsibility not to
“diminish” the Law given to them (Deut. 4:2). This meant, among other
"diminish" the Law given to them (Deut. 4:2). This meant, among other
things, they had to preserve it properly in backup print copies.
Furthermore, the Bible even tells us that inspired writings have been
permanently lost. In (1Chr. 29:29), we read of three inspired writings
which have been lost: “Now the acts of David the king, first and last,
which have been lost: "Now the acts of David the king, first and last,
behold, they are written [in] a Book of Samuel the Seer, and in the
Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer....” Adam
Clarke admits these books are “now lost.”
Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer...." Adam
Clarke admits these books are "now lost."
The Bible tells us the word Seer was the word used at one time to mean
Prophet. seer has the same meaning as Prophet. The clear reading of
@ -40,28 +40,28 @@ Chronicles is that these prophetic titles were accurate. Thus, these
three lost works were inspired by God because written by true
Prophets. Otherwise the Bible would not have referred to them as
such. Despite these works being prophetic, everyone must concede these
three prophetic works have been lost. God’s sovereignty did not
three prophetic works have been lost. God's sovereignty did not
protect us as we assume it should. Humans have personal responsibility
to guard His word from loss.
### What About the Dilemma Caused by the Ethiopian Christians’ Inclusion of the Book of Enoch?
### What About the Dilemma Caused by the Ethiopian Christians' Inclusion of the Book of Enoch?
Furthermore, if we hold to the view that God’s failure to block Paul’s
Furthermore, if we hold to the view that God's failure to block Paul's
inclusion in canon means God approves Paul, we have a dilemma posed by
the Book of Enoch. This is a book that has been included for 2000
years as inspired canon of the Ethiopian Christian Orthodox
church. Ethiopia went through long periods of being run by Christian
Kings. Its church body consists today of20,000 churches in a land of
58 million. The Book of Enoch was also part of universal
Christianity’s canon until 363 A.D. It was actually quoted by Jude in
Christianity's canon until 363 A.D. It was actually quoted by Jude in
our New Testament as the words of true prophecy (Jude 17). This gives
strong support for the Ethiopian Christians’ claim that the Book of
strong support for the Ethiopian Christians' claim that the Book of
Enoch belongs in canon. 1 added to Scripture. Likewise, the early
universal Christian Church must have wrongfully treated the Book of
Enoch as canon for over 300 years. Then if their position is that
Christians in the early church and in Ethiopia have for long periods
wrongfully added to Scripture, why cannot the Paulunists consider it
possible that Paul’s writings for 1,970 years were added wrongly to
possible that Paul's writings for 1,970 years were added wrongly to
canon?* - If you assume Enoch is non-canonical, God in His sovereignty
allowed large communities ( i.e ., Ethiopia and early universal
Christianity) wrongfully to add the Book of Enoch for very long
@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ the Paulunist must concede it is equally possible that a mistake was
made about adding Paul to canon. If God did not prevent the Ethiopians
from adding the Book of Enoch, there is no reason to believe God
always prevents human error in assembling canon lists. Paulunists
cannot infer our decisions on canon have God’s sanction by the mere
lapse of time or God’s failure to act supematurally.
cannot infer our decisions on canon have God's sanction by the mere
lapse of time or God's failure to act supematurally.
1. Indeed, an argument exists that the Book of Enoch was wrongfully
excluded in the West after 363 A.D. It is a book filled with Messianic
@ -81,11 +81,11 @@ Canonicity of the Book of Enoch? (2005) available on-line at
www.jesuswordsonly.com.
2. This number of 1,970 years reflects the evidence that the earliest
apostolic church known as The Poor (Ebionites) rejected Paul’s
writings from the 40s though 70 A.D. See Appendix B: God’s word by
apostolic church known as The Poor (Ebionites) rejected Paul's
writings from the 40s though 70 A.D. See Appendix B: God's word by
wrongfully excluding the Book of Enoch. God did not protect us in the
West from a wrongful subtraction of the Book of Enoch from Scripture,
contrary to how some suppose that God’s sovereignty works.
contrary to how some suppose that God's sovereignty works.
Thus, regardless of how the Paulunist tries to escape the dilemma
posed by the Book of Enoch, it defeats their position. The sovereignty
@ -96,12 +96,12 @@ testing claims that something is prophetic or we can disobey God and
not test each book we add to His word. The history of the Book of
Enoch proves God does not intervene to fix our errors. The fact we
have a book that our Western tradition calls the New Testament does
not prove God’s agreement with our list.
not prove God's agreement with our list.
Thus, we cannot infer a long presence of Paul in canon makes it God s
choice rather than our own.
### What About the Additions to the End of Mark’s Gospel?
### What About the Additions to the End of Mark's Gospel?
It is now recognized among most evangelical Christians that the verses
after (Mark 16:8) were improperly added. The last page of the folio in
@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ would be pointless if we did not have to worry about them because God
would anyway protect His word.
In fact, if God protected His word supernaturally, it would defeat
God’s purpose in allowing false prophets to even exist. God explains
God's purpose in allowing false prophets to even exist. God explains
why He left it up to us to sift the true prophets from the false: it
tests whether we love Him with our whole heart and mind. (Deut. 13:3).
If God sovereignly intervened, and prevented mistakes regarding false
@ -128,17 +128,17 @@ We should also remember this Sovereignty of God argument was
speciously used to resist the Refonnation. The papacy argued, in
effect: how could the church be so wrong on indulgences if for so long
God permitted it to err? Luther in his Epistle on Galatians (1535) put
his opponent’s arguments this way: “Do you suppose that God would have
left His Church floundering in error all these centuries?” Luther
his opponent's arguments this way: "Do you suppose that God would have
left His Church floundering in error all these centuries?" Luther
called this sophistry. Luther said it fundamentally misunderstands the
correcting nature of Scripture itself if applied. (i.e., compare them
to God’s word):
to God's word):
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1).
You are to remain engaged in a dialogue with those whom you share
disagreement. You can never know you have the truth if your
teacher/leader frightens you to “avoid” or “stay away” from others who
teacher/leader frightens you to "avoid" or "stay away" from others who
have different teachings. Only false prophets/teachers can benefit
from instilling such fear among Christians.
@ -146,43 +146,43 @@ Thus, tradition means nothing. The Sovereignty of God idea that makes
tradition into dogma rests upon a false assumption of how God should
Preface to the New Testament clearly said two books do not belong in
the New Testament canon: the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of
James. Luther said he could not see “the Holy Spirit” in the Book of
Revelation. (See infra page 370). As to James’ Epistle, because it
“contradicts Paul,” Luther said it could not possibly be
James. Luther said he could not see "the Holy Spirit" in the Book of
Revelation. (See infra page 370). As to James' Epistle, because it
"contradicts Paul," Luther said it could not possibly be
inspired. (See page 248 infra.) Luther printed both books as part of
his New Testament simply for historical reasons. Thus, Luther did not
regard almost 2000 years of inclusion ipso facto proves
inspiration. Luther rejected the idea that God’s sovereignty implies
inspiration. Luther rejected the idea that God's sovereignty implies
approval of our New Testament list on the assumption God would not
have delayed so long to fix things.
Likewise, Calvin insisted that Second Peter was wrongfully included in
canon. (See infra ipso facto proves inspiration. God’s sovereignty
canon. (See infra ipso facto proves inspiration. God's sovereignty
does not imply approval merely by God not having supernaturally
intervened for 2000 years to reassemble the canon list.
Thus, even though Calvin and Luther surely would not want Paul
excluded from canon, both Calvin and Luther would concede it is
correct to test Paul’s canonicity. There is no presumption that Paul
correct to test Paul's canonicity. There is no presumption that Paul
belongs in the NT list merely by passage of time and a long
tradition. The Bible demands testing Paul’s inclusion by humans. The
tradition. The Bible demands testing Paul's inclusion by humans. The
Bible sets forth those tests we humans are to apply. However, we
humans love to shirk responsibility by attributing all events that
support our errors to God. However, our Lord does not tolerate such a
lazy servant. Let’s get to work now and do the job that God commanded
lazy servant. Let's get to work now and do the job that God commanded
us to do: test Paul.
### Regardless, The Earliest Tradition Excluded Paul as Inspired Canon
Furthermore, the actual history of canon fonnation suggests God did tell the early Church that Paul was uninspired. The Ebionites of 65 A.D. asserted Paul was an apostate because of his position on the Law of Moses. The Ebionites insisted Paul’s writings must be deemed heretical. Only the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel should be canon. (No other NT writing yet existed in 65 A.D.) The evidence strongly suggests that Ebionites was a term used for the Apostolic Jerusalem Church under James. The word Ebionites is an Hebraism meaning The Poor. Paul twice refers to collecting funds for The Poor at Jerusalem. However, this link between The Poor at Jerusalem and the Ebionites was obscured in our New Testament by printing the poor in lowercase letters and not transliterating it to Hebrew as twelve apostles. In response, the early universal Christian church said Paul is not an inspired author. This is clearly
Furthermore, the actual history of canon fonnation suggests God did tell the early Church that Paul was uninspired. The Ebionites of 65 A.D. asserted Paul was an apostate because of his position on the Law of Moses. The Ebionites insisted Paul's writings must be deemed heretical. Only the Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel should be canon. (No other NT writing yet existed in 65 A.D.) The evidence strongly suggests that Ebionites was a term used for the Apostolic Jerusalem Church under James. The word Ebionites is an Hebraism meaning The Poor. Paul twice refers to collecting funds for The Poor at Jerusalem. However, this link between The Poor at Jerusalem and the Ebionites was obscured in our New Testament by printing the poor in lowercase letters and not transliterating it to Hebrew as twelve apostles. In response, the early universal Christian church said Paul is not an inspired author. This is clearly
set forth in Tertullian’s Against Marcion from 207 A.D. 5
set forth in Tertullian's Against Marcion from 207 A.D. 5
Thus, from 65 A.D. to 207 A.D., God apparently did tell the church through James and Tertullian to reject Paul as lacking inspiration. God did not leave us ignorant. We may have simply chosen to ignore God’s early messages through His agents. However, there is no time like the present to make amends for errors in our past. We must stop trying to shift responsibility to God for our decisions when we fail to obey God’s commands to test the words of alleged prophets.
Thus, from 65 A.D. to 207 A.D., God apparently did tell the church through James and Tertullian to reject Paul as lacking inspiration. God did not leave us ignorant. We may have simply chosen to ignore God's early messages through His agents. However, there is no time like the present to make amends for errors in our past. We must stop trying to shift responsibility to God for our decisions when we fail to obey God's commands to test the words of alleged prophets.
Historical Note: Has Adding An Edifying Work To Canon Ever Been Mistaken As Proof of Inspiration?
Tertullian in Against Marcion (207 A.D.) thought Paul’s words should be treated as edifying rather than as inspired material. Unfortunately, this original purpose for reading Paul along with the Gospels was forgotten in the ensuing centuries. Has the notion of inspired canon ever been shaped by a misunderstanding of the original intent in joinder? Yes. A similar oversight led Catholics in 1546 to decree the Apocrypha was inspired. However, when it was added to canon eleven centuries earlier, it was solely as edifying but non-inspired material. Catholic scholars now recognize that the original purpose of adding the Apocrypha to canon was forgotten over time. Its joinder originally did not mean to imply it was inspired material. Yet, confusion set in and now it is regarded as inspired material by Catholic authorities. 6
Tertullian in Against Marcion (207 A.D.) thought Paul's words should be treated as edifying rather than as inspired material. Unfortunately, this original purpose for reading Paul along with the Gospels was forgotten in the ensuing centuries. Has the notion of inspired canon ever been shaped by a misunderstanding of the original intent in joinder? Yes. A similar oversight led Catholics in 1546 to decree the Apocrypha was inspired. However, when it was added to canon eleven centuries earlier, it was solely as edifying but non-inspired material. Catholic scholars now recognize that the original purpose of adding the Apocrypha to canon was forgotten over time. Its joinder originally did not mean to imply it was inspired material. Yet, confusion set in and now it is regarded as inspired material by Catholic authorities. 6
4. See infra page 298 (evidence why Ebionites were the Jerusalem Church under James).
@ -192,6 +192,6 @@ Tertullian in Against Marcion (207 A.D.) thought Paul’s words should be treate
![Picture #6](images/img_0006.png)
Does Paul’s Long Acceptance in NT Prove God’s Will?
Does Paul's Long Acceptance in NT Prove God's Will?
6. Has overlooking Tertullian’s writings on Paul led to a crucial misunderstanding on Paul’s supposed inspiration? A similar lapse in memory happened among Catholics regarding Jerome’s view of the Apocrypha which he combined with the inspired Bible text. The Apocrypha represented seven books within the Vulgate Bible prepared by Jerome in 411 A.D. Why did Jerome include this section? Jerome in a commentary on Solomon explained the Apocrypha was “for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” However, the memory of Jerome’s original purpose faded in time. In 1546, the Catholic Council of Trent affirmed the Apocrypha as sacred, and it belonged to the Bible. The Apocrypha still is considered an official inspired portion of the Catholic Bible. Thus, the memory of the purpose of joining a noninspired writing to inspired texts was, after eleven centuries, forgotten. However, the scholars who wrote the “Canon” article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia concede what really happened: “The latter [ i.e ., the Apocrypha] he [[Jerome]] judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries....” Thus, in other words, such close association between edifying material and inspired material caused confusion among Catholic authorities over the centuries. Meanwhile, Catholics later adopted doctrines about Purgatory that solely had support in the Apocrypha. Hence, it became embarrassing for Catholicism to later eject this section as noninspired. And thus it stands. A joinder to edify the reader became conclusive proof the writing was inspired! Yet, we cannot judge the Catholics too harshly for this error. It appears identical to what we did with Paul. If Tertullian was a voice of orthodoxy on Paul, as it appears he most certainly was, then as of approximately 200 A.D., the church which first added Paul to canon close in time must have done so with Tertullian’s views in mind. This would mean that such close association of Paul with inspired canon later caused us confusion. The early church’s original purpose became “unclear [to us] in the ensuing centuries....” Then we, like the Catholics, superimposed our belief system about what canon means today on a prior era which viewed canon quite differently. This is apparently how Paul went from an edifying writer who had virtually no impact on doctrine in both the Eastern and Western church for fifteen centuries (see page 425 et seq.) to a figure today whose every word is now hung upon by many as inspired text. Also, this episode of how the Apocrypha went from edifying material to inspired writ should remind us that the concept of canon has varied over time. We must not regard the mere fact something was joined as canon for centuries as proof that the item is anything more than reading material
6. Has overlooking Tertullian's writings on Paul led to a crucial misunderstanding on Paul's supposed inspiration? A similar lapse in memory happened among Catholics regarding Jerome's view of the Apocrypha which he combined with the inspired Bible text. The Apocrypha represented seven books within the Vulgate Bible prepared by Jerome in 411 A.D. Why did Jerome include this section? Jerome in a commentary on Solomon explained the Apocrypha was "for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." However, the memory of Jerome's original purpose faded in time. In 1546, the Catholic Council of Trent affirmed the Apocrypha as sacred, and it belonged to the Bible. The Apocrypha still is considered an official inspired portion of the Catholic Bible. Thus, the memory of the purpose of joining a noninspired writing to inspired texts was, after eleven centuries, forgotten. However, the scholars who wrote the "Canon" article for the New Catholic Encyclopedia concede what really happened: "The latter [ i.e ., the Apocrypha] he [[Jerome]] judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...." Thus, in other words, such close association between edifying material and inspired material caused confusion among Catholic authorities over the centuries. Meanwhile, Catholics later adopted doctrines about Purgatory that solely had support in the Apocrypha. Hence, it became embarrassing for Catholicism to later eject this section as noninspired. And thus it stands. A joinder to edify the reader became conclusive proof the writing was inspired! Yet, we cannot judge the Catholics too harshly for this error. It appears identical to what we did with Paul. If Tertullian was a voice of orthodoxy on Paul, as it appears he most certainly was, then as of approximately 200 A.D., the church which first added Paul to canon close in time must have done so with Tertullian's views in mind. This would mean that such close association of Paul with inspired canon later caused us confusion. The early church's original purpose became "unclear [to us] in the ensuing centuries...." Then we, like the Catholics, superimposed our belief system about what canon means today on a prior era which viewed canon quite differently. This is apparently how Paul went from an edifying writer who had virtually no impact on doctrine in both the Eastern and Western church for fifteen centuries (see page 425 et seq.) to a figure today whose every word is now hung upon by many as inspired text. Also, this episode of how the Apocrypha went from edifying material to inspired writ should remind us that the concept of canon has varied over time. We must not regard the mere fact something was joined as canon for centuries as proof that the item is anything more than reading material

142
JWO_03_01_MustWeApplyTheBiblesTestsForaTrueProphettoPaul__0005.md

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ such a response presupposes an affirmative answer to the very question
posed: does Paul belong in the New Testament?
My answer to such a response is simple: if Paul truly belongs, then
prove it! Simply use the Bible’s test for adding to Scripture and show
prove it! Simply use the Bible's test for adding to Scripture and show
everyone that Paul passes its tests. Is this asking too much?
The Bible insists that a Christian demand an answer. We are duty bound
@ -20,13 +20,13 @@ of Deuteronomy chapters 12, 13 and 18?No one wants to go there but the
Bible commands it!
If these tests are to be ignored as to Paul in particular, then why do
you think a decade prior to Paul’s entry into Christian circles that
you think a decade prior to Paul's entry into Christian circles that
Jesus emphasized repeatedly that false prophets were to come?
(Matt. 7:15, 24:11, 24). Why do you think Jesus warned us these false
prophets would come with true signs and wonders? So we would lower our
guard and never apply Biblical tests for false prophets? Why would
Jesus warn us these false prophets would come in His name ? ((Mark
13:22-23)). Wasn’t Jesus trying to encourage distrust of Christians
13:22-23)). Wasn't Jesus trying to encourage distrust of Christians
who claimed to have a prophetic office? How could we obey Jesus by
refusing to apply the Biblical tests of a true versus a false prophet
to Paul? Did Jesus provide us tests of orthodoxy so we would blindly
@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ accept someone like Paul who came with signs and wonders ( i.e .,
healings, jails opening in earthquakes, etc.)? Of course not. Jesus
made no exception for Paul.
“The flock is supposed to be on the lookout for wolves in sheep’s clothing.”
"The flock is supposed to be on the lookout for wolves in sheep's clothing."
John F. Mac Arthur, Jr.
T/e- Qcrfgt h-coond
@ -49,17 +49,17 @@ Test for Valid Prophets
The Bereans in Acts 17:10-15 knew this. They tested a sennon by Paul
against Scripture. Yet, they had little written material available to
them. By comparison, today we are privileged to examine all of Paul’s
them. By comparison, today we are privileged to examine all of Paul's
letters. The Bereans only had a single sermon whose contents are
unknown. But if Luke presents the Bereans as doing something
appropriate, then why would we think we don’t have to test Paul in the
same manner? We cannot just trust the Bereans’ one-time test resolved
appropriate, then why would we think we don't have to test Paul in the
same manner? We cannot just trust the Bereans' one-time test resolved
the issue for all time. Paul could become a Balaam: an evil man
converted into a true prophet who later apostasizes. (For further
discussion on the Balaam issue, see page 52 below.) Just because
Balaam passed the test for a true prophet initially does not guarantee
he remained forever a true prophet. Balaam apostasized later and
became a false prophet. Accordingly, the Bereans’ conclusion about
became a false prophet. Accordingly, the Bereans' conclusion about
Paul proves nothing. Rather, we need to follow their example of
testing Paul to see whether he seduces us from following the commands
from prior Scripture and known Prophets (including Jesus).
@ -77,19 +77,19 @@ will not say God told them this secret about the future, the alleged
prophetic statement is insufficient to validate the speaker as a true
prophet even if it came true. The reason for such strictness is the
test has both a positive and negative side. On the positive, if valid,
we treat such a speaker’s words as from God. Thus, the speaker’s words
must squarely come within God’s definition e.g., an angel alone was
we treat such a speaker's words as from God. Thus, the speaker's words
must squarely come within God's definition e.g., an angel alone was
his source, we cannot impose the death penalty on the speaker for
false prophecy. We must follow Scripture strictly. In this example,
the speaker did nothing worthy of death because he claimed his
prophecy came from an angel alone, without God’s voice confirming
prophecy came from an angel alone, without God's voice confirming
it. Thus, unless the would-be prophet says thus sayeth the Lord at
some meaningful point as his source in conjunction with his
prediction, he cannot be a prophet in the Biblical sense if his
prediction just so happens to come true. For the same reason, if what
he said proves false and he did not ascribe his source to God
personally, we cannot kill him. Because he did not dare make the
prophecy in the Lord’s name, he suffers no penalty. No risk, no
prophecy in the Lord's name, he suffers no penalty. No risk, no
gain. No risk, no loss.
Likewise, if the event is easily predictable, such as the sun will
@ -101,15 +101,15 @@ prophetic material. Jeremiah chapter 28 tells us that predictable
events are no basis to regard their prediction as true prophecy. 1
1. See, Jer. 28:8-9. As Knudd Jepperson (D.D., University Lecturer)
points out on this verse: “The prophet who in the name of the Lord
points out on this verse: "The prophet who in the name of the Lord
foretold misery and misfortune, however, would sooner or later be
right. If the time had not yet come, one could rest assured that
eventually there would be so much evil, that misery necessarily had to
come.” (Jepperson, On False And True Prophets in the Old Testament,
come." (Jepperson, On False And True Prophets in the Old Testament,
God Himself for a highly specific and unlikely prediction. Otherwise,
imposing a death penalty would be unjust. ((Deut. 18:20-22)). However,
once exposed as false prophecy, God says: “Thou shalt not be afraid of
him.” (Deut. 18:22). The necessity to follow this testing of their
once exposed as false prophecy, God says: "Thou shalt not be afraid of
him." (Deut. 18:22). The necessity to follow this testing of their
words comes from the command to not add to canon et seq.)
In summary, divine prophecy implies necessarily that the prediction
@ -123,15 +123,15 @@ Thus, Balaam went from a true prophet to a false prophet solely by the
content of his teachings.
God explains why he allows such men to speak prophetically and have
signs and wonders “that come true.” God allows them to come to seduce
signs and wonders "that come true." God allows them to come to seduce
you as a test of your Love for God. The Lord explains this precisely
in (Deut. 12:3213:5:)
Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add
to nor take away from it. If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises
among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder
comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after
other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall
comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after
other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' you shall
not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for
the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the
@ -142,11 +142,11 @@ rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of
Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, So you shall purge
the evil from among you. (ASV.) 2
If some would-be prophet seeks to “seduce” us “from the way in which
the Lord your God commanded you to walk,” you must reject him. His god
If some would-be prophet seeks to "seduce" us "from the way in which
the Lord your God commanded you to walk," you must reject him. His god
cannot be the true God. His god must be an idol even if he calls on
Yahweh. This is true even if he comes with signs and wonders. God
tells us to ignore such a prophet’s words or otherwise we are joining
tells us to ignore such a prophet's words or otherwise we are joining
his rebellion. Isaiah instructs us to apply a similar content-o
riented test to determine a true prophet.
@ -172,12 +172,12 @@ So does (Deut. 4:2) and (Deut. 13:5).
As to Paul, the Bereans were on the right path. They compared Paul to
Scripture. (Acts 17:11). The Bereans simply did not have the later
words of Paul. They did not have access to Paul’s letters that we
do. Paul’s later words must be tested by Scripture that God delivered
by the prophets before him. Paul’s words must also be tested by the
words of Paul. They did not have access to Paul's letters that we
do. Paul's later words must be tested by Scripture that God delivered
by the prophets before him. Paul's words must also be tested by the
words of Jesus who is both Prophet and Lord.
Before we examine this Deuteronomy test, let’s see what test is
Before we examine this Deuteronomy test, let's see what test is
commonly used instead.
### Does Paul Get A Free Pass Because of His Fiery Spirit, Zeal, and Long Acceptance?
@ -191,13 +191,13 @@ can validate something as canon despite the writing not otherwise
satisfying the proper Biblical test.
For example, Josh McDowell in his famous Evidence that Demands a
Verdict says the criteria for New Testament canon are: “Is it
Verdict says the criteria for New Testament canon are: "Is it
authoritative.... prophetic.... authentic.... dynamic? Was it
received, collected, read and used...?” in the name of the Lord ;
received, collected, read and used...?" in the name of the Lord ;
* Came true; and
* The would-be prophet’s teachings at all subsequent times are 100% consistent with prior tested and tried Scripture, and do not negate any commands in such Scripture.
* The would-be prophet's teachings at all subsequent times are 100% consistent with prior tested and tried Scripture, and do not negate any commands in such Scripture.
### The Origin of McDowell s Test
@ -207,12 +207,12 @@ Hernias. This work was written near 125 A.D. The Shepherd was part of
Christian canon for about two hundred years thereafter. In the Codex
Sinaiticus from the late 300 A.D. period, the Shepherd was printed
right after the book of Revelation. Numerous church leaders said it
was “divinely inspired.”
was "divinely inspired."
The Shepherd taught in what it calls the Eleventh Commandment that “a
true prophet” is someone who changes their hearers for the better,
The Shepherd taught in what it calls the Eleventh Commandment that "a
true prophet" is someone who changes their hearers for the better,
whose message is lofty, and who is meek and peaceable himself. By
contrast, the false prophet will “shun” teaching the righteous. His
contrast, the false prophet will "shun" teaching the righteous. His
listeners will be as empty as before they heard their message. 4 Under
this loose test of the prophetic, the Shepherd itself was allowed to
pass into the NT canon for two hundred years of early Christianity.
@ -222,26 +222,26 @@ canon productions. It was removed apparently because it said adultery
could be forgiven. Tertullian
3. Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino:
Here’s Life, 1979) Vol. 2 at 29.
Here's Life, 1979) Vol. 2 at 29.
4. See the Eleventh Commandment Shepherd then disappears from Christian canons beginning in the 300s. It never returns.
This adultery-as-unpardonable principle may seem an odd criteria to
determine canon. However, it is the very same reason why pious
Christians in the 300s tampered with Jesus’ words in John
Christians in the 300s tampered with Jesus' words in John
7:53-8:11. This is the passage where Jesus pardons the woman accused
of adultery. Most versions of John’s Gospel in the era of the 300s
of adultery. Most versions of John's Gospel in the era of the 300s
removed this passage. Augustine in 430 A.D. skewers them for deleting
the text. Augustine mentions his contemporaries wrongly thought Jesus
could not forgive the woman charged with adultery. 5 As a result of
this deletion, most of us have read the NIV’s note which says the most
“reliable” manuscripts of that era omit the passage.
this deletion, most of us have read the NIV's note which says the most
"reliable" manuscripts of that era omit the passage.
5. The NIV footnote reads: “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts
and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.” This makes it
5. The NIV footnote reads: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts
and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." This makes it
appear this is a forgery. However, the NIV comment is misleading by
lacking context. It is also patently false as to the claim “ancient
witnesses” do not have the passage. First, the passage is in numerous
lacking context. It is also patently false as to the claim "ancient
witnesses" do not have the passage. First, the passage is in numerous
uncials, including Codex D (Bazae Cantabrigiensis), G, H, K, M, U, and
G. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic
version, the Syriac Palestinian version and the Ethiopic version, all
@ -253,13 +253,13 @@ century). It is also in Apostolic Constitutions , which is a
collections of writings from Antioch Syria that is dated between 220
A.D. and 380 AD. Augustine (430 AD) reveals that the reason some were
deleting this passage in later manuscripts was because of its message
that adultery could be forgiven. Augustine writes: “This proceeding,
that adultery could be forgiven. Augustine writes: "This proceeding,
however, shocks the minds of some weak believers, or rather
unbelievers and enemies of the Christian faith: inasmuch that, after
(I suppose) of its giving their wives impunity of sinning, they struck
out from their copies of the Gospel this that our Lord did in
pardoning the woman taken in adultery: as if He granted leave of
sinning, Who said. Go and sin no more!” (Saint Augustine, De
sinning, Who said. Go and sin no more!" (Saint Augustine, De
Conjug. Adult., Shepherd from canon. The reasoning behind both changes
are identical. A false Christian piety grew up in the 300s which not
only threw out the Shepherd, but also deleted words of our Lord.
@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ prophetic. It lacked a predictive prophecy to validate it. Also, it
contradicted Deuteronomy on how to define and recognize a prophetic
statement. The Shepherd was a false prophetic work. Yet, the Shepherd
was rejected on the wrong-headed notion that adultery was an
unpardonable sin. The same wrong-headed thinking caused Jesus’ words
unpardonable sin. The same wrong-headed thinking caused Jesus' words
in John 7:53-8:11 to be cast off in the 300s by sincere well-meaning
but misdirected Christians.
@ -283,20 +283,20 @@ canon. Then when the Shepherd was ejected, it unfortunately did not
cause anyone to re-evaluate the notion of how to define valid
prophetic canon.
The Shepherd s test of canon is the same as Josh McDowell’s test
The Shepherd s test of canon is the same as Josh McDowell's test
quoted above. Under this test, we use our subjective impression of how
authoritative it feels to us. We look to see if it has a positive
effect, as we subjectively evaluate it.
If presence in canon implied early-on that a book was ‘inspired’, then
If presence in canon implied early-on that a book was 'inspired', then
the clearest proof of the effect of the Shepherd on early canon lists
is the presence of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It actually was written
by Barnabas. 6 Hebrews. There is not even apostolic authority
involved. The only test that justifies its inclusion comes from the
Shepherd’’ s loose canon test. The Epistle to the Hebrews is
Shepherd'' s loose canon test. The Epistle to the Hebrews is
inspiring, lofty, and can change its hearers. Otherwise, it has
nothing to justify any kind of inclusion in the NT canon. It passes
the Shepherd’ s test of prophetic. However, nothing from the word of
the Shepherd' s test of prophetic. However, nothing from the word of
God endorses the inclusion of the Epistle to the Hebrews in our NT canon.
### Did Paul Have A Predictive Prophecy in The Lord s Name Come True?
@ -312,8 +312,8 @@ true. However, the claim for it is weak. In the middle of a terrible
storm, Paul claimed an angel, without God simultaneously present in
the vision, told him that no one would lose their life in a ship
crash. However, he predicted the ship would be lost. (Acts
27:22-25). Paulunists never cite this as an example of Paul’s
predictive prowess. This is because in the same context, Paul’s lack
27:22-25). Paulunists never cite this as an example of Paul's
predictive prowess. This is because in the same context, Paul's lack
of constant inspiration Antitheses (144 A.D). said:
18.. .0ur Christ was commissioned by the good God [of the NT] to
@ -346,12 +346,12 @@ Acts 27:10
![Picture #11](images/img_0011.png)
More important, Paul claims the source of this second contradictory
prediction is an angel who relays God’s decision to save all on
prediction is an angel who relays God's decision to save all on
board. This takes away from it any claim that it is a prophecy at
all. To be a prophecy that can be valid, it must take a risk of being
a prophecy that is invalid. To be a prophecy of such kind, it had to
be In the Name of God (Yahweh or 7 am ’) Somewhere, there must be a
claim God was present giving confirmation of the angel’s words. We
be In the Name of God (Yahweh or 7 am ') Somewhere, there must be a
claim God was present giving confirmation of the angel's words. We
read in (Deut. 18:20-22)
(20) But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my
@ -366,44 +366,44 @@ read in (Deut. 18:20-22)
not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt
not be afraid of him.
Thus, had Paul’s prediction been false, Paul could not fall under the
Thus, had Paul's prediction been false, Paul could not fall under the
false prophecy penalty of death in the Mosaic Testament. This is
because the prophet must claim the prophecy is going to come true in
God s name: “Thus speaketh Yahweh....” or some equivalent. If it is
God s name: "Thus speaketh Yahweh...." or some equivalent. If it is
attributed directly to an angel without God simultaneously present in
the encounter, it does not qualify. By claiming instead it will come
true and you
7. God actually identifies Himself by two names and variations on the
name. The first is Yahweh (and variants) and the second is “I am.”
See, (Exod. 3:14) (“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
name. The first is Yahweh (and variants) and the second is "I am."
See, (Exod. 3:14) ("And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
said. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent
me unto you.”) Jesus used this name for Himself. In John 8:58: “Jesus
me unto you.") Jesus used this name for Himself. In John 8:58: "Jesus
said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was
born, I am.” Thus, everything Jesus predicts is in the name of the
born, I am." Thus, everything Jesus predicts is in the name of the
Lord since He was claiming to be I Am.
8. An example of a false prophecy in Scripture is Hananiah in
(Jer. 28:2), battling Jeremiah, the true prophet. In Jeremiah 28:2,
Hananiah begins, “ Thus speaketh Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel,
not come true, Paul would have been able to say ‘some darker angel’
must have given him the message that proved untrue. ‘The angel
deceived me.’ There is wiggle room to avoid the death penalty if his
Hananiah begins, " Thus speaketh Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel,
not come true, Paul would have been able to say 'some darker angel'
must have given him the message that proved untrue. 'The angel
deceived me.' There is wiggle room to avoid the death penalty if his
prediction had proven untrue. Thus, to make a valid prophecy, one must
by definition not only have a prophecy that comes true, but one must
in advance say the message is directly from God. You cannot receive
the reward of recognition as God’s prophet unless one is willing to
use His name initially in giving the prophecy. “No pain, no gain”
the reward of recognition as God's prophet unless one is willing to
use His name initially in giving the prophecy. "No pain, no gain"
embodies the principle. Thus, if one claims an angel gave it, and you
do not claim it came with God’s direct presence, it cannot be treated
do not claim it came with God's direct presence, it cannot be treated
as a valid prophecy ab initio even if it later happens to come true.
This brings up a second problem with Paul’s prediction about the storm
This brings up a second problem with Paul's prediction about the storm
as prophecy. Angels in the Hebrew Scripture make birth announcements
and explain visions of the future with God present. They are heralds
of a very limited nature. For example, in Daniel, they show and
explain visions of the future with the “Son of Man” (Jesus)
present. They speak God’s words only when God is described as
explain visions of the future with the "Son of Man" (Jesus)
present. They speak God's words only when God is described as
simultaneously present.
9 Paul’s attribution of
9 Paul's attribution of

8
JWO_03_02_PaulCouldStillBeABalaamWhoInitiallyHasTrueProphecy_0006.md

@ -9,15 +9,15 @@ Jesus was completely consistent with what came before. Jesus upheld
every jot and letter of the Law, and insisted upon an ongoing
necessity to teach and follow the Law. (Matt. 5:18).
Consequently, Jesus’ words qualify as (a) prophetic (i i.e .,
Consequently, Jesus' words qualify as (a) prophetic (i i.e .,
predictive and confirmed); (b) valid (i.e., consistent with and never
negating what preceded); and (c) in the name of / am because Jesus
claimed to be I am. (John 8:58).
By contrast, Paul’s predictive statement is certainly not invoking
By contrast, Paul's predictive statement is certainly not invoking
Yahweh s name. Instead, Paul relied upon an angel alone. Even if Paul
had a prophecy in God’s name, there is a substantial question whether
Paul’s words were also valid, i.e., consistent with and not negating
had a prophecy in God's name, there is a substantial question whether
Paul's words were also valid, i.e., consistent with and not negating
what preceded. Paul must be examined to determine if he started true,
turned false and apostasized later. The example from history that
proves this is a correct test of Paul is the story of Balaam. Despite

100
JWO_03_03_Balaam_sStarProphecyofMessiah(1290B.C.)_0007.md

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Balaam’s Star Prophecy of Messiah (1290 B. C.)
## Balaam's Star Prophecy of Messiah (1290 B. C.)
Most Christian commentators acknowledge the false prophet Balaam did
originally give true Messianic prophecy in the Star Prophecy. (See
@ -8,9 +8,9 @@ Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Wesley, Henry, JFB, and Gill.) This
is why Matthew identifies the Magi following the star to
Bethlehem. (Matt. 2:1).
Let’s see how amazing is Balaam’s prophecy of (Num. 24:17) to realize
Let's see how amazing is Balaam's prophecy of (Num. 24:17) to realize
how Balaam was a true prophet of Christ at one time but who later
turned false. In Numbers 24:17, we read Balaam’s words:
turned false. In Numbers 24:17, we read Balaam's words:
I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh; there shall
step forth a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of
@ -18,14 +18,14 @@ turned false. In Numbers 24:17, we read Balaam’s words:
down all the sons of tumult. (ASV).
Friedman, in the modern Jewish translation, renders the first key part
“a star has stepped from Jacob....” ( Commentary on the Torah, supra,
at 511.) The “scepter” implied this star would identify a new
king. The last part on someone ruling the “sons of tumult” was
interpreted by ancient Jews as meaning “rule the world.” The Targum of
Onkelos from circa 150 A.D.—the Aramaic interpretation of the
Law—restates this passage to have a Messianic application: “a king
"a star has stepped from Jacob...." ( Commentary on the Torah, supra,
at 511.) The "scepter" implied this star would identify a new
king. The last part on someone ruling the "sons of tumult" was
interpreted by ancient Jews as meaning "rule the world." The Targum of
Onkelos from circa 150 A.D.-the Aramaic interpretation of the
Law-restates this passage to have a Messianic application: "a king
shall arise from the house of Jacob, and be anointed the Messiah out
of Israel.” Clearly, (Num. 24:17) was deemed a Messianic prophecy by
of Israel." Clearly, (Num. 24:17) was deemed a Messianic prophecy by
Jews long before Jesus appeared. 10
10. The oracle of Balaam is quoted four times in the Dead Sea scrolls
@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation).
The fact Balaam uttered a Messianic prophecy has important meaning in
salvation doctrine. It answers the question whether believing in a
Messianic prophecy and knowing about Christ, as did Balaam, saves
you. Balaam’s destruction at Moses’ request proves such belief alone
you. Balaam's destruction at Moses' request proves such belief alone
did not save Balaam. Yet, indisputably, Balaam was one of the first
under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to believe in and prophesy
specifically about the Messiah. He saw Christ and believed in
@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ eat meat sacrificed to idols and they could fornicate. (Num. 31:8, 16;
Rev. 2:14). (See also page 135 for detailed discussion.) Balaam
clearly became lost. (Rev. 2:14).
### Why Do Paulunists Ignore Balaam’s Prophecy?
### Why Do Paulunists Ignore Balaam's Prophecy?
Why would Paulunists not want to focus upon this amazing Messianic
prophecy in (Num. 24:17)? You rarely hear any discussion of it in
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ This prophecy is ignored for three reasons. First, it shows how one of
the most amazing inspired prophecies of Messiah came from a man who
later apostasizes and is certainly lost. Such a possibility is denied
by eternal security advocates, relying principally on Paul for their
teaching. Thus, any mention of Balaam’s prophecy causes embarrassment
teaching. Thus, any mention of Balaam's prophecy causes embarrassment
to proponents of eternal security.
Second, the background on the Star Prophecy shows that people steeped
@ -68,13 +68,13 @@ in error and pagan practices, like the Magi, could still hold onto
true Messianic prophecy of the Bible. Yet, believing in Messianic
prophecy did not make them saved Christians. It likewise does not make
someone a Christian who thinks they can believe the intellectual side
of a prophecy with no change in the heart. The Magi’s doctrines
of a prophecy with no change in the heart. The Magi's doctrines
(Zoroastrianism) taught them they were saved if they used the right
verbal formula for belief, known as a mantra. They also believed they
could pray to those in the afterlife. (Lucian, Mennipus 6-9.) Their
teachings about mantras thereby violated the Law given to Moses, which
preached salvation by repentance from sin, atonement, and
faithfulness. Moreover, the Magi’s teachings about talking to the dead
faithfulness. Moreover, the Magi's teachings about talking to the dead
also violated the Law given to Moses. (Deut. 18:11; cf. (Isa. 8:19);
19:3). Thus, for those steeped in eternal security, it is difficult to
mention the Magi were unsaved people who believed in Messianic Prophecies.
@ -86,51 +86,51 @@ Magi of Babylon came from a culture steeped in a certain type of
doctrinal error. They must have correctly worshipped the God of
Daniel. First, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged Yahweh.
Lastly, King Darius also later specifically decreed that “the God of
Daniel” was the true God and that his entire vast empire had to
Lastly, King Darius also later specifically decreed that "the God of
Daniel" was the true God and that his entire vast empire had to
acknowledge this. (Dan. 4:34-37; 6:26). Thereafter, Daniel obviously
had ample opportunity as the chief officer over the Magi to inculcate
faith in the true God among the Magi. (Dan. 6:1-2). Based on
(Matt. 2:)l’s mention of the magos (Greek for magi), there is every
(Matt. 2:)l's mention of the magos (Greek for magi), there is every
reason to be believe this Jewish component of Babylonian religion
continued. Babylonian religion must have absorbed this as part of
Zoroastrianism—a monotheistic religion. In it, Daniel’s God must have
Zoroastrianism-a monotheistic religion. In it, Daniel's God must have
continued to be their one true God for some significant period.
So what does Babylon represent? A pagan religion? No! Babylon
represents a faith with the right emphasis on the true God and the
true Christ but adulteration by adding salvation and legal principles
at odds with God’s Law.
at odds with God's Law.
How do we know the Magi had the right emphasis on the true Christ?
That they were waiting for Messiah’s birth?
That they were waiting for Messiah's birth?
Because Babylon’s spiritual and political leaders (the Magi) were
clearly aware of Daniel’s prophecy of Messiah’s date for being cut-off
Because Babylon's spiritual and political leaders (the Magi) were
clearly aware of Daniel's prophecy of Messiah's date for being cut-off
( i.e ., killed). (Dan. 9:25-26). Daniel was the chief of the Magi, by
appointment of the king (Dan. 6:1-2). Thus, Daniel’s prophecy would be
appointment of the king (Dan. 6:1-2). Thus, Daniel's prophecy would be
well-known by the Magi. This prophecy, uttered in 604 B.C., said the
Messiah shall come and be cut-off after sixty-nine “periods of sevens”
(viz., a sabbath cycle of seven years) 11 — 483 years — from the
“order to restore and to build Jerusalem.” (Dan. 9:25-26).
Messiah shall come and be cut-off after sixty-nine "periods of sevens"
(viz., a sabbath cycle of seven years) 11 - 483 years - from the
"order to restore and to build Jerusalem." (Dan. 9:25-26).
The Jewish Encyclopedia says this order went forth in 444
B.C. Nehemiah “arrived in Jerusalem in 444 BCE with an appointment as
B.C. Nehemiah "arrived in Jerusalem in 444 BCE with an appointment as
governor of Judah... [and his] first action was to
rebuild... Jerusalem [including the temple].” (“Nehemiah,” The Jewish
rebuild... Jerusalem [including the temple]." ("Nehemiah," The Jewish
Encyclopedia of Judaism (1989) at 520).
### What year could the Magi deduce Messiah’s being cut-off?
### What year could the Magi deduce Messiah's being cut-off?
The year 33 A.D. The Jewish calendar year is a lunarbased year. There
are only 360 days in the “year” of which Daniel is
prophesying. Daniel’s prophecy of 483 lunar years thus represents
are only 360 days in the "year" of which Daniel is
prophesying. Daniel's prophecy of 483 lunar years thus represents
173,880 days (483 x 360). This equates to 476 solar years in our
calendar. If you subtract 476 years from 444 B.C., you hit square on
33 A.D. How amazing!
Thus, from Daniel’s prophecy, the Magi would know the date of the
Messiah’s being cut-off is 33 A.D. The Magi then could piece this
Thus, from Daniel's prophecy, the Magi would know the date of the
Messiah's being cut-off is 33 A.D. The Magi then could piece this
together with the Star Prophecy of Balaam to determine his approximate
time of birth.
@ -143,18 +143,18 @@ would then have shared this Star Prophecy in the Law of Moses with his
Magi.
11. This is often mistranslated as weeks. The word is shebu 'im. In
the feminine form, it means a “period of seven days.” However, in the
masculine, as is present here, it means simply “a time period of seven
units” ( e.g ., month, year, sabbath cycle of seven years). See,
the feminine form, it means a "period of seven days." However, in the
masculine, as is present here, it means simply "a time period of seven
units" ( e.g ., month, year, sabbath cycle of seven years). See,
Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (G.L. Archer, R.L. Harris,
and B.K. Waltke, eds.) (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992) (2 Vols.) at
2:899; G.L. Archer, “Daniel,” The Expositor ’s Bible Commentary
2:899; G.L. Archer, "Daniel," The Expositor 's Bible Commentary
(Gabalein, Ed.)(Grand Rapids) Vol. 7 at 112.
### Balaam’s Star Prophecy of Messiah (1290 B.C).
### Balaam's Star Prophecy of Messiah (1290 B.C).
Why would this Star Prophecy tell the Magi that a star’s rising would
Why would this Star Prophecy tell the Magi that a star's rising would
mark the birth of the Messiah? After all, the word birth is not
mentioned in (Num. 24:16-19)?
@ -175,18 +175,18 @@ would one day signal the birth of a mysterious child whom they were to
adore. 15
Thus, the Magi would understand the Star Prophecy to be talking of the
birth of the same person who is cut-off in 33 A.D. in Daniel’s
birth of the same person who is cut-off in 33 A.D. in Daniel's
Prophecy. Therefore, the Magi of Babylon would be naturally looking
backwards one adult life-time (40 years approximately) prior to 33
A.D. This would identify the birth-time for this Messiah to be
approximately 7 B.C. Thus, the Magi were on the look-out for this star
precisely at about the time Jesus was bom in about 3 B.C.
12. Suetonius in Lives of the Twelve Emperors says: “There had spread
12. Suetonius in Lives of the Twelve Emperors says: "There had spread
over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated at
that time for a man coming from Judaea to rule the world. This
prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as it turned out, the
Jews took to themselves, and they revolted accordingly [in 66 A.D.].”
Jews took to themselves, and they revolted accordingly [in 66 A.D.]."
(Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5).
13. This is recorded by Oxford Professor, Thomas Hyde, in his
@ -199,27 +199,27 @@ practitioners of Zoroastrianism, lived around 580 B.C. He founded the Magi.
"The Origin of Pagan Idolatry Ascertained from Historical Testimony and Circumstantial Evidence"
([London] F and C. Rivingtons, 1816) Vol. 2 at 92.
### Must We Apply The Bible’s Tests For a True Prophet to Paul?
### Must We Apply The Bible's Tests For a True Prophet to Paul?
The Magi of (Matt. 2:1) are thus following Balaam’s Star Prophecy and
Daniel’s Messianic Prophecy to the letter. This is what squarely
The Magi of (Matt. 2:1) are thus following Balaam's Star Prophecy and
Daniel's Messianic Prophecy to the letter. This is what squarely
allows them to arrive at the right time in Bethlehem to give presents
to the infant Jesus.
Yet, throughout Revelation, Babylon is synonymous with the harlot.
What does this mean? God is telling us that Babylon, led by its Magi
rulers, was a nation whose faith is like that of Balaam: it knew the
true God and His Christ but it taught its people to violate God’s
true God and His Christ but it taught its people to violate God's
commands. It taught salvation by mere mantras (/.<?., verbal
formulas). Furthermore, it was a nation built on legal apostasy. In
other words, Babylon had the correct faith in the true God and waited
for the true Messiah and even rejoiced at finding Him. Otherwise, it
had the wrong salvation principles and all its behaviors were contrary
to God’s Law. Babylon is thus depicted in Revelation as a harlot
—prostituting itself to base desires.
to God's Law. Babylon is thus depicted in Revelation as a harlot
-prostituting itself to base desires.
Consequently, the lessons of Balaam for us are many. We need to
examine how important it is that we can alone say the right mantra of
faith, and be sincere, and want to know Christ, like the Magi did. But
what happens if we trust a mantra (like the Magi did) to save us
despite our rejection of the Law which “I Am” (Jesus) gave Moses?
despite our rejection of the Law which "I Am" (Jesus) gave Moses?

2
JWO_03_04_Conclusion_0008.md

@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Balaam was a true prophet who was later convicted as a false prophet
under (Deut. 4:2) and (Deut. 13:1-5). Balaam truly had the Holy Spirit
when he blessed Israel and gave the Star Prophecy of Messiah. Moses
expressly says so. Yet, Balaam is an apostate and lost. The Bible,
through Moses and Jesus, tells us this too. Balaam’s error was later
through Moses and Jesus, tells us this too. Balaam's error was later
telling Israel they could eat meat sacrificed to idols and they could
commit fornication. (Rev. 2:14).
He diminished the Law. (Deut. 4:2).

80
JWO_04_01_DidJesusWarnofFalseProphetsWhoWouldNegatetheLaw__0009.md

@ -4,24 +4,24 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Introduction
Jesus was concerned about the “signs and wonders” prophets misleading
Jesus was concerned about the "signs and wonders" prophets misleading
Christians. (Matt. 7:15-23), viz., v. 22; 24:11, 24.) Jesus warns of
the false prophets in (Mark 13:22). They “shall show signs and wonders
to seduce , if possible, even the elect.”
the false prophets in (Mark 13:22). They "shall show signs and wonders
to seduce , if possible, even the elect."
In Deuteronomy, these signs-and-wonders prophets are false not because
their prophecies are untrue. Rather, their signs and wonders are
extraordinary. Indeed, their prophecy comes true. (Deut. 13:2), “the
sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee.” Rather,
extraordinary. Indeed, their prophecy comes true. (Deut. 13:2), "the
sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee." Rather,
the proof they are false is in the content of their message as
subversive of the Torah (the Five Books of Moses). These
prophets try to “draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God
commanded thee to walk in.” (Deut. 13:5) Cf (Deut. 4:2).
prophets try to "draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God
commanded thee to walk in." (Deut. 13:5) Cf (Deut. 4:2).
When Deuteronomy was written, all there was of Scripture was Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Thus, even a prophet with
true prophecy must be rejected if he seduces you to “draw aside” from
the commandments in them. The supposed prophet’s validity turns on
true prophecy must be rejected if he seduces you to "draw aside" from
the commandments in them. The supposed prophet's validity turns on
whether, contrary to (Deut. 4:2), he diminishes the Law God has
already given. Balaam is an example from the Bible of someone who was
once a true prophet who later was found false based solely on these
@ -29,57 +29,57 @@ principles. Thus, even though Balaam believed in Christ and truly
prophesied of Him with the Holy Spirit (so says Moses), Balaam later
became a et seq; (Rev. 2:14). (See page 41 et seq. for further discussion.)
Jesus in (Matt. 7:15-24) is clearly alluding to these same “signs and
wonders” prophets. Jesus says they are lost. He will deny He ever knew
Jesus in (Matt. 7:15-24) is clearly alluding to these same "signs and
wonders" prophets. Jesus says they are lost. He will deny He ever knew
them even though on Judgment Day they are able to say they did
“marvelous works in Your name,” and many “prophecies in Your name.”
"marvelous works in Your name," and many "prophecies in Your name."
(Matt. 7:22). Jesus tells us He will reject them. It is not because
they lacked true prophecy or marvelous wonders. Rather, the sole
reason to reject them is they are workers of “anomia” (Matt. 7:23).
reason to reject them is they are workers of "anomia" (Matt. 7:23).
This Greek word anomia here means “negators of the Law (of Moses).” This is one of its two lexicon definitions. In choosing this definition over lawless, we do so primarily because Jesus’ warning was obviously paralleling (Deut. 13:1-5). See discussion in the next section.
This Greek word anomia here means "negators of the Law (of Moses)." This is one of its two lexicon definitions. In choosing this definition over lawless, we do so primarily because Jesus' warning was obviously paralleling (Deut. 13:1-5). See discussion in the next section.
If you agree on choosing this dictionary definition, then we can easily anticipate that Paul is not going to fare well. Paul’s doctrine that the Law of Moses was abolished by Jesus’ coming is well known. See chapter five.
If you agree on choosing this dictionary definition, then we can easily anticipate that Paul is not going to fare well. Paul's doctrine that the Law of Moses was abolished by Jesus' coming is well known. See chapter five.
### Why Anomia Means Negator of Mosaic Law
Jesus tells us we can identify the false prophets because they are workers of “anomia” (Matt. 7:23). What does this Greek word anomia mean?
Jesus tells us we can identify the false prophets because they are workers of "anomia" (Matt. 7:23). What does this Greek word anomia mean?
In Greek, anomia is a feminine noun, related to the adjective a-nomos. Nomos is the Greek word to identify the Law or Torah, i.e., the Five Books of Moses. (Strong’s #3551.) The prefix a is a negative particle in Greek. Putting the parts together, it should mean anomia precisely mean in (Matt. 7:23)? The best lexicon of ancient Greek (which is free online) is Henry George Liddell’s and Robert
In Greek, anomia is a feminine noun, related to the adjective a-nomos. Nomos is the Greek word to identify the Law or Torah, i.e., the Five Books of Moses. (Strong's #3551.) The prefix a is a negative particle in Greek. Putting the parts together, it should mean anomia precisely mean in (Matt. 7:23)? The best lexicon of ancient Greek (which is free online) is Henry George Liddell's and Robert
Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon. It defines anomia as one of two meanings:
* “the negation of the law”
* “lawlessness, lawless conduct.”
Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon. It defines anomia as one of two meanings:
* "the negation of the law"
* "lawlessness, lawless conduct."
The common rendering of (Matt. 7:23) opts for the second meaning. (See
ALT, KJV, and ASV translations). These texts ignore entirely the first
option. These translations do not reveal these workers practiced the
“negation of the Law.” Yet, this is the meaning Jesus’ intended in
"negation of the Law." Yet, this is the meaning Jesus' intended in
this context.
Jesus is talking about workers of the negation of the Law because He
is paraphrasing (Deut. 13:1-5). Let’s see how by comparing the
is paraphrasing (Deut. 13:1-5). Let's see how by comparing the
concepts in (Matt. 7:15-23) with Deuteronomy 13:1-5. When put side by
side, we find lawlessness is an incongruent break from the paraphrase
by Jesus of Deuteronomy. However, “negation of the Law” would be in
line if Jesus’ intended a paraphrase of Deuteronomy.
by Jesus of Deuteronomy. However, "negation of the Law" would be in
line if Jesus' intended a paraphrase of Deuteronomy.
1. Logos Software describes LSJ (its acronym) as "the world’s most
comprehensive and authoritative dictionary of ancient Greek....’’
1. Logos Software describes LSJ (its acronym) as "the world's most
comprehensive and authoritative dictionary of ancient Greek....''
http://www.logos.com/products/details/1772 (visited 2005). It
explains the 1940 edition is the core of the 1996 edition. As to the
1940 edition. Logos explains LSJ is the “central reference work for
1940 edition. Logos explains LSJ is the "central reference work for
all scholars of ancient Greek authors and texts discovered up to
1940....” Id.
1940...." Id.
2. The least expensive way to verify this is online. To do so, go to
Tuft University’s online version of the Westcott-Hort Greek New
Tuft University's online version of the Westcott-Hort Greek New
Testament at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A 1999.01.0155&layout=&loc=Matthew+7.1
Then find (Matt. 7:23), and the last word is anomian. Click anomian
and then select the LSJ link for this lexicon. Or you can purchase
this lexicon in book and computer form from Logos sign or wonder come
to pass, whereof he spake unto thee” (v.2)
to pass, whereof he spake unto thee" (v.2)
Thus, if you read (Matt. 7:23) as workers of the negation of the Law
(of Moses), then it parallels (Deut. 13:1-5). Both involve true
@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ Because their preaching seduces you from following the Law (of Moses).
(Deut. 13:1-5). Their preaching works negation of the Law (of Moses).
(Matt. 7:23).
Furthermore, the alternative reading makes the test so broad that Jesus’ words are potentially meaningless. In fact, the translation as lawless or iniquity
Furthermore, the alternative reading makes the test so broad that Jesus' words are potentially meaningless. In fact, the translation as lawless or iniquity
![Picture #12](images/img_0012.png)
@ -102,8 +102,8 @@ If the test is whether these people are workers of iniquity or
lawlessness, then since all of us sin, there would never be a true
prophet you could trust as long as he is human.
Thus, if you accept Paul’s truism that “all have sinned, and fall
short of the glory of God...” (Rom. 3:23), then Paul and all prophets
Thus, if you accept Paul's truism that "all have sinned, and fall
short of the glory of God..." (Rom. 3:23), then Paul and all prophets
are workers of iniquity merely by being human.
Thus, everyone is a worker of iniquity at some point. If we apply
@ -113,13 +113,13 @@ warning. That is, the verse becomes pointless because we all work
iniquity. There could never be true prophecy we trust if a true human
prophet is rendered false merely because he is like us who sins from
time-to-time. Iniquity never was the proper translation of
anomia. Only workers of negation of the Law (ofMoses) fits Jesus’
anomia. Only workers of negation of the Law (ofMoses) fits Jesus'
intended meaning.
### Signs and Wonders
“Indeed the signs of the apostle were worked among you in all
patience, in signs and wonders, and in powers.”
"Indeed the signs of the apostle were worked among you in all
patience, in signs and wonders, and in powers."
Paul, (2Cor. l2:12) (talking about what proved his validity).
@ -129,17 +129,17 @@ However, if one insists the traditional translation of anomia as iniquity
![Picture #16](images/img_0016.png)
big crowd of people. (Gal. 2:11). Paul also called the “brethren” of Galatia “foolish” ones. (Gal. 3:1). Another time Paul listed off a series of accomplishments, confessing repeatedly he was “boasting.” (2Cor. 11:16-18).
big crowd of people. (Gal. 2:11). Paul also called the "brethren" of Galatia "foolish" ones. (Gal. 3:1). Another time Paul listed off a series of accomplishments, confessing repeatedly he was "boasting." (2Cor. 11:16-18).
Yet, Jesus and the Bible prohibit such curses, condemnations of others
without private personal confrontation first, labelling brothers as
fools, and boasting. (See the Table below for Bible references.)
Therefore, if one insists Jesus’ words in (Matt. 7:23) require proof
Therefore, if one insists Jesus' words in (Matt. 7:23) require proof
someone was a worker of iniquity, Paul is caught again. The list in
the table below is not only long, but also appears in teaching letters
to a spiritual community! As (Jas. 3:1) says, teachers will receive a
“heavier judgment” for their errors.
"heavier judgment" for their errors.
| Paul’s | Violation of God’s |
| Paul's | Violation of God's |
| Letters | Commands? |

76
JWO_05_02_FurtherApplicability__0011.md

@ -10,24 +10,24 @@ has yet come true. Thus, the addition of Paul to canon immediately has
a wobbly foundation. It appears to violate (Deut. 4:2).
Assuming for argument sake that Paul made some qualifying prediction,
we next must apply the Bible’s second level test. Even if they come
with “signs and wonders” that come true, the Bible says they are still
a false prophet if they simultaneously try to “seduce you from the way
in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk.’’' (Deut. 13:5). If
they “diminish the Law,” they violate God’s word and must be
we next must apply the Bible's second level test. Even if they come
with "signs and wonders" that come true, the Bible says they are still
a false prophet if they simultaneously try to "seduce you from the way
in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk.''' (Deut. 13:5). If
they "diminish the Law," they violate God's word and must be
false. (Deut. 4:2). Jesus in the same vein warns of those with true
“signs and wonders” but who are workers of ANomia, i.e., negators of
Nomos —the word for Torah in Greek. (Matt. 7:15, 24:11, 24). 1 As a
result, even though Paul insists his “signs and wonders” validated his
message ((Rom. 15:19)), we need to examine whether Paul’ teachings are
"signs and wonders" but who are workers of ANomia, i.e., negators of
Nomos -the word for Torah in Greek. (Matt. 7:15, 24:11, 24). 1 As a
result, even though Paul insists his "signs and wonders" validated his
message ((Rom. 15:19)), we need to examine whether Paul' teachings are
consistent with the Scripture that preceded Paul. We will thereby
follow the example of the Bereans who used Scripture to test Paul’s
follow the example of the Bereans who used Scripture to test Paul's
validity. (Acts 17:11).
1. See “Did Jesus Warn of False Prophets Who Would Negate the Law?” on
1. See "Did Jesus Warn of False Prophets Who Would Negate the Law?" on
page 59 in its entirety. Paul does not merely say that Jesus fulfilled
the law of sacrifice, making actual sacrifices moot. (This is
Barnabas’ reasonable approach in Hebrews ). Paul does not merely say
Barnabas' reasonable approach in Hebrews ). Paul does not merely say
the sacrificial ceremonies within the Law are gone. Rather, it appears
Paul says Jesus removed the Law in its entirety as a code.
@ -55,13 +55,13 @@ unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Most reputable commentators agree that Paul says here that Jesus
abrogated the entire Law of Moses. Gill clearly says it is the Law
given at Mount Sinai. Gill says Sinai means “hatred” in Hebrew. Thus,
Paul is engaging in word-play with its synonym in Greek— enmity. Gill
then explains Paul means that from Sinai “descended ‘hatred’ or
‘enmity’ to the nations of the world: now this Christ abolished.”
given at Mount Sinai. Gill says Sinai means "hatred" in Hebrew. Thus,
Paul is engaging in word-play with its synonym in Greek- enmity. Gill
then explains Paul means that from Sinai "descended 'hatred' or
'enmity' to the nations of the world: now this Christ abolished."
Jamieson likewise says Paul means Jesus abrogated the entire Law of
Moses. Jesus supposedly replaced it with the “law of Love.” Henry
hedges a bit. He says Paul means the “ceremonial law” was
Moses. Jesus supposedly replaced it with the "law of Love." Henry
hedges a bit. He says Paul means the "ceremonial law" was
abrogated. (Col. 2:14)
Second, Paul rewords (Eph. 2:14-16) in (Col. 2:14). The abrogation of
@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ commandment to rest on the Sabbath is abolished :
(17) Which are a shadow of things to come; (Vincent Word Studies).
This is not merely the ceremonial law. Paul picks out one of the Ten
Commandments—the Sabbath command. Then Paul sweeps it away. As Martin
Commandments-the Sabbath command. Then Paul sweeps it away. As Martin
Luther in a sermon entitled How Christians Should Regard Moses given
August 27, 1525 says of this passage:
@ -89,29 +89,29 @@ August 27, 1525 says of this passage:
to the Jews alone, for whom it is a stern commandment. 4
Paul will repeat this abolition of Sabbath in (Rom. 14:5-6). Paul
writes: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
writes: "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in
his own mind.” Christian commentators explain this means regarding
Sabbath: “Christians are permitted to make up their own minds about a
special day.” 5 You can take it or leave it. It is up to you.
his own mind." Christian commentators explain this means regarding
Sabbath: "Christians are permitted to make up their own minds about a
special day." 5 You can take it or leave it. It is up to you.
Paul also wipes out all the food laws and festival days. (See also, 1
Tim. 4:4, ‘all food is clean.’) Paul clearly is teaching against any
Tim. 4:4, 'all food is clean.') Paul clearly is teaching against any
obedience to the Law of Moses per se.
“I am the Lord. I change not.” Mai. 3:6
"I am the Lord. I change not." Mai. 3:6
3. Martin Luther, “How Christians Should Regard Moses,” Luther s Works:
3. Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," Luther s Works:
Word and Sacrament
![Picture #25](images/img_0025.png)
### Did Paul Abrogate the Law for Everyone?
In Colossians, we have a clearer idea of the “enmity” spoken about in
In Colossians, we have a clearer idea of the "enmity" spoken about in
(Eph. 2:15). All the ordinances of God in the Law of Moses are
“against us.” (Col. 2:14). Vincent says Paul’s meaning is that the Law
of Moses had the “hostile character of a bond” or debt. In Christ,
"against us." (Col. 2:14). Vincent says Paul's meaning is that the Law
of Moses had the "hostile character of a bond" or debt. In Christ,
Paul clearly is saying we (Jew and Gentile) are free from this
debt. The proof is in the pudding. Paul says in verse sixteen that no
one can judge you any longer for not obeying the Sabbath. The command
@ -120,21 +120,21 @@ sacrifice. It is one of the Ten Commandments.
Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that there is no distinction between
Jew or Gentile who are so liberated from the Law. In both (Eph. 2:15)
and (Col. 2:14-17), Paul emphasizes how “one new man” emerges
and (Col. 2:14-17), Paul emphasizes how "one new man" emerges
(Eph. 2:15). He explains this is so because the Temple wall that
barred Gentiles from sacred parts of the Temple has been spiritually
abolished. Id.
### Did Jesus Say We are to Obey the Pharisees or Moses?
“The Pharisees and sages sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore, all that he*
"The Pharisees and sages sit on Moses' seat. Therefore, all that he*
[i.e., Moses] says to you, diligently do, but according to their
reforms [i.e., additions] and their precedents [i.e., examples used to
justify conduct], do not do because they talk but they do not do
[Torah].” Hebrew Matt. 23:2-3, as Jewish scholar Nehemiah Gordon
[Torah]." Hebrew Matt. 23:2-3, as Jewish scholar Nehemiah Gordon
translates in Hebrew Yeshua.
*In the Greek Matthew, it says ‘all that they say, do.”
*In the Greek Matthew, it says 'all that they say, do."
4. In the ellipsis of this quote, Luther claims the following passages also abolish the sabbath: Matt. 12:1-12; John 5:16; 7:22-23; 9:14-16.
@ -143,19 +143,19 @@ Jesus would be an apostate and false prophet under (Deut. 13:5). So
Luther had better be correct. In fact, these passages do not stand for
this proposition. Rather, in (Matt. 12:1-12), Jesus says it was taught
the priests are permitted to work in the temple on the Sabbath and
“are guiltless.” If this were true for priests, Jesus says this is
"are guiltless." If this were true for priests, Jesus says this is
true for Himself for one greater than the Temple is before them. The
remaining three passages likewise do not support Luther’s claim:
remaining three passages likewise do not support Luther's claim:
(John 7:22-23) (if the Jews keep the command to circumcise a certain
number of days after birth even if it takes place on the Sabbath, then
they should permit Jesus to heal on Sabbath); (John 9:14-16) (Jesus
healing on sabbath); (John 5:16) (Jesus told a man to pick up his mat,
interpreted by Jewish leaders to be a work, but Jesus disapproves this
understanding, saying there is no command against doing good on the
Sabbath). Cfr. Jer. 17:21-24 (“be careful to not carry a load on
Sabbath.”) See also, “Sabbath” Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David N. Freedman)
Sabbath). Cfr. Jer. 17:21-24 ("be careful to not carry a load on
Sabbath.") See also, "Sabbath" Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David N. Freedman)
Vol. 5 at 855-56 (Jesus misunderstood as disaffirming Sabbath, but
rather reaffirmed it universally for all men in (Mark 2:27). Jesus’
rather reaffirmed it universally for all men in (Mark 2:27). Jesus'
criticisms were against the man-made teachings that violated the true
spirit of the Sabbath command); cf.

30
JWO_05_03_TheAbolishedLawWasAMinistryOfDeath_0012.md

@ -3,16 +3,16 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## The Abolished Law Was A Ministry Of Death
Paul has a section of Second Corinthians that totally demeans the Ten
Commandments. He then unequivocally says they have “passed away.” Once
Commandments. He then unequivocally says they have "passed away." Once
more, Paul demonstrates certainly that he is teaching Jews and
Gentiles to no longer follow the Law of Moses.
In this passage from Second Corinthians, Paul calls Moses’ ministry
one of “death” and “condemnation.” Paul calls Christianity a ministry
In this passage from Second Corinthians, Paul calls Moses' ministry
one of "death" and "condemnation." Paul calls Christianity a ministry
of Spirit and liberty. The Law of Moses kills. Christianity gives
life. (Incidentally, Paul’s reasoning is dubious at best). 6 The Law
of Moses is “done away with.” Its “glory was to be done away with.” It
is “done away.” Finally, it is “that which is abolished.” All these
life. (Incidentally, Paul's reasoning is dubious at best). 6 The Law
of Moses is "done away with." Its "glory was to be done away with." It
is "done away." Finally, it is "that which is abolished." All these
quotes are found in (2Cor. 3:6-17)
(6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not
@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ quotes are found in (2Cor. 3:6-17)
5. Dan Comer, Six Facts For Saturday Sabbatarians To Ponder at
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/sabbath.htm (last accessed 2005).
6. In saying the earlier covenant is death and the second life , Paul demonstrates a lack of understanding of what Jesus’ atonement represents. Jesus is the atonement satisfying once for all the atonement-requirements in the Law, as Paul should admit. If so, then Jesus’ sacrifice provides the same grace that was provided by the sacrificial system in the Law of Moses. The only difference is Jesus’ payment is one-time rather than repetitive. Thus, the Levitical atonement-system cannot minister death while Jesus’ death ministers life. The outcome of both is identical: forgiveness by God’s mercy through atonement. Grace was in both systems. In both, the penitent does not suffer the blood-atonement which pays the price for sin.
6. In saying the earlier covenant is death and the second life , Paul demonstrates a lack of understanding of what Jesus' atonement represents. Jesus is the atonement satisfying once for all the atonement-requirements in the Law, as Paul should admit. If so, then Jesus' sacrifice provides the same grace that was provided by the sacrificial system in the Law of Moses. The only difference is Jesus' payment is one-time rather than repetitive. Thus, the Levitical atonement-system cannot minister death while Jesus' death ministers life. The outcome of both is identical: forgiveness by God's mercy through atonement. Grace was in both systems. In both, the penitent does not suffer the blood-atonement which pays the price for sin.
(8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
@ -54,18 +54,18 @@ http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/sabbath.htm (last accessed 2005).
(17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (ASV)
There is nothing unclear in this passage. Paul says the Law of Moses
is done away with. The glory that fell upon Moses’ face has faded
is done away with. The glory that fell upon Moses' face has faded
away. This fading away was a foreshadowing that the Ten Commandments
would be done away with later. Paul says this time is now. We are
entirely free of any and all of the Law’s commands.
entirely free of any and all of the Law's commands.
Gill in his famous commentary is blunt. This passage of
(2Cor. 3:11-17) means that the “law is the Old Testament, or covenant,
which is vanished away.”
(2Cor. 3:11-17) means that the "law is the Old Testament, or covenant,
which is vanished away."
Barnes concurs. He says “the former [i.e., the Law] was to be done
away....” Barnes comments on Paul’s explanation that when we turn to
Barnes concurs. He says "the former [i.e., the Law] was to be done
away...." Barnes comments on Paul's explanation that when we turn to
the gospel, we simultaneously turn away from the Law. It was merely a
veil blocking our view of God. Barnes concludes: “When that people
veil blocking our view of God. Barnes concludes: "When that people
should turn again to the Lord, it [i.e., the Law] should be taken
away, (2Cor. 3:16).”
away, (2Cor. 3:16)."

12
JWO_05_04_RomansChapterSevenSaystheJewsAreReleasedFromtheLaw_0013.md

@ -5,18 +5,18 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Paul makes his views clear again in (Rom. 7:1) et seq. Paul says he is
addressing those who know the Law. Paul then teaches that the Jews
under the Law are the same as if Israel were a wife of God. When Jesus
died, the husband died. This then “ releases” the bride (Jews) from
died, the husband died. This then " releases" the bride (Jews) from
the Law. (Rom. 7:2). The Jews are now free to remarry another. In this
instance, they can now join with the resurrected Jesus who no longer
offers the Law to follow. The Law instead, Paul says, is a bond to the
dead husband-God, applying Paul’s analogy.
dead husband-God, applying Paul's analogy.
There is no doubt on Paul’s meaning in (Rom. 7:2). The word translated
as “releases” is from the Greek katarge. Paul uses the same Greek word
in Romans 6:6. There he prays the body of sin “may be destroyed ,” and
There is no doubt on Paul's meaning in (Rom. 7:2). The word translated
as "releases" is from the Greek katarge. Paul uses the same Greek word
in Romans 6:6. There he prays the body of sin "may be destroyed ," and
uses the word katarge to mean destroyed, abolished, etc. Katarge means
in Greek bring to nothing or do away with. It is the same word Paul
uses in (Eph. 2:15) to say the Law was “abolished.”
uses in (Eph. 2:15) to say the Law was "abolished."
Thus, Paul clearly taught in (Rom. 7:2) again that the Law was
abolished. He made this truth specific to Jews too.

64
JWO_05_05_TheNewMoralityInItsPlace_0014.md

@ -7,64 +7,64 @@ explains a new morality exists for Christians. If Paul intended us to
view the Law of Moses as abolished, then we would expect Paul to utter
a new standard to guide us in our ethical conduct. We find that Paul
does provide a replacement ethical system. Paul teaches a new morality
based on what is “obvious” as wrong to a person led by the
Spirit. (Gal. 5:19). The general test is: “All things are lawful but
not all things are necessarily expedient.” (1Cor. 6:12, ASV). “All
things are lawful for me.” (1Cor. 10:23). “Happy is he who does not
condemn himself in that thing which he allows.” (Rom. 14:22). Issues
based on what is "obvious" as wrong to a person led by the
Spirit. (Gal. 5:19). The general test is: "All things are lawful but
not all things are necessarily expedient." (1Cor. 6:12, ASV). "All
things are lawful for me." (1Cor. 10:23). "Happy is he who does not
condemn himself in that thing which he allows." (Rom. 14:22). Issues
of whether to observe Sabbath at all are reduced to sentiment of what
feels best to you: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
feels best to you: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
(Rom. 14:5).
This new morality is another proof that the Law is done away with. As
one commentator notes:
As we have said, one of the three aspects of our ‘liberty in
Christ’ is our freedom from the Law of Moses. So, when Paul says
‘all things are lawful for me’ he is simply referring to the fact
As we have said, one of the three aspects of our 'liberty in
Christ' is our freedom from the Law of Moses. So, when Paul says
'all things are lawful for me' he is simply referring to the fact
that we are free FROM the Law of Moses. 7
Thus, if you are in Christ, Paul teaches anything is allowed that
conscience pennits. The Torah no longer applies. If your conscience
allows you to think something is pennissible, it is pennissible. It is
as Bob George—a modem Christian radio personality and author of
numerous books— said one day in response to whether fornication was
as Bob George-a modem Christian radio personality and author of
numerous books- said one day in response to whether fornication was
prohibited:
And as Paul said, ‘All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable.” So is committing fornication permissible? Yes. Is it profitable? No, it is not. 8
And as Paul said, 'All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable." So is committing fornication permissible? Yes. Is it profitable? No, it is not. 8
Accordingly, Paul’s repeated axiom “all things are lawful for me”
Accordingly, Paul's repeated axiom "all things are lawful for me"
was not some pagan truth that Paul was mocking, as some prefer to
think. It arose from Paul abolishing the strict letter of the
Mosaic Law “which kills.”
Mosaic Law "which kills."
7. “Liberty, (1Cor. 10), and Idolatry,” Christian Bible Studies, at
7. "Liberty, (1Cor. 10), and Idolatry," Christian Bible Studies, at
http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/libertyl4.html (accessed 2005).
8. Bob George, People to People (Radio Talk Show) November 16, 1993.
The proof that this is Paul’s viewpoint is how Paul analyzed actual
The proof that this is Paul's viewpoint is how Paul analyzed actual
issues. He repeatedly used an expediency test to resolve what is right
and wrong. For example, this expediency principle had its clearest
application in Paul’s reinterpretation of the command not to eat meat
application in Paul's reinterpretation of the command not to eat meat
sacrificed to idols. He says he is free from that command. Paul kn ows
an idol is nothing. However, it is not necessarily expedient to eat
such meat if someone else you are with thinks it is wrong. So when in
the company of this “weaker” brother, Paul will not eat meat
the company of this "weaker" brother, Paul will not eat meat
sacrificed to idols. The test depends upon who may be benefited or
harmed by your behavior. In a word, the test is its expediency . 9
Paul’s expediency test is evident again in his lack of concern for the
letter of the original Law of the Sabbath. This was God’s command to
rest on the “seventh day” of the week—sunset Friday to sunset
Saturday. (Ex. 20:10). On this point, Paul says in (Rom. 14:5:) “One
Paul's expediency test is evident again in his lack of concern for the
letter of the original Law of the Sabbath. This was God's command to
rest on the "seventh day" of the week-sunset Friday to sunset
Saturday. (Ex. 20:10). On this point, Paul says in (Rom. 14:5:) "One
man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” It’s all
alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." It's all
relative to how you feel about it.
Paul thus clearly identifies a new moral law divorced from the written precepts of the Law. Paul made the new morality depend on the circumstances. It also depended on its expediency. There are no strict moral rules to follow.
Paul’s doctrines are what traditionally we would call antinomianism. If your conscience “led by the Spirit” is your guide, and you reject the Law of Moses in its express moral precepts, then you are antinomian. You are using your own decisions “led by the Spirit” of when and how to comply, if at all, with any of the express commands in the Law of Moses.
Paul's doctrines are what traditionally we would call antinomianism. If your conscience "led by the Spirit" is your guide, and you reject the Law of Moses in its express moral precepts, then you are antinomian. You are using your own decisions "led by the Spirit" of when and how to comply, if at all, with any of the express commands in the Law of Moses.
This aspect of Paul is what makes him so attractive to the world. Paul
gave flexible guidelines about what is sin. Paul also established a
@ -73,25 +73,25 @@ damnation (Rom. 8:1) as long as you follow some simple steps. You are
eternally secure if you confessed Jesus and believed in the
resurrection. (Rom. 10:9).
9. For a full discussion on this, see “Paul Permits Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols” on page 118 et seq.
9. For a full discussion on this, see "Paul Permits Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols" on page 118 et seq.
Jesus’ teachings are not so attractive as Paul’s teachings in this
Jesus' teachings are not so attractive as Paul's teachings in this
regard. Jesus required you live a good life according to the
commandments in the Law. Anyone who taught against the validity of the
Law given Moses by God was least in the kingdom of heaven. Not one jot
or tittle from the Mosaic Law would pass away until heaven and earth
pass away. (Matt. 5:18). Jesus told the rich young man that if you
would “enter life,” obey the Ten Commandments. (Matthew 19:16-26);
would "enter life," obey the Ten Commandments. (Matthew 19:16-26);
(Mark 10:17-31); Luke 18:18-26). 10 If you violate the commandments,
Jesus required severe repentance from such sin to avoid being sent to
hell. ((Matt. 5:29), Matthew 18:8, and Mark 9:42-48). Jesus described
the repentance needed as ‘cutting off the body part ensnaring you to
sin.’
the repentance needed as 'cutting off the body part ensnaring you to
sin.'
Paul is much easier, and far more attractive. For Paul, by contrast,
when you sin against the Law, the issue is whether your conscience can
allow you to live with it. “Happy is he who does not condemn himself
in that thing which he allows.” (Rom. 14:22).
allow you to live with it. "Happy is he who does not condemn himself
in that thing which he allows." (Rom. 14:22).
Most of those in the world coming to Christ opt to follow the message
of Paul. They can even boast of their lack of perfection and bask in
@ -99,6 +99,6 @@ the feeling of being forgiven. Based on Paul, they are confident they
are destined for heaven regardless of never truly repenting from their
sin against the Law. They are sure they are heading for heaven despite
blatant disobedience to the Law of God, e.g., the duty to rest on the
true Sabbath. Paul has become a magnet for the modem Christian. Jesus’
true Sabbath. Paul has become a magnet for the modem Christian. Jesus'
message of righteousness in action, obedience to the Law, and severe
repentance after failure has lost all its appeal.

142
JWO_05_06_DenigrationoftheLawasGivenbytheAngels_0015.md

@ -4,24 +4,24 @@ Denigration of the Law as Given by the Angels alone gave it. Unlike
government officials, the angels must not have been ministers of God
when giving the Law. This is why the angels are not even on par with
government officials whose decrees (Paul says) must be followed as
God’s ministers.These statements are extremely troubling because Paul
God's ministers.These statements are extremely troubling because Paul
contradicts the Bible on two points: (a) his claim the Law was given
by angels; and (b) the Law given to Moses by angels was not worthy of
submission, implying the angels acted without God’s authority. To the
submission, implying the angels acted without God's authority. To the
contrary, the Bible is clear that the Law was given directly by God to
Moses. Furthermore, even if given by angels, Jesus says the angels of
heaven are always obeying God. 11 We would still obey a set of decrees
if we only knew angels of heaven were its author.
Have you ever looked carefully at Paul’s remarks? They require strict
Have you ever looked carefully at Paul's remarks? They require strict
scrutiny in light of the obvious heresy behind them.
11. The Lord’s Prayer asks that God’s will be done on earth “as it is done in heaven.” This implies the angels of heaven are in perfect obedience. The angels of which Jesus speaks are depicted as in heaven. See, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained 12 through angels by the hand of a mediator. (20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one. (21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. (22) But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor. (26) For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. (27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. (28) There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. (29) And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. (ASV)
11. The Lord's Prayer asks that God's will be done on earth "as it is done in heaven." This implies the angels of heaven are in perfect obedience. The angels of which Jesus speaks are depicted as in heaven. See, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained 12 through angels by the hand of a mediator. (20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one. (21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. (22) But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (23) But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. (24) So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (25) But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor. (26) For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. (27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. (28) There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. (29) And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. (ASV)
Above, Paul starts out his attack on obeying the Law by saying it was
“ordained by angels through the hands of a mediator,” i.e., Moses. ((Gal. 3:19).)
"ordained by angels through the hands of a mediator," i.e., Moses. ((Gal. 3:19).)
12. The Greek word Paul uses for the angels’ activity is diageteis. It
12. The Greek word Paul uses for the angels' activity is diageteis. It
means arrange, set in order, often instruct or command. It refers back
to ho Nomos, the Law. The Nomos was commanded dia (through) aggelos
{i.e., Angels )?
@ -37,23 +37,23 @@ nature of the entire Hebrew Scriptures to make this a very bad thing.
Paul does this by a fanciful re-telling of the Bible story of
Abraham. Paul says the bondage of the Law now belongs to the son
Ishmael produced by Abraham and Hagar. The Law thus carries a curse on
Hagar’s child Ishmael. Paul’s ideas were a total invention, having no
basis in the Scripture itself. Then Paul says Hagar’s son Ishmael
corresponds with Israel of Paul’s day. This likewise was pure
Hagar's child Ishmael. Paul's ideas were a total invention, having no
basis in the Scripture itself. Then Paul says Hagar's son Ishmael
corresponds with Israel of Paul's day. This likewise was pure
fiction. Paul then reasons those Jews under the Law at Mount Sinai are
now “by an allegory” represented by Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Paul
now "by an allegory" represented by Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Paul
next says Israel, which now corresponds to Ishmael, is cursed to have
to follow the Law of Moses. (This is what I call The Great
Inversion). Mixed in with this, Paul brings up again that the Law was
given by angels to a mediator (Moses), not by God himself. So here
Paul wonders why anyone wants to submit to those who are “not gods?”
Paul wonders why anyone wants to submit to those who are "not gods?"
i.e., both claims are completely contradictory of the Bible. Why?
Because the Law was given to the Sons of Israel on Mount Sinai by
God’s own voice (not angels) through the mediator
God's own voice (not angels) through the mediator
Moses. ((Exod. 20:22).) The son of Abraham and Hagar is
Ishmael. (Gen. 15:16). The son of Abraham and Sarah is
Isaac. (Gen. 17:19). It is with Isaac’s “seed” that God will fulfill
an “everlasting covenant.” (Gen. 17:19. ) 14 Isaac’s son with Rebekah
Isaac. (Gen. 17:19). It is with Isaac's "seed" that God will fulfill
an "everlasting covenant." (Gen. 17:19. ) 14 Isaac's son with Rebekah
was Jacob. (Gen. 25:26). Israel was the new name God gave
Jacob. (Gen. 32:28). Ishmael was never given the Law. Instead, he and
his mother were cast out by Abraham into the desert. (Gen. 21:14). The
@ -62,14 +62,14 @@ Hagar. (Exod. 20).
TABLE 2. The Great Inversion
| Paul’s “Allegory” | Bible’s View |
| Hagar’s son is “bom after the flesh.” (Gal. 4:23). | Hagar’s son is Ishmael. (Gen. 15:16). |
| Hagar bore sons “unto bondage”\\(Gal. 4:24). | Hagar and Ishmael were cast out into the desert. (Gen.21:14). |
| This son (Ishmael) has a “covenant” of bondage at Sinai. (Gal. 4:24). “Jerusalem... is in bondage with her children.” (Gal.4:25). | The covenant at Sinai was with the sons of Israel, not Ishmael. (Exod. 20:22). The Law was given at Sinai to the sons of Israel. ((Exod. 20).) |
| Sarah’s children are children of the “freewoman.” (Gal. 4:22). “Jerusalem that is above is free.” (Gal. 4:26). Christians are children of the freewoman. (Gal. 4:31). Sarahs children are not bound to the Law, only the sons of Hagar are bound to the Law. | Sarah’s son was Isaac, whose son\\Jacob had his name changed by God to Israel. (Gen. 17:19, 32:28). The\\Law was given to the Sons of Sarah, not Hagar. The children of Sarah were bound by God to the Law. ((Exod. 20)). |
13. “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.” ((Exod. 20:22), ASV.)
| Paul's "Allegory" | Bible's View |
| Hagar's son is "bom after the flesh." (Gal. 4:23). | Hagar's son is Ishmael. (Gen. 15:16). |
| Hagar bore sons "unto bondage"\\(Gal. 4:24). | Hagar and Ishmael were cast out into the desert. (Gen.21:14). |
| This son (Ishmael) has a "covenant" of bondage at Sinai. (Gal. 4:24). "Jerusalem... is in bondage with her children." (Gal.4:25). | The covenant at Sinai was with the sons of Israel, not Ishmael. (Exod. 20:22). The Law was given at Sinai to the sons of Israel. ((Exod. 20).) |
| Sarah's children are children of the "freewoman." (Gal. 4:22). "Jerusalem that is above is free." (Gal. 4:26). Christians are children of the freewoman. (Gal. 4:31). Sarahs children are not bound to the Law, only the sons of Hagar are bound to the Law. | Sarah's son was Isaac, whose son\\Jacob had his name changed by God to Israel. (Gen. 17:19, 32:28). The\\Law was given to the Sons of Sarah, not Hagar. The children of Sarah were bound by God to the Law. ((Exod. 20)). |
13. "And Jehovah said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven." ((Exod. 20:22), ASV.)
14. “I will establish my covenant with him for
14. "I will establish my covenant with him for
![Picture #28](images/img_0028.png)
@ -79,9 +79,9 @@ TABLE 2. The Great Inversion
![Picture #31](images/img_0031.png)
Paul thereby provides an “allegory” that is totally at odds with the
Paul thereby provides an "allegory" that is totally at odds with the
Biblical record. It is a 100% inversion of Scripture. No one has
liberty to break God’s promise to Israel by redefining to whom the
liberty to break God's promise to Israel by redefining to whom the
promise was given. Paul has redefined Israel to be Ishmael. He thereby
claims that Christians can inherit the promise to Isaac (father to
Israel) apart from the true seed of Isaac who Paul, in effect, puts
@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ with an agenda in hand. I can come to any outcome I want if I can
rewrite the passages. That is not Bible exegisis. This is
Bible-contradiction.
Not even a Prophet of God is given the power to make up stories—calling them analogies —that contradict Scripture to spin the Bible to fit a desired outcome. As the Bible itself says:
Not even a Prophet of God is given the power to make up stories-calling them analogies -that contradict Scripture to spin the Bible to fit a desired outcome. As the Bible itself says:
[Compare teachers] [t]o the Law and the Testimony [and], if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.
@ -114,37 +114,37 @@ inherit with the son of the freewoman. (31) Wherefore, brethren, we
are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. (ASV with
change in verse 8 as noted in fn 15.)
Paul clearly is referring to the angels in verse 8. He says ‘you’
desire to be in bondage to them who are “not gods.” This is because
Paul mentions that returning to obey the Law is being in “bondage
again.” So when Paul says being in bondage again to the Law is the
same as bondage to them who are “not gods,” there is only one
Paul clearly is referring to the angels in verse 8. He says 'you'
desire to be in bondage to them who are "not gods." This is because
Paul mentions that returning to obey the Law is being in "bondage
again." So when Paul says being in bondage again to the Law is the
same as bondage to them who are "not gods," there is only one
conceivable explanation. Paul is harkening back to (Gal. 3:19). There
he says the Law was ordained by angels. They are “no gods.” Paul thus
means the Galatians’ desire to be in ‘bondage’ to the Law is a desire
to be in bondage to those who are “not gods.”
he says the Law was ordained by angels. They are "no gods." Paul thus
means the Galatians' desire to be in 'bondage' to the Law is a desire
to be in bondage to those who are "not gods."
Paulunists such as Fowler concur this is Paul’s meaning in
Paulunists such as Fowler concur this is Paul's meaning in
4:8. However, they fail to note Paul is contradicting
Scripture. Commentators agree Paul’s point in (Gal. 4:8) is to
emphasize once more that the Law of Moses is “secondary” because of
its “indirect transmission” through angels rather than coming directly
Scripture. Commentators agree Paul's point in (Gal. 4:8) is to
emphasize once more that the Law of Moses is "secondary" because of
its "indirect transmission" through angels rather than coming directly
from God. 16
What makes the point unmistakable is that Paul repeats this idea in
the very next verse. It is not readily apparent in our common English
translations. Paul says in (Gal. 4:9) that the Galatians desire to be
subject again to the “weak and beggarly elements of the world.” What
subject again to the "weak and beggarly elements of the world." What
or who are elements of the world? Paul equates this desire to submit
to the Law as being in “bondage again” to these “elements.”
to the Law as being in "bondage again" to these "elements."
Previously, this was equated with submitting to angels
16. James Fowler, The Precedence of God’s Promises elements the same thing: angels. This is true in both Greek and Jewish thought.
16. James Fowler, The Precedence of God's Promises elements the same thing: angels. This is true in both Greek and Jewish thought.
One commentator points out that in Greek thought, the reference to
“elements of the world... likely [means] celestial beings...’
"elements of the world... likely [means] celestial beings...'
Likewise, in Jewish thought, elements of the world means angels. In
Vincent’s Word Studies on this verse, we read:
Vincent's Word Studies on this verse, we read:
The elements of the world are the personal, elemental spirits. This
seems to be the preferable explanation, both here and in Col
@ -154,72 +154,72 @@ presence (comp. Isa 63:9); the angel of adoration; the spirits of the
wind, the clouds, darkness, hail, frost, thunder and lightning, winter
and spring, cold and heat.
Thus, (Gal. 4:8) and 4:9 are both evoking (Gal. 3:19)’s message
Thus, (Gal. 4:8) and 4:9 are both evoking (Gal. 3:19)'s message
that the Law was ordained by angels, not God himself. Paul is chiding
them for wanting to be subject to
“We want the crown without the cross. We want the gain without the
"We want the crown without the cross. We want the gain without the
pain. We want the words of Christian salvation to be easy....But
that gospel is a false gospel, a treacherous lie. That easy access
gate doesn’t go to heaven. It says ‘Heaven’ but it ends up in hell.”
gate doesn't go to heaven. It says 'Heaven' but it ends up in hell."
J. MacArthur, Hard to Believe { 2003) at 12,14
17. Comment on Gal. 4:9, from New American Bible
![Picture #32](images/img_0032.png)
a Law that did not come from God. Hence they want to be in “bondage over again” to the weak and beggarly “celestial
beings.” 18
a Law that did not come from God. Hence they want to be in "bondage over again" to the weak and beggarly "celestial
beings." 18
TABLE 3. Who Are “no gods” and “elements” in Gal. 4:8, 9? Angels Galatians’ intended
TABLE 3. Who Are "no gods" and "elements" in Gal. 4:8, 9? Angels Galatians' intended
keeping of Law given How do we know Paul Galatians’ intended Moses is “bondage intends No Gods &
keeping of Law given How do we know Paul Galatians' intended Moses is "bondage intends No Gods &
Lawkeeping is again” to “elements.” Angelic Elements are
Lawkeeping is again" to "elements." Angelic Elements are
bondage to whom? (Gal. 4:9) Who are the true source of the
(Gal. 4:8) “elements”? Law of Moses?
(Gal. 4:8) "elements"? Law of Moses?
Because Paul says so in (Gal. 3:19). He says the Law of Moses was
“ordained” by angels through Moses as a Mediator. (Gal. 3:19). Thus,
continuing to obey the Law is bondage again to those who are “no gods”
and “weak and beggarly elements.”
"ordained" by angels through Moses as a Mediator. (Gal. 3:19). Thus,
continuing to obey the Law is bondage again to those who are "no gods"
and "weak and beggarly elements."
There is no misreading of Paul involved here. Luke, a companion of
Paul, repeats this in the words of Stephen in Acts 7:53. Stephen says:
“You received the Law as ordained by angels and did not keep it.”
"You received the Law as ordained by angels and did not keep it."
Barnabas, a companion of Paul, and author of Hebrews, refers likewise
to the “word spoken through angels .” (Heb. 2:2). Both Stephen and
to the "word spoken through angels ." (Heb. 2:2). Both Stephen and
Barnabas are making a misapplication of Scripture. It is correct to
say as Stephen does in Acts 7:35 “the angel... appeared to him
say as Stephen does in Acts 7:35 "the angel... appeared to him
18. The most troublesome of all solutions to save Paul from
contradicting Scripture is by Gill. He says the Law was given by “the
angel of the divine presence, the second person of the trinity.”
contradicting Scripture is by Gill. He says the Law was given by "the
angel of the divine presence, the second person of the trinity."
(Comment on Acts 7:38). Gill means Jesus. However, if you follow
Paul’s logic that the Law is inferior by having come from angels, and
submitting to it means you are subjecting yourself to those “who are
no gods” (Gal. 4:8), then if Gill is right, you have Paul affirming
Jesus was not God. If you accept Gill’s effort to save Paul, you have
Paul's logic that the Law is inferior by having come from angels, and
submitting to it means you are subjecting yourself to those "who are
no gods" (Gal. 4:8), then if Gill is right, you have Paul affirming
Jesus was not God. If you accept Gill's effort to save Paul, you have
Paul clearly being an apostate.
Those who are “no "Elements” are
Those who are "no "Elements" are
![Picture #33](images/img_0033.png)
### Does Paul Imply The Angels Lacked God’s Authority in Issuing the Law?
### Does Paul Imply The Angels Lacked God's Authority in Issuing the Law?
(Moses) in the bush.” (See (Exod. 3:2).) But it is incorrect to say that Hebrew Scripture indicate the Law was given by angels. Such a view contradicts Exodus chapter 20, and specifically Ex. 25:16, 21-22. This passage says God Himself gave the Law.
(Moses) in the bush." (See (Exod. 3:2).) But it is incorrect to say that Hebrew Scripture indicate the Law was given by angels. Such a view contradicts Exodus chapter 20, and specifically Ex. 25:16, 21-22. This passage says God Himself gave the Law.
Paul’s claim also directly contradicts Jesus. Our Lord said that “in
the bush,... God spake unto him.” ((Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.)
Paul's claim also directly contradicts Jesus. Our Lord said that "in
the bush,... God spake unto him." ((Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.)
In sum, Paul’s unmistakable point is that because the Law was ordained
In sum, Paul's unmistakable point is that because the Law was ordained
through angels, it is secondary. It does not deserve our
submission. Paul is asking the Galatians why do they want to be
subject to those who are “not gods.” They are “weak and beggarly elements.”
subject to those who are "not gods." They are "weak and beggarly elements."
However, we cannot ignore Paul’s view on the angels contradicts the
However, we cannot ignore Paul's view on the angels contradicts the
account in Exodus. There is no conceivable gap in Exodus chapter 20
that can ever justify Paul’s claim, as some Paulunists suggest to
that can ever justify Paul's claim, as some Paulunists suggest to
avoid the dilemma. Exodus chapter 20 directly quotes God giving the
Ten Commandments. Paul is flatly wrong.

32
JWO_05_07_DoesPaulImplyTheAngelsLackedGodsAuthorityinIssuingtheLaw__0016.md

@ -4,34 +4,34 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
When you examine other letters of Paul, it is clear Paul means in
Galatians that the angels lacked God s authority in giving the
Law. You can deduce this by looking at Paul’s comments in (Rom. 13:1)
Law. You can deduce this by looking at Paul's comments in (Rom. 13:1)
about our duty to submit to Roman authorities. Paul says they are
God’s ministers. By contrast, in Galatians chapters 3 and 4, we have
no duty to submit to the Law “ordained by angels.” In other words,
God's ministers. By contrast, in Galatians chapters 3 and 4, we have
no duty to submit to the Law "ordained by angels." In other words,
Paul gives the Roman governors a higher spiritual authority than angels.
In (Rom. 13:1), Paul says “Everyone must submit himself to the
governing authorities....” Paul explains why. The Roman rulers are
“the minister of God for your own good.” (Rom. 13:4, repeated twice.)
In (Rom. 13:1), Paul says "Everyone must submit himself to the
governing authorities...." Paul explains why. The Roman rulers are
"the minister of God for your own good." (Rom. 13:4, repeated twice.)
Next, look at (Gal. 3:19), 4:8-9. Paul says you should not submit to
the Law of Moses. It was merely ordained by angels. Paul says ‘do not
submit to those who are not gods.’ (Gal. 4:8). However, when we look
at Romans chapter 13, Paul says you should submit to the “governing”
(Roman) authorities as the “minister(s) of God.”
the Law of Moses. It was merely ordained by angels. Paul says 'do not
submit to those who are not gods.' (Gal. 4:8). However, when we look
at Romans chapter 13, Paul says you should submit to the "governing"
(Roman) authorities as the "minister(s) of God."
The implication arises that the angels must not have been acting as
God’s ministers when they gave the Law. If they were, Paul would tell
God's ministers when they gave the Law. If they were, Paul would tell
you to submit to the spiritual authority of these angels. They would
be at least on par with the Roman rulers. Paul said such rulers were
“the ministers of God.” You owe them obedience for “conscience sake.”
"the ministers of God." You owe them obedience for "conscience sake."
So why instead are Roman rulers deserving of submission but angels are
not? Why does Paul fault a desire to submit to the Law as seeking to
submit to those who are “not gods”—the angels? It must be Paul thought
the angels acted without God’s authority in giving the Law. That’s the
submit to those who are "not gods"-the angels? It must be Paul thought
the angels acted without God's authority in giving the Law. That's the
only explanation why you must submit to Roman rulers who are
“ministers of God” but not to the angels who supposedly gave the Law
"ministers of God" but not to the angels who supposedly gave the Law
of Moses. Paul must be understood as saying the angels gave the Law
without God’ authorization. In saying this, Paul certainly contradicts
without God' authorization. In saying this, Paul certainly contradicts
the Bible.

90
JWO_05_08_JudeFindsPaulsIdeasHeretical_0017.md

@ -2,89 +2,89 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Jude Finds Paul s Ideas Heretical
Paul calls angels “weak and beggarly elements” (Gal. 4:8). He is
Paul calls angels "weak and beggarly elements" (Gal. 4:8). He is
severely putting them down. Paul also implicitly slights the angels
for acting without authorization in bringing the Law of Moses to
us. (Gal. 3:19; 4:7-8).
Paul’s statements bring to mind Jude’s condemnation of those who make
“grace a license for immorality.” (Jude 4). Jude was also a brother of
Paul's statements bring to mind Jude's condemnation of those who make
"grace a license for immorality." (Jude 4). Jude was also a brother of
Jesus. He mentions modestly his heritage in Jude 1 by saying he was a
brother of James.
In warning us of teachers of a dangerous grace, Jude gives us a clue
to identify such teachers. Jude says these same grace-teachers are
also those who “rail at dignities.” (Jude 8). The word dignities is
literally glories in Greek. (JFB). Commentators concur Jude’s meaning
is angels. (Gill.) Thus, some translations say these “grace” teachers
“slander celestial beings.” (WEB). By Paul telling us that angels
issued the Law, not God, and that they are “weak and beggarly,” Paul
is “railing at the glories.” He is railing at the angels. Jude’s
also those who "rail at dignities." (Jude 8). The word dignities is
literally glories in Greek. (JFB). Commentators concur Jude's meaning
is angels. (Gill.) Thus, some translations say these "grace" teachers
"slander celestial beings." (WEB). By Paul telling us that angels
issued the Law, not God, and that they are "weak and beggarly," Paul
is "railing at the glories." He is railing at the angels. Jude's
letter appears directed at Paul on this point. This is especially
evident when Jude describes the message of dangerous grace.
### Jude’s Criticism of A Dangerous Pauline Grace Teaching
### Jude's Criticism of A Dangerous Pauline Grace Teaching
Jude warned of wolves in sheep clothing who “have secretly slipped in
among you.” (Jude 4). They are putting down the angels—slandering
them. (Jude 8). These false teachers are the same who teach “grace is
a license to immorality.” (Jude 4). Jude then defines this as a
teaching that once you are a Christian we do not risk “eternal fire”
(Jude 7) if we engage in “immorality” (Jude 4, 7).
Jude warned of wolves in sheep clothing who "have secretly slipped in
among you." (Jude 4). They are putting down the angels-slandering
them. (Jude 8). These false teachers are the same who teach "grace is
a license to immorality." (Jude 4). Jude then defines this as a
teaching that once you are a Christian we do not risk "eternal fire"
(Jude 7) if we engage in "immorality" (Jude 4, 7).
19. The Greek is active aorist participle of pisteuo. In context, it
means “having not trusted/believed.” See
means "having not trusted/believed." See
http://abacus.bates.edu/~hwalker/Syntax/PartAor.html (accessed
2005)(the aorist active participle for have means “having released.”)
2005)(the aorist active participle for have means "having released.")
We can further deduce what this teaching was by studying the warnings
Jude gave. Jude warns us from the example of Israel whom God “saved”
Jude gave. Jude warns us from the example of Israel whom God "saved"
initially from Egypt, but when they were afraid to enter the promised
land, all but two “not having believed” became lost (Jude 5). 19 Jude
warns us again from the example of the angels who “did not keep their
appropriate habitation” in heaven, but fell away by
land, all but two "not having believed" became lost (Jude 5). 19 Jude
warns us again from the example of the angels who "did not keep their
appropriate habitation" in heaven, but fell away by
disobedience. (Jude 6). The examples which Jude gives us are meant to
identify an initial salvation, even presence with God in heaven, that
is brought to nothing by sin/having lost faith. Thus, being initially
saved and even being in heaven itself is not a guarantee one will be
finally saved and not enter “eternal fire.” Those who teach to the
finally saved and not enter "eternal fire." Those who teach to the
contrary, and guarantee salvation no matter what sin you commit after
initially being saved, Jude says are false teachers who are “twice
dead”— meaning they were dead in sin, then born again, and died once
initially being saved, Jude says are false teachers who are "twice
dead"- meaning they were dead in sin, then born again, and died once
more by virtue of their apostasy. (Jude 12).
As a solution, Jude urges the reader to “keep yourselves...” (Jude
21). This reminds us of Jesus’ words that those who “keep on
listening” and “keep on following” cannot be snatched from Jesus’
As a solution, Jude urges the reader to "keep yourselves..." (Jude
21). This reminds us of Jesus' words that those who "keep on
listening" and "keep on following" cannot be snatched from Jesus'
hand. (John 10:27-29). Your security initially depends upon your
faithfulness to God. cf. (1Pet. 1:5) (“kept by the power of God
through faith/trust.”)
faithfulness to God. cf. (1Pet. 1:5) ("kept by the power of God
through faith/trust.")
Jude explains your keeping yourself is to be an active effort at
“contending earnestly”—a form of the word agonize —for the “faith”
delivered “one time for all time.” (Jude 3). By contrast, these false
teachers “ disown our only master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude
"contending earnestly"-a form of the word agonize -for the "faith"
delivered "one time for all time." (Jude 3). By contrast, these false
teachers " disown our only master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude
4). The Greek meaning is disown (Greek ameomai ). (Weymouth New
Testament). It means they were rejecting the authority of God’s word,
delivered “one time for all time.” It was not that they denied the
Testament). It means they were rejecting the authority of God's word,
delivered "one time for all time." It was not that they denied the
existence of God or Jesus, as some translations suggest. This is
underscored in Jude 8 where it says they “despise authority.” Instead,
in disrespect of God’s authority, these false teachers “speak proud
things” about themselves (Jude 16) and disown the authority of God and
underscored in Jude 8 where it says they "despise authority." Instead,
in disrespect of God's authority, these false teachers "speak proud
things" about themselves (Jude 16) and disown the authority of God and
the Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4).
In summary, Jude says we must not stray from the words of God and our
Lord Jesus by listening to these false teachers who rail at dignities
(angels), deny God’s authority (in giving the Law) and contradict
Jesus’ teachings, boast of their own accomplishments, and who give us
an assurance that God’s grace will protect us from any sin we commit
(angels), deny God's authority (in giving the Law) and contradict
Jesus' teachings, boast of their own accomplishments, and who give us
an assurance that God's grace will protect us from any sin we commit
after our initial salvation. (See website www.jesuswordsonly. com for
further discussion “Of Whom Did Jude Speak?”)
further discussion "Of Whom Did Jude Speak?")
Unless Stanley’s position in Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (1990)
Unless Stanley's position in Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (1990)
is wrong, Paul taught precisely what Jude condemns. Stanley insists
Paul teaches that once you confess Jesus and believe He resurrected,
you are saved ((Rom. 10:9)), and now there is “no condemnation” ever
you are saved ((Rom. 10:9)), and now there is "no condemnation" ever
possible again of such a Christian (Romans 8:1), no matter what sin
you commit. No sin that you commit can ever separate you from God
again. Your inheritance in heaven is guaranteed. See (2Cor. 5:19);
@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Eph. 1:13-14; 4:29-32; Col. 2:13-14; Phil. 1:6; 2Tim. 1:12; 1
Thess. 5:24; Rom. 5:1,9-10; 6:1, 811,23; 8:28-30,39.
Paul otherwise fits the characteristics of which Jude speaks. We have
already seen elsewhere that Paul denies God’s authority in giving the
already seen elsewhere that Paul denies God's authority in giving the
Law (ascribing it to weak and beggarly angels), that Paul boasts
unabashedly of his own accomplishments and that Paul routinely
contradicts the message of Jesus on salvation ( e.g ., the need to

20
JWO_05_09_JesusHimselfCondemnsPaulsUnderminingofMoses_Inspiration_0018.md

@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Jesus Himself Condemns Paul s Undermining of Moses ’ Inspiration
## Jesus Himself Condemns Paul s Undermining of Moses ' Inspiration
If you accept Paul’s views, then you have undermined the very
If you accept Paul's views, then you have undermined the very
authority necessary to trust in Christ. If one discredited the source
of Moses’ writings as delivered by “weak and beggarly” angels who are
“no gods,” Jesus said it is impossible to truly trust in Him. “If they
of Moses' writings as delivered by "weak and beggarly" angels who are
"no gods," Jesus said it is impossible to truly trust in Him. "If they
hear not Moses...neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the
dead.” (Luke 16:31). Trust in Moses’ words is the way to truly know
Jesus was Messiah. Jesus says this. Jesus says again “if you believed
Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46).
dead." (Luke 16:31). Trust in Moses' words is the way to truly know
Jesus was Messiah. Jesus says this. Jesus says again "if you believed
Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." (John 5:46).
If Paul were correct about the angels and the Law, then how do Jesus’
words make sense that trust in Moses ’ writings as inspired from God
is essential to faith in Jesus ? Jesus’ words make no sense if Paul is
If Paul were correct about the angels and the Law, then how do Jesus'
words make sense that trust in Moses ' writings as inspired from God
is essential to faith in Jesus ? Jesus' words make no sense if Paul is
correct. Paul takes away the key that Jesus says is necessary to truly
know and trust in Jesus. Something is seriously wrong in our tradition
that includes Paul.

38
JWO_05_10_PaulContradictsJesusToo_0019.md

@ -19,18 +19,18 @@ validity. In (Matt. 5:17-19) we read:
(ASV)
20. The Greek word is ginomai. Strong’s 1096 defines it as “to become”
i.e., “come to pass”; “to arise” i.e., “appear in history”; “to be
made, finish.” Some prefer to understand Jesus “finished” (which they
read as ‘completed’) “all things” required by the Law. What Jesus
20. The Greek word is ginomai. Strong's 1096 defines it as "to become"
i.e., "come to pass"; "to arise" i.e., "appear in history"; "to be
made, finish." Some prefer to understand Jesus "finished" (which they
read as 'completed') "all things" required by the Law. What Jesus
means is until all things prophesied in the Law and prophets appear in
history, i.e., they come to pass, the Law remains in effect. This is
evident from verse 17 where Jesus says He came to “fulfill” the "law
and the prophets.” The word there is pieroo. It means “to make
complete in every particular,” “fulfil” or “carry through to the end.”
(Thayer’s.) Thus, in context, Jesus first says He came to fulfill the
evident from verse 17 where Jesus says He came to "fulfill" the "law
and the prophets." The word there is pieroo. It means "to make
complete in every particular," "fulfil" or "carry through to the end."
(Thayer's.) Thus, in context, Jesus first says He came to fulfill the
prophesies (verse 17) and the Law and Prophecies remain in effect
until “all things” prophesied “come to pass” or “appear in history.”
until "all things" prophesied "come to pass" or "appear in history."
For more explanation, see the discussion in the text.
@ -38,41 +38,41 @@ Thus, Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from
following the Law. Jesus cannot be a false prophet under
(Deut. 13:5). Jesus said it remained valid until the Heavens and Earth
pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the
Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ’s Second Coming, according
Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according
to the Book of Revelation.
Some Paulunists respond by saying Jesus fulfilled all of the Law’s
Some Paulunists respond by saying Jesus fulfilled all of the Law's
demands at Calvary. They insist all the Law was dead letter
thereafter. There are several fundamental impossibilities with this
claim.
First, there are two “untils” in the same sentence: the Law shall not
pass away “ until the heaven and earth pass away. ..until all things
be accomplished.” One cannot ignore the first until, preferring to
First, there are two "untils" in the same sentence: the Law shall not
pass away " until the heaven and earth pass away. ..until all things
be accomplished." One cannot ignore the first until, preferring to
think instead the second until means the Law ends in just two more
years at the cross.
Second, this Pauline spin ignores the Law contains a Messianic
prophecy in (Gen. 3:15) which will only be fulfilled at the point that
the heavens and earth will pass away. This predicts a death blow to
Satan’s head by Messiah. However, this remains unfulfilled until the
Satan's head by Messiah. However, this remains unfulfilled until the
end of the Millennium which point happens to also coincide with the
passing of the heavens and the earth. (Rev. 20:7-10). Thus, this
Messianic prophecy of Genesis 3:15 remains unfulfilled until the
heavens and earth pass away. Thus, the Law remains in effect until all
things prophesied, including Satan’s final death blow, come to pass
things prophesied, including Satan's final death blow, come to pass
which is far off in our future.
This then proves the two until clauses were intended to identify the
identical point. There is no less time signified by Jesus’ adding the
second until (“until all things be accomplished”) as the Paulunist
identical point. There is no less time signified by Jesus' adding the
second until ("until all things be accomplished") as the Paulunist
tries to spin the passage.
Third, Jesus clearly intended the commands in the Law to remain valid
in toto until a point after Calvary. He combined His promise that not
one jot or tittle will pass with His insistence that whoever teaches
against following the least of the commandments in the Law would be
least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19)—the Christian epoch.
least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19)-the Christian epoch.
Thus, Jesus did not envision the Law expired a couple of years later
at Calvary. Rather Jesus saw it continuing until the passing of the

108
JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md

@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ God did not intend to bless Jews with the Law; and (3) we are free to
treat the Law as simply from Moses and disregard it entirely. Martin
Luther goes so far as to say these are valid reasons why Christians do
not have to obey the Law. I thus enjoy the very best of company in
understanding Paul’s words. The only problem is my companion so
understanding Paul's words. The only problem is my companion so
thoroughly rejects Moses that he does not see how what he is saying
makes himself an apostate, tripped up by Paul’s
makes himself an apostate, tripped up by Paul's
teachings. (Thankfully, Luther later repented. See page 106.)
In a sermon entitled How Christians Should Regard Moses given August
27, 1525, Martin Luther simply assumes Paul’s words are authoritative
27, 1525, Martin Luther simply assumes Paul's words are authoritative
on who truly spoke at Sinai. While Moses said it was God, and
Scripture calls this person God, Luther says it really meant angels
because Paul says this is who truly gave the Law. Listen how a man
@ -25,12 +25,12 @@ through an angel. This is not to say that only one angel was there,
for there was a great multitude there serving God and preaching to the
people of Israel at Mount Sinai. The angel, however, who spoke here
and did the talking, spoke just as if God himself were speaking and
saying, “I am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,”
etc. [Exod. 20:1], as if Peter or Paul were speaking in God’s stead
and saying, “I am your God,” etc. In his letter to the Galatians [3:19],
saying, "I am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,"
etc. [Exod. 20:1], as if Peter or Paul were speaking in God's stead
and saying, "I am your God," etc. In his letter to the Galatians [3:19],
Paul says that the law was ordained by angels.
21. Martin Luther, “How Christians Should Regard Moses,” Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament I (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960)
21. Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament I (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960)
Vol. 35 at 161-174.
That is, angels were assigned, in God's behalf, to give the law of
@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ ignoring that Jesus Himself said that God was
the direct deliverer of the Law from the burning bush. Having planted
a false seed to distance God from the Law, Luther next begins talking
as if God did not give the Law. Because Jesus is God, Luther’s next
as if God did not give the Law. Because Jesus is God, Luther's next
remark has all the earmarks of someone who has not thought through the
implications of his statement:
@ -53,12 +53,12 @@ implications of his statement:
will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer.
But it is not Moses who gave the Law. Nor did angels. It was Jesus who
is the “I AM” who gave the Law. (Ex. 3:14, “tell them I AM sent you”;
John 8:58, “before Abraham was, I AM”) Rewrite this and you can see
how incongruous Luther’s statement now appears:
is the "I AM" who gave the Law. (Ex. 3:14, "tell them I AM sent you";
John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM") Rewrite this and you can see
how incongruous Luther's statement now appears:
We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to
let [Jesus’s words to Moses] return and to let Christ [preached by
let [Jesus's words to Moses] return and to let Christ [preached by
Paul] be torn out of our hearts. We will not have [I AM who is
Jesus who gave the Law] as ruler or lawgiver any longer.
@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ followed would be least in the kingdom of heaven? (Matt. 5:19).
### Luther Was Sometimes On the Right Track In This Sermon
In fairness to Luther, at other times in the same sermon, Luther’s
In fairness to Luther, at other times in the same sermon, Luther's
answer on whether the Law applies to us is to examine whether the
passage is addressed to Jews alone. This is the only correct
limitation. For example, if a command is solely to Jews, such as the
@ -88,20 +88,20 @@ entirety, but rather because the circumcision command was limited to
Jews whom James later told Paul must still, as converts to Christ,
follow the circumcision command. (Acts 21:21,25).
23. However, if a Gentile chose to enter the Temple proper of Jerusalem, Ezekiel says even “strangers” must be circumcised. (Ez. 44:9).
23. However, if a Gentile chose to enter the Temple proper of Jerusalem, Ezekiel says even "strangers" must be circumcised. (Ez. 44:9).
24. The KJV atypically accepts one late textual corruption. This is in James’ mouth in Acts 15:24. This makes it appear James said the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles. The KJV has it that James says some have tried “subverting your souls, saying. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law. to whom we gave no such commandment.” (Act 15:24). However, the ASV and NIV correctly omits “ye must be circumcised and keep the law,” saying instead some tried “subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment.” Why did the KJV add the above bolded words? The UBS’ Greek New Testament (4th Ed) says this entire phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175 (pg. 476), which dates from the Tenth Century A.D. (pg. 17). The phrase “keep the Law” first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius (pg. 467). Amphilochius died “after 394,” and this copy of the Apostolic Constitutions is dated to “about 380” (pg. 31.) All the earlier texts omit both changes to Acts 15:24.
24. The KJV atypically accepts one late textual corruption. This is in James' mouth in Acts 15:24. This makes it appear James said the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles. The KJV has it that James says some have tried "subverting your souls, saying. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law. to whom we gave no such commandment." (Act 15:24). However, the ASV and NIV correctly omits "ye must be circumcised and keep the law," saying instead some tried "subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment." Why did the KJV add the above bolded words? The UBS' Greek New Testament (4th Ed) says this entire phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175 (pg. 476), which dates from the Tenth Century A.D. (pg. 17). The phrase "keep the Law" first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius (pg. 467). Amphilochius died "after 394," and this copy of the Apostolic Constitutions is dated to "about 380" (pg. 31.) All the earlier texts omit both changes to Acts 15:24.
That James was following this principle is evident again when he
imposed on Gentiles prohibitions on eating certain animals with their
blood still in it (Acts 15:20).The Law of Moses said this food-rule
applied not only to Israelites but also to ‘strangers’ in the
applied not only to Israelites but also to 'strangers' in the
land. ((Lev. 17:10),12 (food with blood).) James likewise adds that
Gentiles must refrain from fornication. James no doubt had the Hebrew
meaning of that word in mind, which meant adultery. Once again, we
find this command against adultery was stated in Leviticus to apply
not only to Jews, but also to “strangers that sojourn in Israel.”
not only to Jews, but also to "strangers that sojourn in Israel."
(Lev. 20:2, 10.) 26
Was James following Scripture in making this distinction? Yes,
@ -118,12 +118,12 @@ then of the Law of Moses which applies to non-Jews it would primarily
be the open-ended Ten Commandments as well as sojourner-specific
provisions in Leviticus chapters 19 and 20 and 24:13-24, and
(Exod. 12:19) (prohibition on leaven during feast of unleavened
bread)” which Jesus alludes to many times. These are commands that do
not introduce themselves as commands to only Israelites. If James’
bread)" which Jesus alludes to many times. These are commands that do
not introduce themselves as commands to only Israelites. If James'
approach is valid, then all the fuss about the Law as some terrible
burden is a non-starter. The burden on Gentiles is quite insignificant
if we follow the distinction in the Law of Moses itselfbetween “sons
of Israel” and “sojourners” as James was obviously doing. The alleged
if we follow the distinction in the Law of Moses itselfbetween "sons
of Israel" and "sojourners" as James was obviously doing. The alleged
burdensome nature of the Law on Gentiles was a red herring all along.
25. See page 138 et seq.
@ -133,13 +133,13 @@ burdensome nature of the Law on Gentiles was a red herring all along.
James thus did not add to the Law. Instead, he refused to apply
Israel-only principles to Gentiles. He kept to the strict letter of
the Law. James says the reason to maintain this distinction of Jew
versus Gentile in the New Covenant is so that “we trouble not them
that from among the Gentiles turn to God.” (Acts 15:19). His ruling
versus Gentile in the New Covenant is so that "we trouble not them
that from among the Gentiles turn to God." (Acts 15:19). His ruling
also complied with (Deut. 4:2).
So if James is right, when Jesus says “Whosoever therefore shall break
So if James is right, when Jesus says "Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19), Jesus meant us to
called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19), Jesus meant us to
understand as to Gentiles, that no obedience would be required as to
Israel-only commands (unless Jesus extended them). And if James is
right, when Jesus says whoever teaches you to obey the least command
@ -154,10 +154,10 @@ Law itself (unless a prophet, such as Jesus, added the command,
pursuant to Deut. 18:15).
27. Some argue that the Ten Commandments (Decalogue) are not
open-ended, implied from (Exod. 20:2) which says “I...brought you out
of the Land of Egypt.” This is largely irrelevant. You can find
open-ended, implied from (Exod. 20:2) which says "I...brought you out
of the Land of Egypt." This is largely irrelevant. You can find
specific mention of most of the Ten Commandments imposed on
sojourners: blasphemy — using God’s name in vain (Lev. 24:16; Num
sojourners: blasphemy - using God's name in vain (Lev. 24:16; Num
15:30); murder (Lev. 24:17); Sabbath-breaking (Deut. 5:12-15;
Lev. 25:6; Exo 23:12); adultery (Lev. 20:2, 10), etc. Even if the
Decalogue as a whole does not apply, Bonhoeffer says Jesus extended
@ -170,11 +170,11 @@ applications of the principle behind the lessons about the old and new
cloth and the old and new wineskin. (Matt. 9:16-17). Combining the two
items in each case makes things worse, and fails to preserve the old
sideby-side with the new. The new cloth put on old clothing causes a
“worse rent.” New wine in an old wineskin causes the wine to be
“spilled and the skins perish.”
"worse rent." New wine in an old wineskin causes the wine to be
"spilled and the skins perish."
James similarly speaks that putting the Israel-only commands upon
Gentiles is “trouble” for those “turning to God.” You cause more
Gentiles is "trouble" for those "turning to God." You cause more
problems that you solve by doing so. The new cloth is not of the same
inherent material as the old cloth, and lacks the same elasticity. It
cannot be stretched as far as the old. The Jew can be pushed further
@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ be pressed to follow the Israel-only provisions; the pressure will
force them out of the wineskin.
28. Passover dinner, which precedes the feast of unleavened bread, is
optional for the Sojourner. However, if he “will keep it,” then the
optional for the Sojourner. However, if he "will keep it," then the
Sojourner has to be circumcised. (Exod. 12:48; Num. 9:14). Thus,
Passover was an honor for a nonJew sojourner to celebrate. If he chose
to do so, he must be circumcised. As discussed in Appendix C, Jesus
@ -217,14 +217,14 @@ the Law given Moses. Luther says:
The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the
commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a
teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver — unless he
teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver - unless he
agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law . 30
Here you see how one falls into apostasy. No longer do you accept the
Law given to Moses to define what is a false prophet. Thus, you have
accepted a set of new teachings that are beyond the reach of God’s
accepted a set of new teachings that are beyond the reach of God's
prior revelation to test its validity. Luther thereby became in 1525
totally antinomian — making the validity of principles in the Mosaic
totally antinomian - making the validity of principles in the Mosaic
Law turn on the superior validity of what Luther regarded as New
Testament writings but only if also confirmed by natural law.
@ -232,26 +232,26 @@ Please note, however, that later from 1532 to 1537 Luther reversed his
position on the Law. He denounced antinomianism in the Antinomian
Theses (1537). He said a Christian can spiritually die and become like
a non-Christian. To revive, they must examine themselves by the Ten
Commandments, and repent from sin. Luther’s Catechisms of late
1531-1532 (which the Lutheran church uses to this day) state Jesus’
Commandments, and repent from sin. Luther's Catechisms of late
1531-1532 (which the Lutheran church uses to this day) state Jesus'
doctrine on salvation and the Law while ignoring Paul's doctrines
(except on how to treat government officials, wives, etc.) For this
reason, evangelicals condemn Luther’s Catechisms. Miles Stanford said
the “Lutheran Church” turned into “legalism” by adopting an
“unscriptural application of ‘the law as the rule of life’ for the
believer.” Likewise, Pastor Dwight Oswald regards Luther’s Catechism
as making Luther so at odds with Paul’s doctrines that even Luther
reason, evangelicals condemn Luther's Catechisms. Miles Stanford said
the "Lutheran Church" turned into "legalism" by adopting an
"unscriptural application of 'the law as the rule of life' for the
believer." Likewise, Pastor Dwight Oswald regards Luther's Catechism
as making Luther so at odds with Paul's doctrines that even Luther
must be deemed lost and responsible for having led countless numbers
to perish in hell. Similarly, Calvinists at Calvin College skewer
Luther’s 1531 edition of his catechism for departing from the faith he
Luther's 1531 edition of his catechism for departing from the faith he
previously taught so boldly. 34
30. Luther repeats this statement later in his 1525 sermon: “In the
30. Luther repeats this statement later in his 1525 sermon: "In the
first place I dismiss the commandments given to the people of
Israel. They neither urge nor compel me. They are dead and gone ,
except insofar as I gladly and willingly accept something from Moses,
as if I said, ‘This is how Moses ruled, and it seems fine to me, so I
will follow him in this or that particular.’”
as if I said, 'This is how Moses ruled, and it seems fine to me, so I
will follow him in this or that particular.'"
31. Martin Luther, Don't Tell Me That! From Martin Luther s Antinomian
Theses (Lutheran Press: 2004).
@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ However, prior to this radical switch, Luther was willing to endorse
everything Paul said. Luther inspired by Paul said the angels gave the
Law; the Law was a curse on Jews; Jesus never intended the Law applies
to non-Jews who follow Him; and the Law is dead and we only follow
those aspects that coincide with reason (‘natural law’) if re-affirmed
those aspects that coincide with reason ('natural law') if re-affirmed
in the New Testament. Accordingly, unless Luther in 1525 misread Paul,
Paul must be understood to have thrown off the entire Law by
denigrating its origin and purpose. I therefore enjoy the very best of
@ -270,20 +270,20 @@ company in my reading Paul the same way.
But we can take heart from the fact that Luther later made a radical
separation from his own earlier antinomianism. Luther must have
finally seen the error of the doctrine Luther deduced from
Galatians. In fact, it appears no coincidence that Luther’s switch
Galatians. In fact, it appears no coincidence that Luther's switch
quickly followed his lecture on Galatians. For in that epistle, we
have Paul’s most virulent anti-Law writings, with Paul’s rationale
have Paul's most virulent anti-Law writings, with Paul's rationale
clearly exposed in (Gal. 4:22) ff. With such new conviction, Luther
had the courage to reform himself. That’s the best explanation for why
we find Jesus’ Words Only emerging in Luther’s Catechisms. Luther made
had the courage to reform himself. That's the best explanation for why
we find Jesus' Words Only emerging in Luther's Catechisms. Luther made
one more radical revolution, once more willing to face the charge of
being a heretic. This time, however, it was for basing his core
doctrine on Jesus’ words only.
doctrine on Jesus' words only.
32. Quoted in Bob Nyberg’s Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism A Matter of Law Versus Grace, reprinted online at
32. Quoted in Bob Nyberg's Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism A Matter of Law Versus Grace, reprinted online at
http://4himnet.com/xobnyberg/dispensationalismOl.html.
33. See Pastor Dwight Oswald, “Martin Luther's Sacramental Gospel,” Earnestly Contending For The Faith (Nov-Dee. 1997). See also, Lutheran Heresy at
33. See Pastor Dwight Oswald, "Martin Luther's Sacramental Gospel," Earnestly Contending For The Faith (Nov-Dee. 1997). See also, Lutheran Heresy at
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com.
34. Calvinists thereby find the 1531 Catechism defective spiritually. See Calvin College at

34
JWO_05_12_WhatAboutPro-LawCommentsbyPaul__0021.md

@ -6,50 +6,50 @@ Messianic Christians hallow the Law today. They regard the Law of
sacrifice completed in Yeshua (Jesus).
They have a variety of verses they like to cite from Paul to prove he
did not abrogate the entire Law. Their view on the Law’s ongoing
did not abrogate the entire Law. Their view on the Law's ongoing
validity is certainly a minority view. Messianics are regarded in this
respect as borderline-heretical by many other Christians. However,
Messianics are not deemed un-Christian. The Messianics are thus
tolerated by mainstream Christianity. I suspect when Paulunist
Christians realize they are about to lose Paul’s validity, they might
Christians realize they are about to lose Paul's validity, they might
cite these Pauline pro-Law verses (which Messianics cite) as a last
gasp to save Paul. So let us examine these verses which the Messianics
cherish.
First, Paul said that by faith we “establish the Law.” (Rom. 3:31).
Elsewhere, Paul says “Wherefore the Law is holy, and the Commandment
is holy, and just and good.” (Rom.7:12). The Messianics even cite the
First, Paul said that by faith we "establish the Law." (Rom. 3:31).
Elsewhere, Paul says "Wherefore the Law is holy, and the Commandment
is holy, and just and good." (Rom.7:12). The Messianics even cite the
self-contradictory verse:
“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the
keeping of the Commandments of God [is what matters].”
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the
keeping of the Commandments of God [is what matters]."
(1Cor. 7:19).
Lastly, Paul is also quoted by Luke as saying: “I worship the God of
my ancestors, retaining my belief in all points of the Law....'”
Lastly, Paul is also quoted by Luke as saying: "I worship the God of
my ancestors, retaining my belief in all points of the Law....'"
(Acts 24:14).
35. It is self-contradictory because circumcising Jewish children was a command of God. (Lev. 12:3).
However, to lift these snippets from Paul’s writings, and say this
explains all of Paul’s thought, is to mislead the listener. It allows
self-deception too. It would be like taking Paul’s statement in
(Rom. 3:23) that “all have sinned” and say that Paul means Jesus
However, to lift these snippets from Paul's writings, and say this
explains all of Paul's thought, is to mislead the listener. It allows
self-deception too. It would be like taking Paul's statement in
(Rom. 3:23) that "all have sinned" and say that Paul means Jesus
sinned too. Paul clearly regarded Jesus as sinless. To take
out-of-context (Rom. 3:23), and apply it to Jesus, would be
perverse. Likewise, to use these snippets to say Paul endorsed the
Law’s ongoing validity is just as perverse a lie as saying Romans 3:23
Law's ongoing validity is just as perverse a lie as saying Romans 3:23
proves Jesus was a sinner. If you cannot take Paul out-of-context in
(Rom. 3:23), you cannot take him out of context in (Rom. 3:31) or
(Rom. 7:21).
Also, Paul’s compliments about the Law’s good nature in (Rom. 3:31) do
Also, Paul's compliments about the Law's good nature in (Rom. 3:31) do
not mean much. We can all speak kindly of the dead. It is only by
agreeing that those principles are more than dead letter would Paul’s
agreeing that those principles are more than dead letter would Paul's
words have any bearing. Such words are absent in Paul.
Furthermore, in (1Cor. 7:19), Paul is clearly self-contradictory. He
says being circumcised is nothing. Paul then says keeping God’s
says being circumcised is nothing. Paul then says keeping God's
commands is everything. Since being circumcised is a command of God
for Jews, these are two logically incoherent statements. But this
self-contradiction is purposeful. What Paul is doing is using the word

52
JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md

@ -2,21 +2,21 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority
Finally, to prove Paul upheld the Law, Messianics cite to Luke’s
Finally, to prove Paul upheld the Law, Messianics cite to Luke's
quoting Paul in a tribunal (Acts 24:14). Paul tells Felix that he
“retains all my belief in all points of the Law.” If Paul truly made
this statement, it has no weight. It cannot overcome Paul’s view on
the Law’s nullification. Those antiLaw views are absolutely clear-cut,
"retains all my belief in all points of the Law." If Paul truly made
this statement, it has no weight. It cannot overcome Paul's view on
the Law's nullification. Those antiLaw views are absolutely clear-cut,
repeated in numerous letters with long picturesque explanations.
Rather, the quote of Paul in Acts 24:14 brings up the question of
Paul’s honesty, not his consistency with the Law. If Luke is telling
Paul's honesty, not his consistency with the Law. If Luke is telling
the truth, then Paul perjured himself before Felix. To prevent the
casual Christian from seeing this, Acts 24:14 is usually translated as
vaguely as possible.
However, pro-Paul Greek commentaries know Paul’s meaning. They try to
defend Paul’s apparent lack of ethics. They insist Paul was not out to
However, pro-Paul Greek commentaries know Paul's meaning. They try to
defend Paul's apparent lack of ethics. They insist Paul was not out to
trick Governor Felix. For example, Robertson in Word Pictures makes it
clear that Paul deflects the charge that he heretically seeks to
subvert the Law by asserting he believes in all of it:
@ -25,13 +25,13 @@ subvert the Law by asserting he believes in all of it:
in all the Law....A curious heretic surely!
Robertson realizes that Paul disproves to Felix any heresy of seeking
to turn people from further obedience to the Law by affirming “his
faith in all the Law....,” as Robertson rephrases it. Yet, Paul’s
to turn people from further obedience to the Law by affirming "his
faith in all the Law....," as Robertson rephrases it. Yet, Paul's
statement (if Luke is recording accurately) was a preposterous
falsehood. He did not believe in “all” points of the Law at
all. Robertson pretends this is not stretching the truth “at all.” The
reality is there is absolutely no truth in Paul’s statement. Paul did
not retain his “belief in all points of the Law,” as he claimed to
falsehood. He did not believe in "all" points of the Law at
all. Robertson pretends this is not stretching the truth "at all." The
reality is there is absolutely no truth in Paul's statement. Paul did
not retain his "belief in all points of the Law," as he claimed to
Felix.
This account of Luke represents Paul making such an outrageous
@ -41,31 +41,31 @@ believe Luke was out to embarrass Paul in Acts ? 6
If we must believe Luke is a malicious liar in order to dismiss that
Acts 24:14 proves Paul is guilty of perjury, then this also undercuts
the reliability of all of the Book of Acts. If so, then where does
Paul’s authority come from any more?
Paul's authority come from any more?
36. John Knox recently suggested Luke-Acts was written to bring Paul down and thereby counteract Marcion. (Knox, Marcion, supra, at 11439.) If so, then it was Paul’s own friend Luke who saw problems with Paul and presented them in a fair neutral manner. On their friendship, see 2Cor. 8:18; Col. 4:14; 2Tim. 4:11.
36. John Knox recently suggested Luke-Acts was written to bring Paul down and thereby counteract Marcion. (Knox, Marcion, supra, at 11439.) If so, then it was Paul's own friend Luke who saw problems with Paul and presented them in a fair neutral manner. On their friendship, see 2Cor. 8:18; Col. 4:14; 2Tim. 4:11.
### How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul’s Authority
### How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority
Luke alone in Acts preserves the accounts of Paul’s vision of
Jesus. That is the sole source for what most agree is Paul’s only
Luke alone in Acts preserves the accounts of Paul's vision of
Jesus. That is the sole source for what most agree is Paul's only
authority to be a teacher within the church. The visionexperience
nowhere appears in Paul s letters. If Luke is a liar in Acts 24:14,
why should we trust him in any of the three vision accounts which
alone provide some authority for Paul to be a ‘witness’ of Jesus?
alone provide some authority for Paul to be a 'witness' of Jesus?
As a result, the Paulunists are caught in a dilemma. If Paul actually
said this in Acts 24:14, he is a liar. If Paul did not say this, then
Luke is a liar. But then Paul’s sole source of confirmation is
Luke is a liar. But then Paul's sole source of confirmation is
destroyed. Either way, Paul loses any validity.
Escapes from this dilemma have been offered, but when analyzed they
are unavailing. If Paul made this statement, he clearly was lying to
Felix.
37. The literal Greek means: “I worship the God of our Fathers,
37. The literal Greek means: "I worship the God of our Fathers,
continuing to believe [present participle active] in all things which
are according [kata] to the Law and in the prophets.” The ASV follows
are according [kata] to the Law and in the prophets." The ASV follows
this translation. Some Paulunists emphasize the word according in the
verse. They argue Paul means to reject anything that is no longer in
agreement with the Law. Thus, Paul is read to mean that he only
@ -87,14 +87,14 @@ the statement in a court of Law.
Thus, Acts 24:14 cannot be cited to prove the truth of what Paul
asserted. Instead, it raises an unsolvable dilemma. Either Luke is
lying or Paul is lying. This means Acts 24:14 proves the impossibility
of accepting Paul’s legitimacy whichever way you answer the
of accepting Paul's legitimacy whichever way you answer the
dilemma. If Luke is lying here, it undermines all of Acts, upon which
Paul’s authority as a witness rests. If Paul is lying (and Luke is
Paul's authority as a witness rests. If Paul is lying (and Luke is
telling the story truthfully), then Paul is disqualified ipso facto
because he is committing perjury. (Acts 24:14) proves to be a passage
that unravels Paul’s authority any way you try to resolve it.
that unravels Paul's authority any way you try to resolve it.
Bless the Messianics. They cited (Acts 24:14) to insist Paul was
upholding Torah. What they did is bring to everyone’s attention a
upholding Torah. What they did is bring to everyone's attention a
verse whose very existence destroys viewing Paul as a legitimate
teacher.

48
JWO_05_14_DidGodEverRespondToPaulsTeachingsontheLawsAbrogation__0023.md

@ -2,19 +2,19 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Did God Ever Respond To Paul s Teachings on the Law s Abrogation?
We already saw, Paul says that “Circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing....” (1Cor. 7:19).
We already saw, Paul says that "Circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing...." (1Cor. 7:19).
Then consider thee following command in Ezekiel: if one “uncircumcised
in flesh [is caused] to be in my sanctuary, to profane it,” then it is
an “abomination.” ((Ezek. 44:9).) If uncircumcision became nothing
Then consider thee following command in Ezekiel: if one "uncircumcised
in flesh [is caused] to be in my sanctuary, to profane it," then it is
an "abomination." ((Ezek. 44:9).) If uncircumcision became nothing
after the Cross, then a Gentile was free to ignore this command and
enter the Temple.
Did a Gentile friend of Paul ever trust this principle to the point of
violating the middle wall of the Temple, which kept the Gentiles
outside the Temple? We will see that this is precisely what took place
in 58 A.D. We will also see how God responded, proving God’s legal
in 58 A.D. We will also see how God responded, proving God's legal
principles on what abominates had not evaporated at the Cross in 33 A.D.
What happened is that in 58 A.D., Trophimus, an uncircumcised Gentile
@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Jerusalem. (Acts 21:28-29). Trophimus was indeed a close companion of
Paul. (Acts 20:4; 2 Tim.4:20). Yet, Paul said his accusers merely
found him (Paul) purifying himself in the temple. (Acts 24:18). This
was the only inadequacy Paul cited to the charge that he (Paul) was
responsible for Trophimus’ profaning the Temple. Paul did not make any
responsible for Trophimus' profaning the Temple. Paul did not make any
stronger refutation such as that Trophimus had not breached the middle
wall of the Temple, evidently because Paul knew that charge was true.
@ -40,33 +40,33 @@ prophet Ezekiel. Where did Trophimus learn such new principle that
could give him such liberty?
There is little doubt that Trophimus, a travelling companion of Paul,
must have relied upon Paul’s doctrine. First, Paul said that
“circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.” (1
must have relied upon Paul's doctrine. First, Paul said that
"circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing." (1
Cor. 7:19). Lastly and most important, Trophimus, an Ephesian, must
have been convinced he could pass this middle barrier because of
Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. In it, Paul taught God “has broken
down the middle wall of partition ” at the Temple, “having abolished
in his flesh... the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances....”
(Eph. 2:14-15). The true “habitation of God” is now the church, built
upon the “apostles and prophets.” (Eph.2:20-22).
Paul's letter to the Ephesians. In it, Paul taught God "has broken
down the middle wall of partition " at the Temple, "having abolished
in his flesh... the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances...."
(Eph. 2:14-15). The true "habitation of God" is now the church, built
upon the "apostles and prophets." (Eph.2:20-22).
Yet, was this middle wall abolished in God’s eyes? Or were the
Yet, was this middle wall abolished in God's eyes? Or were the
Prophetic words of Ezekiel still in place after the Cross of 33 A.D.?
In other words, would an uncircumcised Gentile inside the temple still
be an abomination standing in the Holy Place ? The answer is
yes. First, Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the “Law
or the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17). Also, Jesus said not until “heavens and
yes. First, Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the "Law
or the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17). Also, Jesus said not until "heavens and
earth pass away will one little jot or tittle of the Law pass
away....” (Matt. 5:18). In the Law, we read God promises that if we
“walk contrary to Me,” then “I will bring your sanctuaries unto
desolation .” (Lev. 26:27), (Lev. 26:31).
away...." (Matt. 5:18). In the Law, we read God promises that if we
"walk contrary to Me," then "I will bring your sanctuaries unto
desolation ." (Lev. 26:27), (Lev. 26:31).
38. Incidentally, this was the charge that Paul appealed to Caesar,
which caused his being taken to Rome. (Acts 25:8-11).
Thus, if the Law and Prophets were still in effect after the Cross,
then one would expect God would respond by desolating His own Temple
for Trophimus’ act. God’s word appears to require He desolate it in
for Trophimus' act. God's word appears to require He desolate it in
response to such a crime.
Indeed, history proves this took place. God did desolate His temple in
@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Indeed, history proves this took place. God did desolate His temple in
expire at the Cross. Instead, thirty-seven years later it was
vigorously enforced.
If Paul’s teachings misled Trophimus, look then at the horrible
consequences of trusting Paul’s views. Let’s learn from Trophimus’
mistake and only trust Jesus’ view on the Law’s continuing validity
If Paul's teachings misled Trophimus, look then at the horrible
consequences of trusting Paul's views. Let's learn from Trophimus'
mistake and only trust Jesus' view on the Law's continuing validity
until heaven and earth pass away. (Matt. 5:18).

42
JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md

@ -8,22 +8,22 @@ Paul is blunt in (Eph. 2:15),
(Rom. 7:13) et seq, and
(Gal. 3:19) et seq. The Law is abolished, done away with,
nailed to a tree, has faded away, and was only ordained by angels who
are no gods. If we were to cite Paul’s condemnations of the Law in one
are no gods. If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one
string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for
everyone. See 2Cor. 2:14 (“old covenant”); Gal. 5:1 (“yoke of
bondage”); Rom. 10:4 (“Christ is end of the law”); 2Cor. 3:7 (“law of
death”); Gal. 5:1 (“entangles”); Col. 2:1417 (“a shadow”); Rom. 3:27
(“law of works”); Rom. 4:15 (“works wrath”); 2Cor. 3:9 (ministration
of condemnation); (Gal. 2:16) (“cannot justify”); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give
life); (Col. 2:14) (“wiped out” exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 (“given by
everyone. See 2Cor. 2:14 ("old covenant"); Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of
bondage"); Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is end of the law"); 2Cor. 3:7 ("law of
death"); Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"); Col. 2:1417 ("a shadow"); Rom. 3:27
("law of works"); Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"); 2Cor. 3:9 (ministration
of condemnation); (Gal. 2:16) ("cannot justify"); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give
life); (Col. 2:14) ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 ("given by
angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial
beings/elements”).
beings/elements").
To save Paul from being a heretic, some claim Paul is talking against
false interpretations of the Law. But this ignores that Paul tears
away at the heart and soul of the Torah.
39. Martin Abegg, “Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and MMT,” Biblical Archaeological Review> (November/December 1994) at 52-53.
39. Martin Abegg, "Paul, 'Works of the Law,' and MMT," Biblical Archaeological Review> (November/December 1994) at 52-53.
He disputes it was given by God. He claims instead it was given by
angels. Paul says no one can judge you any longer for not keeping the
@ -32,25 +32,25 @@ clearly abolished the Sabbath. All efforts to save Paul that do not
grapple with these difficult passages are simply attempts at
self-delusion.
Rather, Calvin was correct when he said “this Gospel [of Paul] does
not impose any commands, but rather reveals God’s goodness, His mercy
and His benefits.”
Rather, Calvin was correct when he said "this Gospel [of Paul] does
not impose any commands, but rather reveals God's goodness, His mercy
and His benefits."
To Paul, faith was everything and a permanent guarantee of salvation. There was no code to break. There was supposedly no consequence of doing so for Abraham. We are Abraham’s sons. We enjoy this same liberty, so Paul teaches.
To Paul, faith was everything and a permanent guarantee of salvation. There was no code to break. There was supposedly no consequence of doing so for Abraham. We are Abraham's sons. We enjoy this same liberty, so Paul teaches.
Then how do we understand the Bible’s promise that the time of the New Covenant would involve putting the “Torah” on our hearts? ((Jer. 31:31) et seq.) How do we understand God’s promise that when His Servant (Messiah) comes, God “will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable”? ((Isa. 42:21) ASV/KJV.)
Then how do we understand the Bible's promise that the time of the New Covenant would involve putting the "Torah" on our hearts? ((Jer. 31:31) et seq.) How do we understand God's promise that when His Servant (Messiah) comes, God "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable"? ((Isa. 42:21) ASV/KJV.)
You have no answer if you follow Paul. He says you no longer have to
observe all God’s Law given Moses. You just choose to do what is
observe all God's Law given Moses. You just choose to do what is
expedient. You do not worry about the letter of the Law. You can,
instead, follow your own conscience. Whatever it can bear is
permissible.
How are the contrary verses about the Law in the New Covenant Age then explained? It is seriously asserted by commentators that when Christ returns, the Law of Moses will be re-established. Thus, prior to Paul, there was Law. After Paul but before Christ comes again, there is no Law. When Christ returns, the Law of Moses is restored. (See Footnote 20 on page 393). So it is: Law—No Law—Law. God is schizophrenic! It is amazing what people can believe!
How are the contrary verses about the Law in the New Covenant Age then explained? It is seriously asserted by commentators that when Christ returns, the Law of Moses will be re-established. Thus, prior to Paul, there was Law. After Paul but before Christ comes again, there is no Law. When Christ returns, the Law of Moses is restored. (See Footnote 20 on page 393). So it is: Law-No Law-Law. God is schizophrenic! It is amazing what people can believe!
Consequently, one cannot escape a simple fact: Paul’s validity as a teacher is 100% dependent on accepting his antinomian principles. Then what of (Deut. 13:5) which says someone with true signs and wonders must be ignored if he would seduce us from following the Law?
Consequently, one cannot escape a simple fact: Paul's validity as a teacher is 100% dependent on accepting his antinomian principles. Then what of (Deut. 13:5) which says someone with true signs and wonders must be ignored if he would seduce us from following the Law?
Paul even anticipated how to defend from this verse. Paul has shielded himself from this verse by ripping away all of the Law. He would not even acknowledge that we can measure him by (Deut. 13:5). This is part of the Law of Moses. Paul claims it was given by angels (Gal. 3:19). Paul says you are not to believe even an angel from heaven if it should contradict “my gospel” (Gal. 1:8). Hence, Paul would reject the test from Deuteronomy 13:5.
Paul even anticipated how to defend from this verse. Paul has shielded himself from this verse by ripping away all of the Law. He would not even acknowledge that we can measure him by (Deut. 13:5). This is part of the Law of Moses. Paul claims it was given by angels (Gal. 3:19). Paul says you are not to believe even an angel from heaven if it should contradict "my gospel" (Gal. 1:8). Hence, Paul would reject the test from Deuteronomy 13:5.
Yet, Paul has not escaped thereby. For Jesus in (Matt. 7:23)
reiterated (Deut. 13:1-5). In doing so, Jesus specifically warned of
@ -58,10 +58,10 @@ false prophets to follow Him that would teach anomia. They would come
with true signs and wonders. However, they are false because they
taught anomia. As discussed earlier, they would be workers of
negation of the Law. This is a legitimate dictionary definition of
the word anomia in the world’s best Greek lexicon—the LiddellScott
the word anomia in the world's best Greek lexicon-the LiddellScott
Lexicon. For a full discussion, see page 60 et seq.
Now Christians must ask themselves this question: do you really believe Jesus made all those warnings about false prophets who come with true signs and wonders yet who are workers of anomia (negation of Law) (Matt. 7:23) so we would disregard the protective principle of (Deut. 13:5)? So we would disregard even Jesus’ words in (Matt. 7:23)?
Now Christians must ask themselves this question: do you really believe Jesus made all those warnings about false prophets who come with true signs and wonders yet who are workers of anomia (negation of Law) (Matt. 7:23) so we would disregard the protective principle of (Deut. 13:5)? So we would disregard even Jesus' words in (Matt. 7:23)?
You can only believe this if you are willing to disregard Jesus. You
can only believe this if you then disregard the Law of Moses was given
@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Exodus chapters 19-20, 25. Jesus likewise says it was God in the bush
speaking to Moses. ((Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.)
Or will you allow Paul to convince you that the Law was given by
angels (Gal. 3:19) and thus Paul’s words are higher than of angels
angels (Gal. 3:19) and thus Paul's words are higher than of angels
(Gal. 1:8)? Will you be seduced to believe you are thus free to
disregard (Deut. 13:5)? And have you also somehow rationalized away
(Matt. 7:23), and its warnings of false prophets who bring anomia ?

100
JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md

@ -7,25 +7,25 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Jesus in (Rev. 2:6), 14 takes on those persons teaching the Ephesians
that it was acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Among them
Jesus says were the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans were an actual
historical group. They taught Paul’s doctrine of grace permitted them
historical group. They taught Paul's doctrine of grace permitted them
to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus commends the Ephesians for
refusing to listen to the Nicolaitans on the issue of eating meat
sacrificed to idols.
Yet the Nicolaitans were not merely deducing it was pennissible to eat
such meat from Paul’s doctrine of grace. Paul, in fact, clearly
such meat from Paul's doctrine of grace. Paul, in fact, clearly
teaches three times that there is nothing wrong per se in eating meat
sacrificed to idols. ((Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:4-13), and (1Cor. 10:19-29).
However, Jesus, as we will see, three times in Revelation says it is
flatly wrong. The Bible says when God commands something, we are not
free to “diminish” it by articulating our own exceptions. “What thing
free to "diminish" it by articulating our own exceptions. "What thing
soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add
thereto, nor diminish from it.” 1
thereto, nor diminish from it." 1
Paulunists claim that this prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to
idols (which was sold in meat markets) was not an absolute command. It
was flexible enough to fit Paul’s approach. Paul taught idol meat was
was flexible enough to fit Paul's approach. Paul taught idol meat was
perfectly acceptable unless someone else thought it was
wrong. Paulunists argue that the Jerusalem Council only meant to
prohibit eating such meat if it would undermine a weaker brother who
@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ thought it was wrong, as Paul teaches.
1. (Exod. 34:13) says Jews were to tear down the altars of the
Gentiles rather than make a covenant ( i.e ., a peace treaty). In Exo
34:15-16, God says if you prefer making a covenant and allow their
pagan altars, you risk “one call thee [to eat with him] and thou eat
of his sacrifice.” The command to destroy the pagan altars was so that
pagan altars, you risk "one call thee [to eat with him] and thou eat
of his sacrifice." The command to destroy the pagan altars was so that
Jews would avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols even inadvertently at
a meal at a Gentile home. This altar-destruction command also had the
indirect affect of preventing a Gentile from eating idol meat. For
@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ other foods. However, idol meat cannot be identified by
appearance. Thus, merely prohibiting eating such meat would not be
enough if God was displeased by you eating it unknowingly. Hence, to
prevent unknowing eating of such meat, God commands the destruction of
pagan altars. Thus, Paul’s allowance of eating such meat by not asking
pagan altars. Thus, Paul's allowance of eating such meat by not asking
questions is precisely what the Bible does not countenance. in
itself. It is also no less absolute a prohibition than the prohibition
on fornication. Had the Jerusalem Council ruling intended the
@ -59,68 +59,68 @@ interpretation.
In fact, the prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols was stated
three times in Acts. It was never once stated with an exception or
qualification. There is no hint that eating such meat was pennissible
in your private meals. In fact, when we later look at Jesus’ words in
in your private meals. In fact, when we later look at Jesus' words in
Revelation absolutely condemning such practice, Jesus is talking after
Paul’s words are written down. Had Jesus intended to affirm Paul’s
view that eating such meat is permissible, Jesus’ absolute directives
Paul's words are written down. Had Jesus intended to affirm Paul's
view that eating such meat is permissible, Jesus' absolute directives
against ever eating such meat were the wrong way to communicate
this. Jesus left no room to find hairsplitting exceptions.
This absolute prescription first appears at the Jerusalem Council in
Acts 15:20. Initially, James decided that “we write unto them, that
they abstain from the pollutions of idols....” (Acts 15:20). Second,
Luke then quotes James’ letter to the Gentiles as saying one of the
“necessary things” is “you abstain from things sacrificed to idols.”
Acts 15:20. Initially, James decided that "we write unto them, that
they abstain from the pollutions of idols...." (Acts 15:20). Second,
Luke then quotes James' letter to the Gentiles as saying one of the
"necessary things" is "you abstain from things sacrificed to idols."
(Acts 15:29). James reiterates this for a third and final time in Acts
chapter 21. James is reminding Paul what the ruling was at the
Jerusalem Council. He tells Paul that previously “we wrote giving
Jerusalem Council. He tells Paul that previously "we wrote giving
judgment that they [ i.e ., the Gentiles] should keep themselves from
things sacrificed to idols....” (Acts 21:25).
things sacrificed to idols...." (Acts 21:25).
James restates the principle unequivocally. skandalon) before the
children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit
fornication.” Jesus does not say the error was eating meat sacrificed
fornication." Jesus does not say the error was eating meat sacrificed
to idols only if you believed an idol was real. Nor did Jesus say it
was wrong only if the person involved thought eating such meat was
wrong. Jesus simply laid down a prohibition. Nothing more. Nothing
less. (Deut. 4:2) prohibits “diminishing” from God’s true inspired
less. (Deut. 4:2) prohibits "diminishing" from God's true inspired
words by making up exceptions.
In this (Rev. 2:14) passage, the use of the word skandalon is
important. In (Matt. 13:41-43), Jesus warned that on judgement day all
those ensnared ( skandalizo-ed ) will be gathered by the angels and
sent to the “fiery furnace.” Hence, Jesus was telling us in
sent to the "fiery furnace." Hence, Jesus was telling us in
(Rev. 2:14) that eating meat sacrificed to idols was a serious sin. He
called it a skandalon —a trap. It was a salvation-ending trap.
called it a skandalon -a trap. It was a salvation-ending trap.
Jesus reiterates the prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols in
(Rev. 2:20). Jesus faults the church at Thyatira for listening to a
false Jezebel who “teaches my servants to commit fornication, and Word
false Jezebel who "teaches my servants to commit fornication, and Word
Pictures confesses the Nicolaitans defended eating such meat based on
Paul’s gospel:
Paul's gospel:
These early Gnostics practiced licentiousness since they were not under law, but under grace. [Robertson’s Word Pictures on Rev. 2:14). 3
These early Gnostics practiced licentiousness since they were not under law, but under grace. [Robertson's Word Pictures on Rev. 2:14). 3
“You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who
"You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who
taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating meat
sacrificed to idols.”
sacrificed to idols."
Jesus in (Rev. 2:14)
2. Later, we will examine whether Jesus was identifying Paul in Rev.2:2 as a false apostle. See “Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as a False Apostle?” on page 215 et seq.
2. Later, we will examine whether Jesus was identifying Paul in Rev.2:2 as a false apostle. See "Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as a False Apostle?" on page 215 et seq.
3. Irenaeus around 180 A.D. wrote that Nicolas, their founder
“departed from sound doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating
indifference of both life and food.” (Refutation of All Heresies,
"departed from sound doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating
indifference of both life and food." (Refutation of All Heresies,
![Picture #34](images/img_0034.png)
Therefore, we see Jesus extols those who hate the Nicolaitan’s grace
Therefore, we see Jesus extols those who hate the Nicolaitan's grace
teaching which says Christians can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus
then condemns twice those who teach a Christian may eat meat
sacrificed to idols. Jesus is just as absolute and unwavering on this
prohibition as James is in Acts. When Jesus says it, we are not free
to “diminish” it by making up exceptions. (Deut. 12:32).
to "diminish" it by making up exceptions. (Deut. 12:32).
Notice too how three times James in Acts repeats the point. Then three times Jesus repeats the point in the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); Rev. 2:14-15 (Pergamum); (Rev. 2:20) (Thyatira)). In the New Testament, there is no command emphasized more frequently than the command against eating meat sacrificed to idols.
@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ significance. For Paul says three times that it is permissible to eat
meat sacrificed to idols, as discussed next. God wanted us to know for
a fact He is responding to Paul.
“To the pure, all things are pure.”
"To the pure, all things are pure."
Paul in Titus 1:15
@ -138,10 +138,10 @@ Paul in Titus 1:15
Paul clearly teaches three times that there is nothing wrong in itself
eating meat sacrificed to idols. ((Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:4-13), and 1
Corinthians 10:19-29). The first time Paul addresses the question of
“eating meat sacrificed to idols,” Paul answers: “But food will not
commend us to God; neither if we eat not....” (1Cor. 8:8). Paul then
"eating meat sacrificed to idols," Paul answers: "But food will not
commend us to God; neither if we eat not...." (1Cor. 8:8). Paul then
explained it is only necessary to abstain from eating such meat if you
are around a “weaker” brother who thinks an idol is something. (1
are around a "weaker" brother who thinks an idol is something. (1
Cor. 8:7, 8:10, 9:22). Then, and only then, must you abstain. The
reason is that then a brother might be emboldened to do something he
thinks is sinful. The brother is weak for believing eating meat
@ -149,11 +149,11 @@ sacrificed to an idol is wrong. This is thus a sin for him to eat,
even though you know it is not sinful to eat meat sacrificed to
idols. Thus, even though you know better than your weaker brother that
it is no sin to do so, it is better to abstain in his presence than
cause him to sin against his weak conscience and be “destroyed.”
cause him to sin against his weak conscience and be "destroyed."
(1Cor. 8:11). 4
“The first sin committed by man was not murder or adultery or
stealing; it was eating something they were told not to eat.”
"The first sin committed by man was not murder or adultery or
stealing; it was eating something they were told not to eat."
Gordon Tessler, Ph.D. The Genesis Diet
![Picture #35](images/img_0035.png)
@ -165,28 +165,28 @@ Paul is essentially laying down a principle on how to be considerate
of others who think it is wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. At
the same time, Paul insists as a matter of principle, there is nothing
wrong eating such meat. If you were instead the weaker brother, and
read Paul’s epistles on this topic, you certainly would walk away
read Paul's epistles on this topic, you certainly would walk away
knowing Paul teaches it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to
idols. You would even think your weak-mindedness on this issue should
be abandoned. You should no longer burden your conscience on your
brother who refrains due to your overly sensitive conscience. With
Paul’s instructions in hand, you would certainly know that it is
Paul's instructions in hand, you would certainly know that it is
pennissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. You can now get over your
undue and ill-founded concern about eating such meat.
4. Paul is thought to teach you should not take communion if one was
eating idol meat at a pagan service. In 1Cor. 10:20-21, Paul says you
cannot be partaker of the Lord’s table and the “table of devils.” This
cannot be partaker of the Lord's table and the "table of devils." This
was thus not a flat prohibition on eating idol meat. Most commentators
reconcile Paul to Paul by saying Paul means you cannot go to a pagan
sacrifice and eat the meat during a pagan service and still partake of
communion. There is still thus nothing inherently wrong in eating such
meat. In the context in which Paul says this, Paul also repeats his
famous axiom, “all things are lawful, but not all things are
expedient.” (1Cor. 10:23). Then Paul says when you buy food or eat a
stranger’s home, “ask no question for sake of your conscience.”
famous axiom, "all things are lawful, but not all things are
expedient." (1Cor. 10:23). Then Paul says when you buy food or eat a
stranger's home, "ask no question for sake of your conscience."
(1Cor. 10:25,27). Thus, Paul says it is best you not know what you are
eating. Don’t let your conscience wrong. There are no excuses,
eating. Don't let your conscience wrong. There are no excuses,
hairsplitting qualifications, situationalethics, or easy outs in
deciding whether to obey God. It is wrong and prohibited.
@ -204,15 +204,15 @@ unwittingly admits:
sacrificed to an idol, nevertheless out of consideration for
brothers and sisters in Christ for whom it
5. Kenneth Loy, Jr. in My Body His Temple: The Prophet Daniel’s Guide
to Nutrition (Aroh Publishing: 2001) at 69 writes: “ Idol Meat Is
5. Kenneth Loy, Jr. in My Body His Temple: The Prophet Daniel's Guide
to Nutrition (Aroh Publishing: 2001) at 69 writes: " Idol Meat Is
Clean ((Rom. 14) and (1Cor. 8)): God had forbidden idol meat
originally because it caused the children of Israel to go ‘whoring
after’ the gods of other nations. ((Exod. 34:15-16)). Since the
originally because it caused the children of Israel to go 'whoring
after' the gods of other nations. ((Exod. 34:15-16)). Since the
Gentiles were now equal in the sight of God, this restriction was no
longer necessary. Jewish Christians even preferred idol meat since it
was usually less expensive in the market place. ...Paul stipulates
another reason why idol meat is permitted'. 6
This pastor unwittingly destroys Paul’s validity for a person who
This pastor unwittingly destroys Paul's validity for a person who
wants to obey Jesus Christ.

62
JWO_06_02_PaulsAntinomianismonIdolMeatIssueversusJesus_0026.md

@ -7,11 +7,11 @@ eating meat sacrificed to idols? Jesus clearly threatens spewing out
of His mouth those committing such deeds.
Modern Paulunists find no problem. First, they apparently share the
young Luther’s view that the Book of Revelation is noncanonical. Thus,
they do not regard Jesus’ prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to
idols as a hurdle for Paul to overcome. Then what of Exodus’ commands
young Luther's view that the Book of Revelation is noncanonical. Thus,
they do not regard Jesus' prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to
idols as a hurdle for Paul to overcome. Then what of Exodus' commands
(Ex. 34:13-16) designed to prevent eating idol meat? Paulunists defend
Paul’s position that eating idol meat is permissible by saying the Law
Paul's position that eating idol meat is permissible by saying the Law
was abolished. They then insist this means that any legalistic notion
to not eat meat sacrificed to idols was abolished. In fact, these same
Paulunists ridicule any first century Christian who would have tried
@ -24,24 +24,24 @@ http://www.fpcboulder.org/Sermons/Sermonl27-02.htm
Dan Hill, Pastor of Southwood Bible Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shows
you that if you came to the conclusion in the first century that you
should not eat idol meat, you were in serious error. You were
violating Paul’s antinomian morality based on expediency. Pastor Hill
violating Paul's antinomian morality based on expediency. Pastor Hill
describes the error of such a first century crusader against eating
such meat:
So you start a crusade, you get a banner, get others to march, you
picket the temple and the shambles, you chant, you sing, you light
candles, you campaign against the sin of eating the idol’s meat.
candles, you campaign against the sin of eating the idol's meat.
And remember, you have some pretty good verses to use on this
matter. You can pull them out and get very dogmatic about what God
thinks (or what you think He thinks).
Then you go to Bible Class one day and there the Pastor is reading
Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. And you find out
Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. And you find out
that... you... have liberty [because Paul teaches]:
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient
[i.e., Paul’s axiom].’
[i.e., Paul's axiom].'
You were wrong, especially in trying to force your decision upon others.
@ -62,43 +62,43 @@ against eating such meat.
http://www.realtime .net/-wdoud/romans/rom2_6_.html)
What Pastor Hill is saying is that had he been alive in the first
century, he would admonish the ‘trouble-maker’ Christian. ‘Stop trying
to make people avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols! ’ Pastor Hill
century, he would admonish the 'trouble-maker' Christian. 'Stop trying
to make people avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols! ' Pastor Hill
would not admonish the one eating the meat. They are OK. He would
scold you if you said it was wrong to eat such meat.
Unwittingly, Pastor Hill helps us prove how to interpret Jesus’
response. Jesus is looking at Paul’s entire outlook on the Law. Paul’s
Unwittingly, Pastor Hill helps us prove how to interpret Jesus'
response. Jesus is looking at Paul's entire outlook on the Law. Paul's
broader message is because there is no Law any longer, it is
permissible to eat such meat. Paul, in fact, says James’ command in
permissible to eat such meat. Paul, in fact, says James' command in
Acts 15:20 against eating such meat is not binding. The Laws of Exodus
are not directed to God’s people. You apply an expediency test whether
are not directed to God's people. You apply an expediency test whether
to follow it or not. Jesus was the end of the Law, as Paul
says. (Rom. 10:4).
Jesus’ remarks prove Pastor Hill’s notion cannot possibly be true. Jesus is angry to the hilt in (Rev. 2:6), 14. He is upset that Christians are being told they can commit fornication. He is furious they are told they can eat meat sacrificed to idols. If there is no more strict Law for Christians, and just expediency is the test, then Jesus’ words are pointless. We are covered. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. ((Rom. 8:1)). Jesus apparently had not read that passage. He didn’t Team’ its truth. Instead, Jesus is full of condemnation for Christians who violate laws !
Jesus' remarks prove Pastor Hill's notion cannot possibly be true. Jesus is angry to the hilt in (Rev. 2:6), 14. He is upset that Christians are being told they can commit fornication. He is furious they are told they can eat meat sacrificed to idols. If there is no more strict Law for Christians, and just expediency is the test, then Jesus' words are pointless. We are covered. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. ((Rom. 8:1)). Jesus apparently had not read that passage. He didn't Team' its truth. Instead, Jesus is full of condemnation for Christians who violate laws !
8. If you live by Paul’s principles, it is totally acceptable to
8. If you live by Paul's principles, it is totally acceptable to
outwardly behave in a manner that does not offend others, while
inwardly you do not have to live and believe those principles. What
did Jesus repeatedly say to the Pharisees who reasoned to the same
conclusion as Paul? Jesus’ response is in Mat 23:28:
conclusion as Paul? Jesus' response is in Mat 23:28:
“Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men , but inwardly
you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (WEB)
"Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men , but inwardly
you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (WEB)
In truth, Jesus in Revelation chapter 2 is clearly attacking
antinomianism. He is laying down absolutes on fornication and eating
meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus is highlighting the error of the
Nicolaitans. They were known from Irenaeus’ writings to be
Nicolaitans. They were known from Irenaeus' writings to be
antinomians. Irenaeus said they believed they could eat any foods. The
Nicolaitans taught the Law was abrogated and they lived under grace
instead. 9
Jesus’ attack on antinomianism is also obvious from Jesus’
Jesus' attack on antinomianism is also obvious from Jesus'
condemnation of the pennissiveness on the issue of fornication. Jesus
is not only prohibiting fornication at idol worship ceremonies, as a
few Paulunists contend. To save Paul’s validity, some seriously
few Paulunists contend. To save Paul's validity, some seriously
contend Jesus meant to prohibit fornication only at idolatrous
ceremonies. However, no such limitation can be found in the text. The
fornication prohibition is stated just as absolutely as the
@ -108,13 +108,13 @@ construe Jesus as only prohibiting fornicating at a pagan
ceremony. (If true, it would imply Jesus permitted fornication
otherwise). This spin to save Paul leads to absurdities.
Thus, one cannot read into Jesus’ words any expediency-test on eating
Thus, one cannot read into Jesus' words any expediency-test on eating
meat sacrificed to idols any more than you could read such a test into
Jesus’ words condemning fornication.
Jesus' words condemning fornication.
Apostle John, who is the human hand of Revelation, took Jesus’ attack
Apostle John, who is the human hand of Revelation, took Jesus' attack
on antinomianism to heart. He later wrote likewise that those who say
they know Jesus but disobey His commands are liars. John’s attack on
they know Jesus but disobey His commands are liars. John's attack on
antinomianism appears in (1John 2:4) He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in
him.***3:10...whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of
@ -124,16 +124,16 @@ God.... (ASV)
### Conclusion
John and Jesus are encouraging strictly following Jesus’
John and Jesus are encouraging strictly following Jesus'
commands. This includes His command to not eat meat sacrificed to
idols. Apostle John has a harsh message for those who claim to know
Jesus but who refute His commands. You are a liar when you say you
know Jesus. Who else is called a liar by John’s pen? The one who told
know Jesus. Who else is called a liar by John's pen? The one who told
the Ephesians falsely he was an apostle of Jesus. (Rev. 2:2). We shall
see that it is no accident 1 John 2:4 would affix the label liar to
Paul for his contradiction of Jesus’ command on idol meat. (Rev. 2:2)
Paul for his contradiction of Jesus' command on idol meat. (Rev. 2:2)
affixes the same label of liar to someone the Ephesians put on trial
for claiming to be an apostle and found he was not one. (See the
chapter entitled “Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as
a False Apostle?”
chapter entitled "Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as
a False Apostle?"
[[JWO_10_01_DidJesusApplaudtheEphesiansforExposingPaulasaFalseApostle__0045]]).

12
JWO_06_03_Conclusion_0027.md

@ -8,12 +8,12 @@ really believe he is a true apostle?
Jesus is pointing his arrow at Paul who is long gone when the book of
Revelation is written. Unquestionably, Paul had been teaching others
to violate Jesus’ commands and the commands of the twelve apostles. It
is blatant. Jesus takes Paul’s teaching to task.
to violate Jesus' commands and the commands of the twelve apostles. It
is blatant. Jesus takes Paul's teaching to task.
This brings to mind Jesus’ ‘fruit’ test for a false prophet. In (Matt. 7:15-20), Jesus says:
This brings to mind Jesus' 'fruit' test for a false prophet. In (Matt. 7:15-20), Jesus says:
(15) Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s
(15) Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
(16) By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of
@ -22,9 +22,9 @@ This brings to mind Jesus’ ‘fruit’ test for a false prophet. In (Matt. 7:1
(17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the
corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Thus, when Paul teaches someone to violate Jesus’ commands to not eat
Thus, when Paul teaches someone to violate Jesus' commands to not eat
meat sacrificed to idols, is this good fruit or evil fruit? Obviously
evil fruit. Jesus says “beware those who come in sheep’s clothing.”
evil fruit. Jesus says "beware those who come in sheep's clothing."
(Matt. 7:15). What is a sheep in that verse? A Christian. Beware those
who come claiming to be a Christian but who have evil fruit. Paul fits
both criteria. Jesus then continues, saying even if they come with

286
JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md

@ -2,11 +2,11 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Why Does Jesus Mention Balaam in Revelation 2:14
### How Jesus’ Reference to Balaam Applies to Paul
### How Jesus' Reference to Balaam Applies to Paul
If we dig a little deeper into the eating of idol-meat issue, we find
Jesus mentions Balaam in (Rev. 2:14). 1 Jesus says the source of this
heretical idol meat doctrine is a “teaching of Balaam.” Jesus says
heretical idol meat doctrine is a "teaching of Balaam." Jesus says
Balaam taught one can eat meat sacrificed to idols, among other
things. Why is Jesus mentioning Balaam, a figure from the era of Moses?
Evidently because Balaam is a figure who resembles the one who in the
@ -19,23 +19,23 @@ The Biblical story of Balaam in the book of Numbers does not reveal
the precise nature of the teachings of Balaam. Jesus alone tells us
that Balaam taught the Israelites they could eat meat sacrificed to
idols and commit fornication. (Rev. 2:14). Thus, with these additional
facts, let’s make a synopsis of the story of Balaam. Then we can see
facts, let's make a synopsis of the story of Balaam. Then we can see
whether anyone appears similar in the New Testament era.
* Balaam was a Prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures who was changed from
an enemy to a friend by an angelic vision on a Road.
1. (Rev. 2:14:) “But I have a few things against thee, because thou
1. (Rev. 2:14:) "But I have a few things against thee, because thou
hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to
cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.” (ASV)
sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." (ASV)
* Balaam, after properly serving the Lord for a time, changed back
into being an enemy.
* This inspired prophet is deemed to be an enemy of God because he
taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to
commit fornication. This part of the story was omitted in Moses’
commit fornication. This part of the story was omitted in Moses'
account. Jesus alone reveals this.
Who else is a prophet of God who was changed from an enemy to a friend
@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Paul. Jesus reveals His purpose by referring to Balaam in (Rev. 2:14).
By citing the example of Balaam, Jesus reminds us that a true prophet
who is turned from evil to good then could turn back and completely
apostasize. Jesus’ citation to Balaam in this context destroys our
apostasize. Jesus' citation to Balaam in this context destroys our
assumptions that Paul could never apostasize. By referencing Balaam,
Jesus is telling us, at the very least, that Paul could turn and
apostasize after his Road to Damascus experience. Paul could be just
@ -62,25 +62,25 @@ like Balaam who did so after his Road to Moab experience.
### Is (Rev. 2:14) A Type of Parable?
Did Jesus mention the “teaching of Balaam” as a parable to identify
Did Jesus mention the "teaching of Balaam" as a parable to identify
Paul? It appears (Rev. 2:14) is a type of parable. Jesus identifies
the false teaching as the “teaching of Balaam.” Yet Balaam is dead.
the false teaching as the "teaching of Balaam." Yet Balaam is dead.
Someone in the apostolic era is like Balaam. To know whom Jesus meant,
one has to find someone who matches Balaam’s historically-known qualities.
one has to find someone who matches Balaam's historically-known qualities.
Furthermore, we have a second reason to believe a parable is intended
in (Rev. 2:14). At the end of Revelation chapter 2, Jesus says: “He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”
(Rev. 2:29). This is Jesus’ standard catch-phrase when He wanted you
in (Rev. 2:14). At the end of Revelation chapter 2, Jesus says: "He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."
(Rev. 2:29). This is Jesus' standard catch-phrase when He wanted you
to know there are symbolic meanings in His words.
Let’s next try to identify who was the Balaam-like figure in the New
Let's next try to identify who was the Balaam-like figure in the New
Testament apostolic era by studying the life of the original Balaam.
### Balaam Was Changed to A True Prophet By A Vision on A Road
In the book of Numbers (written by Moses), Balaam begins as a
soothsayer intent on accepting money from Moab’s King Balak. He was
soothsayer intent on accepting money from Moab's King Balak. He was
offered payment to travel to Moab to curse Israel. As such, he begins
as an enemy of the true God.
@ -92,13 +92,13 @@ condition Balaam did only what the Lord told him to do. (Numbers
curse Israel. On route to Moab, Balaam (on a donkey) and his two
companions are stopped on a road by an unseen angel of the Lord. (Some
commentators think Numbers 22:35 proves this was actually Jesus, the
“eternal” angel of His presence—Gill.) Then the famous incident takes
place where Balaam’s donkey talks back to him. The donkey complains
that Balaam is goading him by smiting him with his staff: “What have I
done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”
"eternal" angel of His presence-Gill.) Then the famous incident takes
place where Balaam's donkey talks back to him. The donkey complains
that Balaam is goading him by smiting him with his staff: "What have I
done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
((Num. 22:28).) At first Balaam cannot see the angel which is blocking
the donkey. (Num. 22:25-27). Balaam is in a sense blinded. However,
then God “opened the eyes of Balaam” and he could see the
then God "opened the eyes of Balaam" and he could see the
angel. (Num. 22:31-33).
Balaam then confesses to the angel that he sinned. ((Num. 22:34).) He
@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Israelites. (Num. 22:35). Then Balaam proceeded to Moab.
(Num. 22:36).
Next when Balaam arrived in Moab, he warned King Balak that he could
only do what the Lord allowed him to say. ((Num. 22:36-38).) Balaam’s
only do what the Lord allowed him to say. ((Num. 22:36-38).) Balaam's
famous oracles of blessings over Israel then followed. (Num. 23:1-29).
While giving the blessing, God through Moses says Balaam was directly
@ -134,10 +134,10 @@ synagogue services to this very day, known as the Mah Tovu.
### How Balaam Fell: His Idol Meat and Fornication Teaching
Then something negative happens that Moses only cryptically
revealed. In (Num. 31:16), Moses writes: “Behold, these caused the
revealed. In (Num. 31:16), Moses writes: "Behold, these caused the
children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass
against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the
congregation of Jehovah.” Balaam had counseled the Israelites that
congregation of Jehovah." Balaam had counseled the Israelites that
they could sin in some unspecified manner. This cryptic statement is
the only explanation why later in Numbers 31:8 that the Israelites,
during their slaying of the Midianites, also kill Balaam.
@ -160,50 +160,50 @@ infonnation. Jesus says:
The Rabbinic tradition in Judaism supports what Jesus said, but only
in general terms.
2. Morris Jastrow Jr., “Balaam,” Encyclopedia of Judaism (online at
2. Morris Jastrow Jr., "Balaam," Encyclopedia of Judaism (online at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B&search=balaam.)
If we look at (Num. 25:2), we will see the Israelites were invited to
the sacrifices to idols, and ate the idol meat. ((Num. 25:2),
“for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the
people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.”)
"for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the
people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.")
### So Who is Balaam in the New Testament Era?
The prophet Balaam was a person whose life mirrors apostle Paul’s life
The prophet Balaam was a person whose life mirrors apostle Paul's life
to an extraordinary degree. Absent Jesus telling us that Balaam taught
it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols, we would never
have known how virtually identical are the two lives. Yet when Jesus
filled in the missing detail, it made the parallel between Balaam and
Paul become extraordinarily uncanny.
In particular, Balaam’s Road to Moab experience has many striking
parallels to Paul’s Road to Damascus experience. In fact, how it
In particular, Balaam's Road to Moab experience has many striking
parallels to Paul's Road to Damascus experience. In fact, how it
affects both Paul and Balaam is identical. Balaam is on his road with
the wrong intent to curse God’s people. This is true for Paul too,
aiming to imprison God’s people. (Acts 22:5). Balaam is on the road
the wrong intent to curse God's people. This is true for Paul too,
aiming to imprison God's people. (Acts 22:5). Balaam is on the road
with two companions. Paul likewise has companions with him. (Acts 22:9.)
Next, Balaam is given a message by the angel that converts his way to
the true God. Gill even says this ‘angel’ is the “eternal angel”
(non-created) of the Lord’s presence— Jesus—because of the unique
the true God. Gill even says this 'angel' is the "eternal angel"
(non-created) of the Lord's presence- Jesus-because of the unique
wording of (Num. 22:35). Likewise, Paul gets a message from Jesus that
converts his way to the true God. (Acts 22:8). Both Balaam and Paul
follow God/or a time. Both apostasize when they teach it is
permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
There is another odd parallel between Balaam and Paul. After Balaam
strikes his donkey to make him move, Balaam’s donkey asks: “What have
I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?”
strikes his donkey to make him move, Balaam's donkey asks: "What have
I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
((Num. 22:28).) The donkey in effect asks Why are you persecuting me ?
Balaam then learns that an angel of God was itself stopping the donkey
from moving. Balaam learns it is hard for the donkey to keep on
kicking (moving ahead) against the goads of God’s angel. It is hard to
kicking (moving ahead) against the goads of God's angel. It is hard to
keep on kicking against divine goads.
Now compare this to Paul and his vision. Paul is likewise confronted
by Jesus with a similar question: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me?” (Acts 22:7). And most telling, Jesus adds in the “Hebrew” tongue:
“it is hard for thee to kick against the goad.” (Acts 26:14.)
by Jesus with a similar question: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me?" (Acts 22:7). And most telling, Jesus adds in the "Hebrew" tongue:
"it is hard for thee to kick against the goad." (Acts 26:14.)
When Jesus spoke to Paul on the road in the Book of Acts, He was
speaking in a manner that would allow us to invoke the memory of the
@ -211,18 +211,18 @@ story of Balaam. In Acts, Jesus laid the seeds for us to later
identify Paul as the apostolic era Balaam. To repeat, first Jesus asks
Paul why Paul is persecuting Jesus. The donkey asked Balaam the same
question. He asked why was Balaam persecuting him. Second, Jesus said
to Paul that it is hard for Paul to keep moving forward against God’s
goads. Likewise, Balaam’s donkey was up against the goads of God’s
angel. Jesus’ words in the vision experience with Paul were well
to Paul that it is hard for Paul to keep moving forward against God's
goads. Likewise, Balaam's donkey was up against the goads of God's
angel. Jesus' words in the vision experience with Paul were well
chosen to invoke a precise parallel to the story of Balaam. Thus, we
could never miss the point in (Rev. 2:14). We thereby could identify
the NT Balaam.
### What Does It all Mean?
Paulunists apparently sense a problem if Balaam’s story were ever told
Paulunists apparently sense a problem if Balaam's story were ever told
in detail. They always identify Balaam as merely a false teacher or
someone who prophesied for money. But this misses Jesus’ point.
someone who prophesied for money. But this misses Jesus' point.
Balaam is precisely the example, unique in Hebrew Scriptures, of an
enemy converted by a vision on a road, turned into a true spokesperson
@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ of God, but who later apostasues by saying it is pennissible to eat
meat sacrificed to idols. Balaam precisely matches Paul in an uncanny
way despite millennia separating them.
Thus, in Paul’s vision experience, God laid the groundwork for a
Thus, in Paul's vision experience, God laid the groundwork for a
comparison to events two millennia earlier. What an amazing God we
have! Jesus specifically made sure the encounter with Paul would have
all the earmarks of the Balaam encounter:
@ -252,29 +252,29 @@ Of course, to understand this, you have to have ears to hear. (Rev. 2:29.)
In other words, God set in motion what happened on the Road to Moab,
just as He did on the Road to Damascus. Paul apparently indeed had the
experience he claims. That’s why Jesus could cite the teaching of
experience he claims. That's why Jesus could cite the teaching of
Balaam as repeating itself in the apostolic era. Yet, to cement the
similarity, Jesus had to give us a crucial new similarity between
Balaam and Paul. By disclosing Balaam’s idol meat teaching, Jesus in
Balaam and Paul. By disclosing Balaam's idol meat teaching, Jesus in
(Rev. 2:14) suddenly made appear an extraordinary parallel between
Paul and Balaam that otherwise remained hidden.
Just as Jesus said Elijah was John the Baptist, “if you are willing to
receive it” (Matt. 11:14), Jesus is saying the teaching of Balaam that
deceives Christians is the teaching of Paul, “if you are willing to
receive it.”
Just as Jesus said Elijah was John the Baptist, "if you are willing to
receive it" (Matt. 11:14), Jesus is saying the teaching of Balaam that
deceives Christians is the teaching of Paul, "if you are willing to
receive it."
### What About Permission to Commit Fornication?
Jesus in (Rev. 2:14) says the Balaam of the apostolic era also taught
Christians that it is permissible “to commit fornication.”
Christians that it is permissible "to commit fornication."
In the Hebrew Scripture, the word fornication meant primarily
adultery. In English, it has evolved into almost exclusively the
meaning of unwed sexual intercourse. The reason for this change in
meaning is because Paul used the synonym for this word in (1Cor. 7:2)
apparently to mean unwed sexual intercourse. However, in the Hebrew,
fornication’s meaning differs from our own usage.
fornication's meaning differs from our own usage.
Brown-Driver-Brigg s Hebrew Dictionary defines the contexts for
fornication (Hebrew zanah ) as:
@ -289,35 +289,35 @@ la4) to be unfaithful (to God)
Thus, fornication in Hebrew is synonymous with adultery. (Out of this
arises metaphorical meanings such as lal, la3 and la4 above.) In turn,
adultery was sex with another man’s wife. (Lev. 20:10). There is no
concept within zanah of ‘to have sex among unwed partners.’ One can
adultery was sex with another man's wife. (Lev. 20:10). There is no
concept within zanah of 'to have sex among unwed partners.' One can
also see in context of (Matt. 5:32) that the Greek word tox
fornication, as Jesus intended it, had to have the underlying Hebrew
meaning of only adultery. Jesus says you can only put your wife away
if she committed zanah, translated in Greek as fornication but which
must mean she committed adultery. Thus, because the word fornication
in Hebrew here did not mean sexual relations among unwed people which
meaning mismatches the context, we know Jesus’ original spoken
meaning mismatches the context, we know Jesus' original spoken
language only meant adultery. This then was innocently translated as
fornication but is too broad in meaning.
3. The debate has raged whether the New Testament word porneia had the
primary meaning of unwed sexual intercourse, or the more limited
meaning of sexual intercourse with a cultic or commercial
prostitute. It seems clear that Paul’s usage was intended to mean
unwed sexual intercourse. Jesus’ usage in (Matt. 5:32) can only mean
prostitute. It seems clear that Paul's usage was intended to mean
unwed sexual intercourse. Jesus' usage in (Matt. 5:32) can only mean
adultery. The word has many broad meanings in Greek, but the
corresponding word in Hebrew {zanah) meant adultery’ and
corresponding word in Hebrew {zanah) meant adultery' and
metaphorically prostitution.
So if we rely upon the primary Hebrew meaning of the word fornication
— adultery, let’s ask whether Paul ever pennitted an act of adultery
- adultery, let's ask whether Paul ever pennitted an act of adultery
which Jesus specifically prohibited? The answer is yes. It is a most
disturbing contradiction.
This involves Paul’s statement on remarriage. Paul says a wife whose
“unbelieving [husband] leaves ( chorizo )” 4 her is “not under
bondage.” (1Cor. 7:15). No divorce certificate was issued, yet she is
This involves Paul's statement on remarriage. Paul says a wife whose
"unbelieving [husband] leaves ( chorizo )" 4 her is "not under
bondage." (1Cor. 7:15). No divorce certificate was issued, yet she is
not under bondage to her departing husband. Almost every commentator
agrees the context means she is free to remarry without committing
adultery. (Calvin, Clarke, Gill, etc.) Yet, as Paul describes the
@ -325,21 +325,21 @@ situation, the Christian woman was not abandoned because she committed
adultery. Nor had she received a certificate of divorce.
However, Jesus said in the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32) the husband
who unjustifiably leaves the wife “causes her to commit adultery” if
who unjustifiably leaves the wife "causes her to commit adultery" if
she remarries. In the Hebrew version of the same verse, Jesus says
instead that a husband who leaves a wife without giving a certificate
of divorce causes the wife, if she remarries, to commit adultery. 5
4. This was not the word used for divorce in the NT: apoluo. Chorizo
means to place room between, depart, or separate. (Strong’s # 5563.)
means to place room between, depart, or separate. (Strong's # 5563.)
5. There is an apparent corruption of the Greek version of Matthew in
this verse, in the Hebrew version, what Jesus is saying is when a man
leaves a wife without a bill of divorcement, and the woman remarries,
she commits adultery as does the one who marries her. In The Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew by Howard, (Matt. 5:32) reads in part: “And I say to
Gospel of Matthew by Howard, (Matt. 5:32) reads in part: "And I say to
you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of
divorce.” Then it goes on to treat the violation of this principle as
divorce." Then it goes on to treat the violation of this principle as
the cause of adultery, both by the man leaving and the wife who
remarries another. The Hebrew appears more correct because
(Deut. 24:2) allows a woman who receives a certificate of divorce to
@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ the Christian woman who both was unjustifiably abandoned and abandoned
without a divorce certificate does not commit adultery by
remarrying. However, Jesus says she absolutely does commit adultery
under either of those circumstances. Since adultery is synonymous with
fornication in Jesus’ original vernacular, Paul permits the very act
fornication in Jesus' original vernacular, Paul permits the very act
of fornication which Jesus prohibits.
Incidentally, if the Greek text were correct, Jesus would be resolving
@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ of using a bill of divorce, which apparently had fallen into
disuse. Men apparently were abandoning their wives and simply
remarrying with impunity. Whether the Greek or Hebrew text is correct,
Jesus was reinvigorating the Law of Moses, and as Campenhausen
explains, Jesus “reaffirmed” it. (For more on the fact that Matthew
explains, Jesus "reaffirmed" it. (For more on the fact that Matthew
was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, see
[[JWO_19_01_GreekIssues_0111]].
@ -377,50 +377,50 @@ Jesus prohibits.
### What About Paul s Anti-Fornication Statements?
If we ignore the prior example, could Paul ever possibly be faulted
for permitting fornication? Didn’t Paul oppose fornication, as he says
in (Gal. 5:19) that those who “practice fornication” shall not
“inherit the kingdom of God”? 8
for permitting fornication? Didn't Paul oppose fornication, as he says
in (Gal. 5:19) that those who "practice fornication" shall not
"inherit the kingdom of God"? 8
6. The Bible required ‘‘some unseemly thing” for divorce. (Deut. 24:1). Hillel thought any trivial reason qualified, while Shammai believed adultery alone justified divorce. (“Adultery,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.) In the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32), Jesus would be siding with Shammai’s view.
6. The Bible required ''some unseemly thing" for divorce. (Deut. 24:1). Hillel thought any trivial reason qualified, while Shammai believed adultery alone justified divorce. ("Adultery," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.) In the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32), Jesus would be siding with Shammai's view.
7. Hans van Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible
(J. A. Baker, trans.) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) at 13.
Yes, (Rev. 2:14) still could apply to Paul. First, most Paulunist
commentators dispute Paul means to threaten Christians in
(Gal. 5:19). (Clarke, Barnes, Gill.) Because of Paul’s other teachings
(Gal. 5:19). (Clarke, Barnes, Gill.) Because of Paul's other teachings
of eternal security, these commentators claim (Gal. 5:19) means only
unsaved persons who engage in fornication are threatened with
exclusion. Thus, they contend Galatians 5:19 is not a message to
Christians. Hence this verse does not prove what Paul taught
Christians about the consequences of fornication.
8. This is Paul’s strongest anti-fornication statement. His other
8. This is Paul's strongest anti-fornication statement. His other
negative statements are weaker. For example, Paul in 1Cor. 6:18 says
“Flee fornication...he that commits fornication sins against his own
body.” This is not very strong because Paul did not say you sin
"Flee fornication...he that commits fornication sins against his own
body." This is not very strong because Paul did not say you sin
against God; you sin against yourself. This means it affects only
yourself, giving you room to permit it. Again Paul in 1Cor. 7:1 says
it is “good for a man not to touch a woman.” In context, the concern
it is "good for a man not to touch a woman." In context, the concern
is it can lead to fornication. Yet, again, Paul is not strong. He does
not make the prohibition direct or threaten a serious loss. Again in
(1 Thess. 4:3) ASV, Paul says "the will of God” is that “you abstain
from fornication.” Paul goes on to say that if you “reject this”
(i.e., ‘annul this’), you “reject God who gives His Holy Spirit to
you.” (1Thess. 4:8). This appears strong—to threaten loss of
(1 Thess. 4:3) ASV, Paul says "the will of God" is that "you abstain
from fornication." Paul goes on to say that if you "reject this"
(i.e., 'annul this'), you "reject God who gives His Holy Spirit to
you." (1Thess. 4:8). This appears strong-to threaten loss of
salvation for fornication by a Christian. However, the Pauline
commentators explain the context does not justify this is talking
about fornication in its broad sense. The New American Standard
(Protestant-Lockman Foundation) commentary in the footnotes says that
the word translated “fornication” or “immorality” here really only
means “unlawful marriage.” It explains “many [incorrectly] think that
the word translated "fornication" or "immorality" here really only
means "unlawful marriage." It explains "many [incorrectly] think that
this passage deals with a variety of moral regulations (fornication,
adultery...).” It then explains this passage deals in this context
instead with “a specific problem, namely marriage within degrees of
consanguinity....” (See reprint of this commentary at
adultery...)." It then explains this passage deals in this context
instead with "a specific problem, namely marriage within degrees of
consanguinity...." (See reprint of this commentary at
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/lthessalonians/lthessalonians4.htm).
Furthermore, most Paulunists find Paul’s doctrine of eternal security
Furthermore, most Paulunists find Paul's doctrine of eternal security
trumps this verse. Because this verse threatens God will deny you for
the sin of “fornication” (as translated), this must be directed at a
the sin of "fornication" (as translated), this must be directed at a
nonbeliever. It does not say the person has received the Holy Spirit
yet. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself that salvation
does not depend on what you do. ((Rom. 4:4).) Thus, this is read to be
@ -429,9 +429,9 @@ Thess. 4:3, 8 at first appears strongly against fornication,
Paulunists interpret it so it does not apply to anything but to a very
specific consanguinity issue or not to a Christian at all.
### What About Paul’s Anti-Fornication Statements?
### What About Paul's Anti-Fornication Statements?
However, this view is unsatisfactory because clearly Paul’s warning in
However, this view is unsatisfactory because clearly Paul's warning in
(Gal. 5:19) is intended for Christians. The Book of Galatians is
addressed to genuine believers (Gal 1:8-9). In Galatians 5:13, Paul
refers to those addressed in (Gal. 5:13-26) as brethren. Furthermore,
@ -444,10 +444,10 @@ heaven. They claim Paul means that fornicating Christians (a) only are
at risk if they practice fornication and (b) if so, they only risk
losing a reward (i.e., sharing ruling authority in heaven.)
They point to Paul’s use of the term “practice” in Gal. 5:21. They
They point to Paul's use of the term "practice" in Gal. 5:21. They
insist Paul means that occasional fornication by a Christian is
permissible. 9 Paul’s words are “they who practice such things [ e.g
., fornication] shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Paul’s threat
permissible. 9 Paul's words are "they who practice such things [ e.g
., fornication] shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Paul's threat
does not intend to warn a Christian who engages in occasional
fornication that they should fear the loss of salvation. 10
@ -456,36 +456,36 @@ Christianity. His position reflects this.
9. James, by contrast, says a single act breaks all the law. ((Jas. 2:13).)
10. Paul’s occasional-practice distinction is at variance to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Law says it only takes one act of adultery or murder to be deemed worthy of death. (Lev. 20:10, (Num. 35:16); Ezek. 33:18.)
10. Paul's occasional-practice distinction is at variance to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Law says it only takes one act of adultery or murder to be deemed worthy of death. (Lev. 20:10, (Num. 35:16); Ezek. 33:18.)
Some people wonder if that verse means a Christian can lose his
salvation if he has ever done any of those things. Although the
Authorized Version says ‘they who do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God,’ the Greek word for do is prasso, which means ‘to
practice.’ It is a verb that speaks of habitual practice rather than
Authorized Version says 'they who do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God,' the Greek word for do is prasso, which means 'to
practice.' It is a verb that speaks of habitual practice rather than
occasional doing. Thus, the verse refers to those who habitually
practice such things as an expression of their characters. The word of
God bases its evaluation of a person’s character not on his infrequent
God bases its evaluation of a person's character not on his infrequent
actions, but on his habitual actions, for they demonstrate his true
character. The people who habitually perform the works of the flesh
will not inherit the Kingdom because they are not God’s people.
will not inherit the Kingdom because they are not God's people.
Some Christians may do some of those things infrequently, but that
doesn’t mean they will forfeit the full salvation of the Kingdom of
doesn't mean they will forfeit the full salvation of the Kingdom of
God. Rather they will receive divine discipline now and forfeit some
of their heavenly rewards. 11
MacArthur thus concedes Paul’s threat in (Gal. 5:19) is only for a
MacArthur thus concedes Paul's threat in (Gal. 5:19) is only for a
person who practices fornication. MacArthur says a true Christian will
never practice this, and thus is never threatened actually with loss
of salvation. A true Christian at most will occasionally commit
fornication. The Christian who does so has an eternal destiny as safe
and secure as the Christian who resists all acts of fornication.
In the quote above, MacArthur then adds to Paul’s words to make Paul
In the quote above, MacArthur then adds to Paul's words to make Paul
appear to say fornication is not entirely permissible for a
Christian. Paul does not ever say anything anywhere about Christian
fornicators receiving divine disciple. That is John MacArthur’s
fornicators receiving divine disciple. That is John MacArthur's
hopeful addition.
11.John MacArthur, Liberty in Christ, reprinted at
@ -493,12 +493,12 @@ http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg 1669.htm .
Putting this unfounded addition to one side, what is still clear is
MacArthur admits Paul does not intend to alarm Christians who
“infrequently” commit fornication that they have anything serious to
concern themselves about. Paul’s warning in (Gal. 5:19) does not apply
"infrequently" commit fornication that they have anything serious to
concern themselves about. Paul's warning in (Gal. 5:19) does not apply
to warn a Christian who occasionally fornicates. Thus, MacArthur can
reassure such Christians that heaven awaits them despite committing
unrepentant occasional fornication. MacArthur says God would never
condemn you for occasional fornication, citing Paul’s words in (Gal. 5:21).
condemn you for occasional fornication, citing Paul's words in (Gal. 5:21).
Furthermore, Dillow insists that even if a Christian practices
fornication, Paul does not mean to threaten anything more than loss of
@ -509,8 +509,8 @@ stretching over chapters 3-5 of Dillow, Reign of the Servant
Kings. Yet, if this is how Paulunists construe Paul to keep him
squared with his faith-alone doctrine, then I can rely upon Dillow to
conclude Paul never puts a serious threat over the Christian who
practices fornication. And when I combine MacArthur’s distinction with
Dillow’s views, I can say Paul never threatens at all a Christian who
practices fornication. And when I combine MacArthur's distinction with
Dillow's views, I can say Paul never threatens at all a Christian who
occasionally commits fornication.
### Paul Is Boldly Claimed To Teach Fornication Is Permissible
@ -521,14 +521,14 @@ says a Christian can commit fornication, not repent, and expect to be
saved. Galatians 5:19-21 never enters their analysis.
They argue strenuously that Paul permits fornication, apparently to
make their point more blatant about Paul’s doctrine of grace. To prove
make their point more blatant about Paul's doctrine of grace. To prove
Paul permits fornication, they rely upon three independent proofs.
1. Paul’s Says Fornication is Permissible But It Might Be Unprofitable
1. Paul's Says Fornication is Permissible But It Might Be Unprofitable
First, Paulunists say Paul declared the Law abolished, and that in its
place the new criteria is: “all things are lawful but not all things
are expedient” (1Cor. 6:12). Paul thereby implied it was permissible
place the new criteria is: "all things are lawful but not all things
are expedient" (1Cor. 6:12). Paul thereby implied it was permissible
you could commit fornication. The test is expediency; it is no longer
whether it is absolutely prohibited.
@ -541,18 +541,18 @@ bluntly said in a 1993 broadcast that Paul says it is permissible to
commit fornication:
And as Paul said, All things are permissible, but not all things
are profitable.’ So is committing fornication permissible? YES. Is
it profitable? No, it isn’t. 12
are profitable.' So is committing fornication permissible? YES. Is
it profitable? No, it isn't. 12
George is not alone. John Mac Arthur, a giant of modem evangelical
Christianity, says the same thing. In addressing whether fornication
is permissible in the article quoted on page 143, Mac Arthur never
once cites any absolute prohibition on acts of fornication from the
Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, he quotes Paul’s axiom “all things are
lawful....” Then MacArthur tries to prove fornication is not
Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, he quotes Paul's axiom "all things are
lawful...." Then MacArthur tries to prove fornication is not
expedient. Fornication hanns you, it enslaves you, etc. He tries to
squeeze out a negative answer using Paul’s principle, “All things are
permissible, but not all things are profitable.”
squeeze out a negative answer using Paul's principle, "All things are
permissible, but not all things are profitable."
Thus, the starting point is that fornication is not wrong per se. You
have to look at its expediency, i. e. , its costs versus its
@ -563,36 +563,36 @@ benefits. Then if the costs outweigh the benefits, it is wrong.
13. John MacArthur, Back to Basics: The Presentation of My Life: Sacrifice at
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/1390.htm (last accessed 2005).
Thus, George and MacArthur reflect Paul’s paradigm shift. The Law is
Thus, George and MacArthur reflect Paul's paradigm shift. The Law is
gone. In its place a new analysis is applied. Under it, fornication is
permissible but not necessarily profitable. A strong case can be made
about its unhealthy results, etc. Therefore George and MacArthur say
‘don’t do it.’ This is an antinomian (anti-Law) shift away from simply
'don't do it.' This is an antinomian (anti-Law) shift away from simply
knowing that the Law says it is wrong. In its place, we now have a
cost-benefit analysis whether fornication works for you.
Under Paul’s balancing test, we can see the result just as easily
Under Paul's balancing test, we can see the result just as easily
could be that fornication is more beneficial for me. As long as the
guilt from violating the Law is erased, then I do no wrong if I think
“fornication” works for me. As long as I applied a cost-benefit
"fornication" works for me. As long as I applied a cost-benefit
analysis of what is more expedient, and I reasonably justify it, it is
no sin. For example, if I love someone and commit “fornication” with
no sin. For example, if I love someone and commit "fornication" with
her, and it suits our mutual needs to ignore the legalities of the
situation, then in a very cogent way, I have justified fornication in
a manner that passes the cost-benefit analysis Paul offers. “All
things are lawful” and in this scenario it is more “expedient” to not
a manner that passes the cost-benefit analysis Paul offers. "All
things are lawful" and in this scenario it is more "expedient" to not
be hyper-technical about our behavior.
This example raises the dilemma the church faces today: it desperately
wants to give a cost-benefit analysis for this scenario to steer
people away from such fornication because Paul removed the ability to
cite the Law itself as reason enough. Consequently, the modern
Pauline-Christian analysis of right-and-wrong starts from “all things
are permissible,” including fornication. Then by applying the costs
Pauline-Christian analysis of right-and-wrong starts from "all things
are permissible," including fornication. Then by applying the costs
versus the benefits test, their analysis tries to steer people to an
outcome parallel to the Law.
Thus, clearly Paul’s saying all things are pennissible includes
Thus, clearly Paul's saying all things are pennissible includes
fornication. It is only to be abandoned if the costs outweigh the
benefits. However, there are going to be times where the benefits of
fornication will outweigh the costs.
@ -600,11 +600,11 @@ fornication will outweigh the costs.
That is why Paul is still the leading candidate to be the Balaam
figure of the New Testament era mentioned in (Rev. 2:14).
### Paul’s Doctrine of Grace Means Fornication is Permissible
### Paul's Doctrine of Grace Means Fornication is Permissible
Other Paulunists defend that Paul teaches fornication is permissible
with no significant penalty for a Christian on another ground. This is
Paul’s doctrine of grace. All your future acts of fornication are
Paul's doctrine of grace. All your future acts of fornication are
already forgiven when you became a Christian, they insist. Such a sin
might cause the loss of rewards, but there is no loss of something you
cannot afford to lose. Luther defends this idea:
@ -632,10 +632,10 @@ penalty. It is not even a set back. You simply do not move ahead. In
fact, you will have eternity to overcome the loss of initial
rewards. It is no problem at all. How many would not trade a few lost
rewards you can live without to take today the delectable pleasures of
fornication? In sum, Paul’s grace doctrines are read to pennit
fornication? In sum, Paul's grace doctrines are read to pennit
fornication with no serious consequence or penalties. This second
proof reconfirms that (Rev. 2:14) is Jesus’ direct identification of
Paul as the one bringing the “teaching of Balaam.”
proof reconfirms that (Rev. 2:14) is Jesus' direct identification of
Paul as the one bringing the "teaching of Balaam."
### The Sexually Immoral Man in 1Cor. 5 Was Never Lost
@ -645,28 +645,28 @@ passage proves that a sexually immoral Christian is never at risk of
losing salvation.
In that passage, Paul deals with a sexually immoral member of the
Corinthian church who lives with his father’s wife, his
Corinthian church who lives with his father's wife, his
step-mother. If the father is alive, this is incest. Paul decrees:
“deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Cor. 5:5.)
"deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Cor. 5:5.)
Dillow contends Paul ordered the man was to be expelled and then
killed. Paul’s wording therefore proves that if the man were killed in
killed. Paul's wording therefore proves that if the man were killed in
his unrepentant state that Paul meant this carnal Christian was still
saved. Dillow, whose book is now treated as required reading at many
evangelical seminaries, explains:
An extreme example of the ‘consistently carnal Christian’ seems to
An extreme example of the 'consistently carnal Christian' seems to
be found in (1Cor. 5:5) .... Paul hands this carnal Christian over
to physical death, but he notes that he will be saved at the day
of the Lord Jesus. 16
16.Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings (1993) at 321.
Thus, Dillow means that Paul wants the man killed immediately. (Paul’s
Thus, Dillow means that Paul wants the man killed immediately. (Paul's
conduct shows disregard for the civil rights protected in the Law of
the accused.) Dillow understands Paul’s other words as assuring us
that the man’s death in this situation means the man will enjoy
the accused.) Dillow understands Paul's other words as assuring us
that the man's death in this situation means the man will enjoy
salvation despite his unrepentant and consistent sin. Thus, this verse
proves eternal security, Dillow claims.
@ -675,5 +675,5 @@ once saved always saved boldly proclaims this passage teaches a
Christian is free to commit repetitive unrepentant fornication without
the slightest threat to their salvation.
The man who had ‘his father’s wife’—a terrible sin—didn’t lose his
The man who had 'his father's wife'-a terrible sin-didn't lose his
salvation thereby. (Dave Hunt.) 18

18
JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md

@ -4,16 +4,16 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Many commentators try to avoid what Dillow so gladly affirms. They
argue Paul did not mean the person should be killed. However, the
early church fathers correctly understood Paul’s command was to kill
the man. Tertullian said Paul was invoking the Hebrew Scripture’s
familiar “judicial process” whereby a “wicked person being put out of
their midst” was done by the “destruction of the flesh.” (Tertullian,
Against Marcion. Book 5, ch. VII.) This is evident in Paul’s language
early church fathers correctly understood Paul's command was to kill
the man. Tertullian said Paul was invoking the Hebrew Scripture's
familiar "judicial process" whereby a "wicked person being put out of
their midst" was done by the "destruction of the flesh." (Tertullian,
Against Marcion. Book 5, ch. VII.) This is evident in Paul's language
about purging. It was taken directly from the death penalty laws in
the Mosaic Law, e.g., Deut. 17:7, 21:21, 22:21. Furthermore, Paul uses
the language of a judicial officer rendering a verdict in 1 Cor.5:3,
which a death sentence would require. This incident reveals a flaw in
Paul’s ideas that all the Law was abrogated, even its civil rights to
Paul's ideas that all the Law was abrogated, even its civil rights to
protect the accused. Under the Law, a hearing was necessary where two
eye witnesses tell the judge the persons were caught in the very
sexual act prohibited in the Law. No inference was permitted in
@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ was not precisely prohibited by the Law. Then, in strict compliance
with the Law, Paul should have required the two witnesses to be the
first to throw stones. (Deut. 17:7; John 8:4 et seq.) Paul instead
presumptuously declares the death penalty over an accused without
hearing testimony and questioning the circumstances. Paul’s abrogation
hearing testimony and questioning the circumstances. Paul's abrogation
of the Law thus cut out barriers against precipitous actions by those
in authority. Paul took full-advantage of a freedom he gave himself
from the Law of Moses to ignore civil rights protected in the Law.
@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ typifies), then Paul taught a carnal sexually immoral and unrepentant
fornicating Christian has nothing significant to lose. Paul is
supposedly saying a Christian can commit even incest with his
step-mother and be saved all the while. Thus, of course, the same must
be true of “consistently unrepentant fornicating Christians.”
be true of "consistently unrepentant fornicating Christians."
### Recap: How Mainstream Christianity Proves Paul Teaches A Christian May Fornicate
@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ although it may not be expedient:
practices fornication. (Dillow.) Thus, no rewards nor salvation are
lost for occasional fornication; and
* Paul’s language in (1Cor. 5:5) implies consistent acts of
* Paul's language in (1Cor. 5:5) implies consistent acts of
unrepentant incest do not even threaten loss of salvation, so
practicing unrepentant fornication cannot possibly pose such a threat.

18
JWO_07_03_WhyPaulMustBeTheFigureWhoPermittedFornication_0030.md

@ -8,21 +8,21 @@ abandoned without a divorce certificate to remarry. However, Jesus
said absent there being grounds she committed adultery and/or a
certificate, if she remarried, she committed adultery. Paul thus
pennitted fornication in the sense that Jesus was condemning
fornication in (Rev. 2:14). Paul’s doctrine on remarriage and
fornication evoked Jesus’ harsh response in (Rev. 2:14).
fornication in (Rev. 2:14). Paul's doctrine on remarriage and
fornication evoked Jesus' harsh response in (Rev. 2:14).
Furthermore, if we look to verses where Paul uses the tenn fornication
(where he usually means unwed sex), mainstream Christianity today
teaches Paul’s other lessons mean either (1) fornication is clearly
teaches Paul's other lessons mean either (1) fornication is clearly
occasionally pennissible for a Christian with not even loss of rewards
or (2) if the fornication is repetitive and unrepentant, it poses no
threat to a Christian’s salvation, citing (1Cor. 5:5). In either case,
threat to a Christian's salvation, citing (1Cor. 5:5). In either case,
fornication is subject only to the expediency test. This has opened
the doors to all kinds of immorality condemned in the Law of Moses. In
fact, if we cite the Law and we insist salvation must be threatened if
you commit sexual sins because of Jesus’ words in (Mark 9:42-47)
you commit sexual sins because of Jesus' words in (Mark 9:42-47)
(better heaven maimed than hell whole), we are labelled a heretic. We
are seen as undermining Paul’s doctrine of salvation by faith without works.
are seen as undermining Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith without works.
Thus, the Paulunist spin on (Gal. 5:19) as threatening loss of
rewards, not salvation, for practicing fornication (Dillow) is the
@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ Christianity:
Consequently, if Paulunists have won the day that (Gal. 5:19) does not
teach any loss of salvation for an occasionally or repetitiously
fornicating Christian, no one can cite Galatians 5:19 to prove Paul
‘prohibited’ fornication either for such a Christian. If Paulunists
'prohibited' fornication either for such a Christian. If Paulunists
also construe it as pennitting occasional fornication by a Christian
with no threat (as most do), I then can cite this verse to prove Paul
at minimum pennits occasional fornication by a Christian with no
@ -48,12 +48,12 @@ limited loss of rewards is only reserved for those who practice fornication!
This brings us right back to our conclusion that (Rev. 2:14) is
talking about Paul. He injected a moral ambiguity into Christianity by
abrogation of the Law. He changed Biblical morality into the principle
“all things are permissible, but not all things are expedient.” Paul
"all things are permissible, but not all things are expedient." Paul
implied in (1Cor. 5:5) that the member who engaged in a persistent and
unrepentant incest relationship was still saved. This led others such
as Luther to conclude Paul taught a Christian was permitted to commit
fornication. While it might not be always expedient, fornication was
permissible. This formula was identical to Paul’s teaching that it was
permissible. This formula was identical to Paul's teaching that it was
permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols, even though it was not
always expedient to do so. Only if by eating such meat you would hann
the conscience of another should you refrain. With that same

16
JWO_07_04_RecapitulationofTheMeaningofRevelation2_14_0031.md

@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ To repeat, (Rev. 2:14) states:
things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.
The Christians at Pergamum were being criticized by Jesus for some
members holding to the “teaching of Balaam.” Who was Balaam? He was a
members holding to the "teaching of Balaam." Who was Balaam? He was a
figure who precisely prefigures Paul.
The only missing pieces were first whether Paul taught it was
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ chapter that Paul taught it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to
idols. (See page 117.)
The second missing piece was whether Paul also taught it was
permissible to commit fornication. We saw first that in Jesus’ day,
permissible to commit fornication. We saw first that in Jesus' day,
adultery and fornication were synonymous in the underlying vernacular
in which Jesus spoke. We also saw that Paul permitted an act of
adultery that Jesus squarely prohibited, i.e., remarriage by a wife
@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Or, if we instead look at merely passages where Paul talks about
fornication (which for Paul usually means unwed sex), Paul fares no
better. While Paul has one, perhaps three verses, that disparage
fornication, there is no verse clear-cut saying fornication is
impermissible. Indeed, Paul’s teachings lead Paulunists to insist Paul
impermissible. Indeed, Paul's teachings lead Paulunists to insist Paul
says fornication is permissible. All things are permissible, they
quote Paul. Yet, not all things are expedient. So they insist,
fornication may not be expedient, but it is not per se wrong. The Law
@ -40,16 +40,16 @@ says
### Conclusion
Paul’s grace teaching means we remain saved. Luther’s youthful view is
corroborated by every other mainstream interpreter of Paul’s
Paul's grace teaching means we remain saved. Luther's youthful view is
corroborated by every other mainstream interpreter of Paul's
gospel. They appear to be correct because if you can lose your
salvation for fornication then you keep it by obeying God, which would
be a works-contingent salvation. Paul calls that heresy, plain and certain.
When you add up all the facts that parallel Paul to (Rev. 2:14), the
conclusion is overwhelming. Paul is certainly the intended author of
the “teaching of Balaam” that Jesus identified in (Rev. 2:14). He
matches Balaam’s life almost identically. He teaches it is pennissible
the "teaching of Balaam" that Jesus identified in (Rev. 2:14). He
matches Balaam's life almost identically. He teaches it is pennissible
to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Finally, he also teaches it is
pennissible to commit fornication ( i.e ., adultery in
remarriage). Paul is also understood by leading commentators to have
@ -60,5 +60,5 @@ fornicate, with utterly no negative consequence; and
(b) able to be committed repetitiously and without repentance with
no repurcussion on salvation. There is therefore no ground to
distinguish Paul from the teacher of Balaam’s doctrine in (Rev. 2:14).
distinguish Paul from the teacher of Balaam's doctrine in (Rev. 2:14).
Thus, Jesus was identifying Paul in Revelation 2:14 by referring to Balaam.

18
JWO_07_05_Conclusion_0032.md

@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Conclusion
When the early church leader Irenaeus in 180 A.D. defended Paul’s
When the early church leader Irenaeus in 180 A.D. defended Paul's
authenticity from opponents of Paul within the church, Irenaeus argued
that if you accept Luke’s Gospel, then you must accept Luke’s account
that if you accept Luke's Gospel, then you must accept Luke's account
in Acts that Jesus revealed himself to Paul. For Irenaeus, this vision
experience sealed the case in favor of Paul. Thus for Irenaeus, once
Paul has a vision of Jesus on a road, the case in favor of Paul is set
tied. However, not once did the story of Balaam’s experience on the
tied. However, not once did the story of Balaam's experience on the
road and temporary conversion into a true prophet cause Irenaeus to
see the error in this argument. Here is Irenaeus’ argument from circa
see the error in this argument. Here is Irenaeus' argument from circa
180 A.D. in defense of Paul:
But again, we allege the same against those who do not recognize Paul
@ -18,20 +18,20 @@ as an apostle: that they should either reject the other words of the
Gospel which we have come to know through Luke alone, and not make use
of them; or else, if they do receive all these, they must necessarily
admit also that testimony concerning Paul, when he (Luke) tells us
that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven: ‘Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me? I am Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest.’ [Acts
that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven: 'Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou Me? I am Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest.' [Acts
26:15]. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III: 257.) 21
However, Irenaeus missed the point. Paul could be a Balaam. He could
be converted on a road for a time, but later apostasize. Irenaeus’
be converted on a road for a time, but later apostasize. Irenaeus'
argument simply overlooks that clear example from Scripture. Thus, I
accept Luke’s Gospel and I accept Paul’s account in Acts 22 of having
accept Luke's Gospel and I accept Paul's account in Acts 22 of having
a direct encounter with Jesus. However, it does not resolve the
issue. Paul could still have been a Balaam later. (Rev. 2:14) is Jesus
telling me that Paul indeed was the modern Balaam of the New Testament
church.
20. Please note that Paul’s position in the New Testament church was still being disputed into 180 A.D. This was a dissent from good Christians whom Irenaeus presupposed accepted Luke’s gospel, and would thereby be persuaded to accept Luke’s account in Acts.
20. Please note that Paul's position in the New Testament church was still being disputed into 180 A.D. This was a dissent from good Christians whom Irenaeus presupposed accepted Luke's gospel, and would thereby be persuaded to accept Luke's account in Acts.
21. Irenaeus in this quote also made an incorrect supposition that
Jesus in the three vision accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 appointed

226
JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Introduction
Did Jesus and Paul have any doctrine in common on salvation? Some cite Luke 7:47 and others John 3:16. The Lucan passage is infrequently cited as compared to John 3:16. Luke’s passage is viewed as potentially being consistent with Paul while John’s passage is widely thought to be the same as Paul’s gospel message. However, on close scrutiny, even these two passages of Jesus are indeed in conflict with Paul’s salvation theology. Let’s see why.
Did Jesus and Paul have any doctrine in common on salvation? Some cite Luke 7:47 and others John 3:16. The Lucan passage is infrequently cited as compared to John 3:16. Luke's passage is viewed as potentially being consistent with Paul while John's passage is widely thought to be the same as Paul's gospel message. However, on close scrutiny, even these two passages of Jesus are indeed in conflict with Paul's salvation theology. Let's see why.
### Luke 7:47
@ -14,21 +14,21 @@ Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved
(ASV].
The word-for-word translation of the literal Greek of the key phrase is: “released are her many sins because she
The word-for-word translation of the literal Greek of the key phrase is: "released are her many sins because she
loved much.” the consequence of her loving much, which is causing the tree to produce the root, and not the root the tree [i.e., it would contradict Paul’s views]. I have considered ioe here as having the sense of aeioe, therefore;... we must suppose her love was the effect of her being pardoned, not the cause of it.
loved much." the consequence of her loving much, which is causing the tree to produce the root, and not the root the tree [i.e., it would contradict Paul's views]. I have considered ioe here as having the sense of aeioe, therefore;... we must suppose her love was the effect of her being pardoned, not the cause of it.
However, to arrive at Adam Clarke’s solution, you have to suppose a completely different Greek word is used to erase the causation between her love and Jesus 'forgiveness of sins. Clarke confesses this by suggesting a different Greek word would convey the meaning that fits Pauline doctrine.
However, to arrive at Adam Clarke's solution, you have to suppose a completely different Greek word is used to erase the causation between her love and Jesus 'forgiveness of sins. Clarke confesses this by suggesting a different Greek word would convey the meaning that fits Pauline doctrine.
Moreover, on close examination, the Greek is clear. The Greek conjunction underlying ‘'for she loved much” is hoti. Strong’s #3754 says it means “causatively because ” or can mean that. In this context, all the translations into English realize it has a causative sense. They render it for. Its more concrete synonym in English is because. The word hoti means because here, especially due to its clear placement in the sentence. To repeat, the literal Greek is: “released are her many sins because she loved much.” Only the meaning because makes sense. The alternative meaning that would render the second part unintelligible.
Moreover, on close examination, the Greek is clear. The Greek conjunction underlying ''for she loved much" is hoti. Strong's #3754 says it means "causatively because " or can mean that. In this context, all the translations into English realize it has a causative sense. They render it for. Its more concrete synonym in English is because. The word hoti means because here, especially due to its clear placement in the sentence. To repeat, the literal Greek is: "released are her many sins because she loved much." Only the meaning because makes sense. The alternative meaning that would render the second part unintelligible.
Other commentators are so fraught with dismay they simply assert Jesus cannot mean what He says in Luke 7:47. Based on the presupposition of Paul’s validity, they assert her great love was the “proof, not the reason for her forgiveness.” (Robertson’s Word Pictures.)
Other commentators are so fraught with dismay they simply assert Jesus cannot mean what He says in Luke 7:47. Based on the presupposition of Paul's validity, they assert her great love was the "proof, not the reason for her forgiveness." (Robertson's Word Pictures.)
1. A more literal translation would also render the introductory charin as “for this reason’’ rather than use the vague term wherefore'. “For this reason I am saying to you released are her many sins because she loved [aorist tense understand the clear meaning of words. The Christian who is barraged by the drum-beat of salvation by faith alone no longer senses the contradiction by Paul of Jesus. Any person free from this barrage can easily read Jesus’ words and see the linguistic impossibility that both Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing. Thus, this galvanizing thumping on Paul’s salvation themes has glued in place an adherence to Pauline teachings that actually contradict Jesus. Any slight questioning of the paradigm leads to firm and loud accusation that one is returning to Rome. The poor soul who holds up Jesus’ words against Paul’s is to be branded a heretic. Thus, repetition and social pressure has nullified our sense of a loyalty to Christ that should trump our loyalty to Paul. For these Paulunists, questioning Paul’s validity has become non-sense. They assume the scholars and theologians have worked out what they themselves take no time to study. Social conditioning thereby has made Paul’s doctrine, not Jesus’ teachings, something that must be protected at all costs\ It is like brainwashing. You can hear it over and over, like a mantra.
1. A more literal translation would also render the introductory charin as "for this reason'' rather than use the vague term wherefore'. "For this reason I am saying to you released are her many sins because she loved [aorist tense understand the clear meaning of words. The Christian who is barraged by the drum-beat of salvation by faith alone no longer senses the contradiction by Paul of Jesus. Any person free from this barrage can easily read Jesus' words and see the linguistic impossibility that both Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing. Thus, this galvanizing thumping on Paul's salvation themes has glued in place an adherence to Pauline teachings that actually contradict Jesus. Any slight questioning of the paradigm leads to firm and loud accusation that one is returning to Rome. The poor soul who holds up Jesus' words against Paul's is to be branded a heretic. Thus, repetition and social pressure has nullified our sense of a loyalty to Christ that should trump our loyalty to Paul. For these Paulunists, questioning Paul's validity has become non-sense. They assume the scholars and theologians have worked out what they themselves take no time to study. Social conditioning thereby has made Paul's doctrine, not Jesus' teachings, something that must be protected at all costs\ It is like brainwashing. You can hear it over and over, like a mantra.
The commentators’ approach to solving the dilemma of Luke 7:47 is just one more example of this mantra. The Pauline commentators vigorously utter the textually-unsupportable notion that Jesus does not mean the love she had was the “cause of her remission” of sins. This would be works in addition to faith, they admit. It just cannot be viewed that way, they insist. causative reasons her sins were forgiven. Jesus contradicts Paul. The only way to save Paul is to repetitiously insist Jesus’ words do not mean what they literally mean.
The commentators' approach to solving the dilemma of Luke 7:47 is just one more example of this mantra. The Pauline commentators vigorously utter the textually-unsupportable notion that Jesus does not mean the love she had was the "cause of her remission" of sins. This would be works in addition to faith, they admit. It just cannot be viewed that way, they insist. causative reasons her sins were forgiven. Jesus contradicts Paul. The only way to save Paul is to repetitiously insist Jesus' words do not mean what they literally mean.
As a result of this torture of Jesus’ words, the Pauline interpretation of this passage is that Jesus meant she was forgiven for no particular reason other than faith. Of course, Jesus gave faith a role too in her salvation. “Thy faith has saved you.” (Luke 7:50). However, seeing faith as the sole reason for her forgiveness is wilful self-delusion. One is squeezing out of the passage only the one part that sounds like Paul. You are ignoring the causative statement glaring back at you that contradicts Pauline doctrine: “Released are her many sins because (hoti) she loved much.” (Luke 7:47.)
As a result of this torture of Jesus' words, the Pauline interpretation of this passage is that Jesus meant she was forgiven for no particular reason other than faith. Of course, Jesus gave faith a role too in her salvation. "Thy faith has saved you." (Luke 7:50). However, seeing faith as the sole reason for her forgiveness is wilful self-delusion. One is squeezing out of the passage only the one part that sounds like Paul. You are ignoring the causative statement glaring back at you that contradicts Pauline doctrine: "Released are her many sins because (hoti) she loved much." (Luke 7:47.)
The Uniqueness of Luke 7:50 in the Synoptics
@ -36,9 +36,9 @@ What is most interesting is that in all of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark a
And he said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace.
Yet, to repeat, the Greek is unmistakable that her love mixed with faith were the causative elements in “forgiveness” and “salvation.” Jesus says she was forgiven and saved because “she loved much” and had “faith.” Faith alone did not save this young woman!
Yet, to repeat, the Greek is unmistakable that her love mixed with faith were the causative elements in "forgiveness" and "salvation." Jesus says she was forgiven and saved because "she loved much" and had "faith." Faith alone did not save this young woman!
We have more to say below on the strange fact that this is the only time in the Synoptic Gospels that faith is mentioned as having any positive Synoptic Gospels. The special purpose of John’s Gospel and why believing is so often mentioned awaits discussion below.
We have more to say below on the strange fact that this is the only time in the Synoptic Gospels that faith is mentioned as having any positive Synoptic Gospels. The special purpose of John's Gospel and why believing is so often mentioned awaits discussion below.
One Paulunist confesses the Synoptics are anti-Paul, but then provides an odd explanation:
@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Ever notice that the first three gospels (the synoptic gospels) never explicitly
non-canonical] (Mark 16:16)). 2 In fact in those gospels when Jesus is asked the question,
‘What must I do to have eternal life?’ he responds with the Law —a performance based concept of righteousness. [It is not] the gospel of grace which is a faith based righteousness, which is...found in Paul’s writings [such] as in Romans. Why the difference?
'What must I do to have eternal life?' he responds with the Law -a performance based concept of righteousness. [It is not] the gospel of grace which is a faith based righteousness, which is...found in Paul's writings [such] as in Romans. Why the difference?
I infer that the synoptic gospels were primarily to prepare people to hear the gospel of grace,
@ -54,133 +54,133 @@ rather than actually presenting the gospel
message explicitly. 3
There is a much more likely reason the Synoptics are antagonistic to Paul’s doctrines than the reason this Paulunist suggests. It is so self-evident that it is startling it is never considered: the Synoptics were written specifically to counter the message of Paul!
There is a much more likely reason the Synoptics are antagonistic to Paul's doctrines than the reason this Paulunist suggests. It is so self-evident that it is startling it is never considered: the Synoptics were written specifically to counter the message of Paul!
The fact nothing in them confirms Paul’s gospel of grace is startling in its historical context. Paul’s many letters certainly were in circulation for at least 10-20 years continu
The fact nothing in them confirms Paul's gospel of grace is startling in its historical context. Paul's many letters certainly were in circulation for at least 10-20 years continu
2. For a discussion on the erroneous addition of (Mark 16:16), see page 29.
3. The Message: Attitudes of Faith prior to Matthew, Mark and Luke having been written. Standard dating of Mark is as early as 65 A.D. The Hebrew Matthew could be in the same vicinity. Luke was written between 64 and 85 A.D. 4 By comparison, Paul’s letters date from the 40s through the 60s. Paul’s writings were clearly in circulation for as much as twenty years when the Synoptics were written.
3. The Message: Attitudes of Faith prior to Matthew, Mark and Luke having been written. Standard dating of Mark is as early as 65 A.D. The Hebrew Matthew could be in the same vicinity. Luke was written between 64 and 85 A.D. 4 By comparison, Paul's letters date from the 40s through the 60s. Paul's writings were clearly in circulation for as much as twenty years when the Synoptics were written.
Yet, how strange that Matthew and Mark provide absolutely no confirmation of Paul’s salvation-by-faith message! There is not a single passage in Matthew or Mark that links faith to salvation in a causal sense. This is true too of Luke, Paul’s own companion. 5 The only half-exception is in Luke where the woman who bathes Jesus’ feet in tears. Jesus says her “faith has saved her.” However, as already noted, even there Luke’s research led him to a passage that Jesus li nk s both her “great love” and “faith” to salvation and forgiveness, not faith alone. (See Luke 17:47-50, and discussion page 157 etseq.)
Yet, how strange that Matthew and Mark provide absolutely no confirmation of Paul's salvation-by-faith message! There is not a single passage in Matthew or Mark that links faith to salvation in a causal sense. This is true too of Luke, Paul's own companion. 5 The only half-exception is in Luke where the woman who bathes Jesus' feet in tears. Jesus says her "faith has saved her." However, as already noted, even there Luke's research led him to a passage that Jesus li nk s both her "great love" and "faith" to salvation and forgiveness, not faith alone. (See Luke 17:47-50, and discussion page 157 etseq.)
Thus, as surprising as this may sound, if you look only at the Synoptic Gospels ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus actually never says that you obtain eternal life by faith alone. The only time faith is given a causal role, the
4. For a defense of early dating and discussion of standard dates, see John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament had “faith.” (Luke 7:47-50). Faith and love are mixed. They were the causative elements in her forgiveness and salvation, according to Jesus. Thus, rarely, if ever, does anyone look at the Synoptics for support of Paul’s doctrine of salvation by faith, let alone his ideas of salvation by faith alone.
4. For a defense of early dating and discussion of standard dates, see John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament had "faith." (Luke 7:47-50). Faith and love are mixed. They were the causative elements in her forgiveness and salvation, according to Jesus. Thus, rarely, if ever, does anyone look at the Synoptics for support of Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith, let alone his ideas of salvation by faith alone.
The Synoptics’ Doctrine on Works Proves Its Agenda on Paul
The Synoptics' Doctrine on Works Proves Its Agenda on Paul
What demonstrates beyond doubt that the Synoptics were designed to prove Paul as a false apostle is their strong emphasis on salvation by works beyond mere faith. As one author puts it, in the Synoptics, the “main path to salvation
What demonstrates beyond doubt that the Synoptics were designed to prove Paul as a false apostle is their strong emphasis on salvation by works beyond mere faith. As one author puts it, in the Synoptics, the "main path to salvation
that [[Jesus]] described is based on good works and attitudes.” 6
that [[Jesus]] described is based on good works and attitudes." 6
In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless. There is no countervailing Pauline concept that if you once believed this somehow excuses or satisfies the requirement of repentance from sin, good works, and obedience to the Ten Commandments to enter “eternal life.” For example:
In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless. There is no countervailing Pauline concept that if you once believed this somehow excuses or satisfies the requirement of repentance from sin, good works, and obedience to the Ten Commandments to enter "eternal life." For example:
* See (Matt. 25:31-46) (the sheep who do charity go to heaven; those goats who refuse go to hell).
* See Matt. 19:17 and Luke 10:25-27 (Jesus’ answer how to have eternal life starts with keeping the Law, quoting (Deut. 6:5) and (Lev. 19:18)).
* See Matt. 19:17 and Luke 10:25-27 (Jesus' answer how to have eternal life starts with keeping the Law, quoting (Deut. 6:5) and (Lev. 19:18)).
* See Matt. 5:20 (your righteousness must exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom of heaven which Jesus then defines as not cursing, lusting, etc.).
* See Matt. 16:2 (Son of Man will come and “reward each according to his works”).
* See Matt. 16:2 (Son of Man will come and "reward each according to his works").
* See (Mark 9:42-48) (better to cut off a body part causing you to sin and enter heaven maimed than to not repent of sin and go to hell whole).
6. SALVATION: According to the synoptic gospels cf. Matt.
13:42 the ensnared are thrown into the “fiery furnace” where there is weeping and gnashing).
13:42 the ensnared are thrown into the "fiery furnace" where there is weeping and gnashing).
* See Matt. 13:3-23 and Luke 8:5-15 (those who “believe for a while” but in time of temptation fall away or who are choked and bring no fruit to completion are lost, but the one who in a good and noble heart brings forth fruit to completion in patient endurance is saved).
* See Matt. 13:3-23 and Luke 8:5-15 (those who "believe for a while" but in time of temptation fall away or who are choked and bring no fruit to completion are lost, but the one who in a good and noble heart brings forth fruit to completion in patient endurance is saved).
What About John’s Gospel?
What About John's Gospel?
If we look at the context of John’s very different recollections than those in the Synoptics, we will see the Apostle John had the same secondary objective as the Synoptics: to address the question of Paul.
If we look at the context of John's very different recollections than those in the Synoptics, we will see the Apostle John had the same secondary objective as the Synoptics: to address the question of Paul.
### What About Faith in John s Gospel?
Luther once said that the “science of theology is nothing else but Grammar exercised on the words of the Holy
Luther once said that the "science of theology is nothing else but Grammar exercised on the words of the Holy
n
Spirit.” Luther is correct that deciphering the Bible’s meaning must start with the grammar of each particular verse. If you have the wrong grammatical construction, you do not have the intended meaning. Thus, for example, the correct meaning of John 3:16 is dependent on having the correct grammatical understanding of the verse.
Spirit." Luther is correct that deciphering the Bible's meaning must start with the grammar of each particular verse. If you have the wrong grammatical construction, you do not have the intended meaning. Thus, for example, the correct meaning of John 3:16 is dependent on having the correct grammatical understanding of the verse.
If you look at John 3:16, when properly translated, it is not about salvation by faith. It is about endurance. It is about (Matt. 10:22:) “He who endures to the end shall be
If you look at John 3:16, when properly translated, it is not about salvation by faith. It is about endurance. It is about (Matt. 10:22:) "He who endures to the end shall be
7. Johann Brecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (ed. A. Fausset) (trans. J. Bandinel, J. Bryce, W. Fletcher)(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866) at 1.44 (quoting Luther), as quoted in Alan J. Thompson, “The Pietist Critique of Inerrancy? J.A. Bengel’s Gnomon as a Test Case,” JETS pisteuo, meaning he who continues to believe/trust. The theme of John is that trust must endure for salvation to be realized, not that a one-time faith saves.
7. Johann Brecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (ed. A. Fausset) (trans. J. Bandinel, J. Bryce, W. Fletcher)(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866) at 1.44 (quoting Luther), as quoted in Alan J. Thompson, "The Pietist Critique of Inerrancy? J.A. Bengel's Gnomon as a Test Case," JETS pisteuo, meaning he who continues to believe/trust. The theme of John is that trust must endure for salvation to be realized, not that a one-time faith saves.
One can easily see this by reading Young’s Literal Translation of John’s Gospel. Young renders each Greek present active participle of believe as “is believing.” (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:35,40,47; 7:38; 11:25-26; 12:11,
One can easily see this by reading Young's Literal Translation of John's Gospel. Young renders each Greek present active participle of believe as "is believing." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:35,40,47; 7:38; 11:25-26; 12:11,
37, 44, 46; 14:12; 17:20). 8 The form is believing is known as the English Present Continuous Tense of believe.
For an extensive explanation why Young’s Literal reads this way, it is in Appendix A: Greek Issues. (A short synopsis will appear below.)
For an extensive explanation why Young's Literal reads this way, it is in Appendix A: Greek Issues. (A short synopsis will appear below.)
Thus, all these verses in John’s Gospel have been mistranslated in the KJV and NIV to be talking about salvation caused by a one-time verbal or mental acknowledgment {believes) of Jesus as savior. This translation matched Paul’s salvation formula in (Rom. 10:9). Paul used the Greek aorist tense for believes in Romans 10:9, which corresponds to a one-time faith. However, John’s literal words in the continuous tense—the Greek present active tense —have nothing to do with a one-time action—the Greek aorist tense. The meaning of John 3:16 is in the true translation of the verb tense: continues to believe or trust. All who keep on trusting in
Thus, all these verses in John's Gospel have been mistranslated in the KJV and NIV to be talking about salvation caused by a one-time verbal or mental acknowledgment {believes) of Jesus as savior. This translation matched Paul's salvation formula in (Rom. 10:9). Paul used the Greek aorist tense for believes in Romans 10:9, which corresponds to a one-time faith. However, John's literal words in the continuous tense-the Greek present active tense -have nothing to do with a one-time action-the Greek aorist tense. The meaning of John 3:16 is in the true translation of the verb tense: continues to believe or trust. All who keep on trusting in
Jesus “should” be saved, says John 3:16. 9 It is about endurance in trust, not salvation by faith.
Jesus "should" be saved, says John 3:16. 9 It is about endurance in trust, not salvation by faith.
In fact, one could interpret John’s gospel as being intentionally anti-Pauline.
In fact, one could interpret John's gospel as being intentionally anti-Pauline.
For consider that when you compare John to the Synoptics ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus never utters any statement in the Synoptics comparable to John about faith. Why was John summoning this message about pisteuo from
8. To verify the Greek verb’s grammatical usage, download the
8. To verify the Greek verb's grammatical usage, download the
Interlinear Scripture Analyzer 10 The Synoptics had not enough impact
on the budding church to expose the stark difference between Paul and
Jesus. Some Christians were still persuaded that Paul had the true
gospel. Thus, John’s gospel was the Holy Spirit’s inspiration to John
to fix this, by showing Jesus’ true doctrines on faith and believing.
gospel. Thus, John's gospel was the Holy Spirit's inspiration to John
to fix this, by showing Jesus' true doctrines on faith and believing.
In other words, John was remembering all the times Jesus used the word pistis or its relative pisteuo (the verb form, to believe or trust ) when linked somehow to eternal life. (Of course, Jesus spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew, but John was translating to Greek.) This way we could make a comparison between Jesus and how Paul uses the similar word in relation to salvation. No one has offered a more reasonable explanation why John reads so differently than the Synoptics. There was something pressuring John. It was the question of Paul.
Thus, John must have asked the Holy Spirit to call to his mind every instance Jesus mentioned faith as somehow causally related to salvation. This way we could examine Paul’s teaching in this regard. This produced a Gospel with a very different set of recollections which were not as important to the original Gospel writers.
Thus, John must have asked the Holy Spirit to call to his mind every instance Jesus mentioned faith as somehow causally related to salvation. This way we could examine Paul's teaching in this regard. This produced a Gospel with a very different set of recollections which were not as important to the original Gospel writers.
### How John’s Gospel Addresses the Issue of Faith and Salvation
### How John's Gospel Addresses the Issue of Faith and Salvation
So how does John answer the key question whether a one-time faith or a
one-time confession saves as Paul teaches in (Rom. 10:9)? Does John
back Paul up? Or does John expose Paul as a false teacher?
10. See Paul or James ’ Church: Wiio Was The Most Successful
10. See Paul or James ' Church: Wiio Was The Most Successful
Evangelist? faith/trust is mentioned as causally connected to eternal
life in the Gospel of John, it is in a verb form of the present active
in Greek. (See John 3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47 etc.) Every time!
Thus, John’s Gospel is repetitious on the issue of salvation. This is
Thus, John's Gospel is repetitious on the issue of salvation. This is
for emphasis by John. He could not recall it once said any other
way. What does this imply?
A short synopsis follows which summarizes the discussion in Appendix A. Greek grammar makes John’s point unmistakable.
A short synopsis follows which summarizes the discussion in Appendix A. Greek grammar makes John's point unmistakable.
### Synopsis of Appendix A on the Greek Present Active
First, unlike English, Greek has a specific verb tense for a one-time
action. It is kn own as the aorist tense. This can be rendered in
English by use of the English Simple Present Tense, e.g., “believes.”
We can read “believes” in English to mean a one time expression of
English by use of the English Simple Present Tense, e.g., "believes."
We can read "believes" in English to mean a one time expression of
faith. 11 English Simple Present Tense thus can correspond to the
aorist participle in Greek.
Paul in (Rom. 10:9) uses the aorist tense to signify salvation is by
one time events: “if ever ( ean ) you confess (<aorist active
one time events: "if ever ( ean ) you confess (<aorist active
subjunctive) by your mouth that Jesus is Lord and [if] you [ever]
believe ( aorist active subjunctive) that God raised Him from the
dead, you shall be saved.” (This is my literal word-for-word
dead, you shall be saved." (This is my literal word-for-word
translation.) Thus, Paul is using the Greek aorist verb tense. He
means you are saved if you ever once confess and believe. No
continuity is implied in verse nine.
11. For this reason, Charles Stanley, the head of the Baptists, says
“believes” in John 3:16 (which is the KJV and NIV translation)
means a one-time faith. Stanley explains “believes”—the English
simple present tense of to believe —can mean a one-time event that
"believes" in John 3:16 (which is the KJV and NIV translation)
means a one-time faith. Stanley explains "believes"-the English
simple present tense of to believe -can mean a one-time event that
does not have to continue. From this, Stanley deduces a one-time
faith saves. (Charles Stanley, Eternal Security of the Believer
exact opposite meaning from the aorist tense is conveyed by the
Greek present indicative active or present participle active. In
Greek, these two forms of the present active tense mean the action
is continuing. It is best translated into English using “continues
to” or “keeps on” in front of the English gerund. For example, “he
who continues to believe” or “he who keeps on trusting” is the
is continuing. It is best translated into English using "continues
to" or "keeps on" in front of the English gerund. For example, "he
who continues to believe" or "he who keeps on trusting" is the
better translation.
This distinction is confessed by leading Calvinists who are staunch
@ -190,25 +190,25 @@ A Summary of John 6:35-45 (Reformation Press: 1999) at pages 10-11:
Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed by many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes in him [3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.], he uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous, on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not on-going.... The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior.
12.See Appendix A: Greek Issues for a full discussion. Young’s Literal
12.See Appendix A: Greek Issues for a full discussion. Young's Literal
Translation always renders the Greek present indicative active or the
present participle active with “is...ing” (the gerund form of the
present participle active with "is...ing" (the gerund form of the
verb). This is the English present continuous tense. It is a
satisfactory rendering. However, to catch the nuance of the Greek, the
NIV was correct to use “keeps on” or “continues to...” as it did so
often. However, only Youngs Literal i.e ., “believes”) rather than the
English Continuous Present (, i.e ., “is believing” or “keeps on
believing”). The KJV thus conveyed a completely opposite meaning than
NIV was correct to use "keeps on" or "continues to..." as it did so
often. However, only Youngs Literal i.e ., "believes") rather than the
English Continuous Present (, i.e ., "is believing" or "keeps on
believing"). The KJV thus conveyed a completely opposite meaning than
John intended. The KJV English translation corresponds to the Greek
aorist tense of (Rom. 10:9), not the Greek present active tense of
Apostle John. The KJV corresponds to a teaching of a onetime faith
should save rather than an ongoing trust doing so.
The KJV was either protecting Paul from the implication of John’s
The KJV was either protecting Paul from the implication of John's
gospel or committed a gross blunder. The New International Version
(NIV) fixed the KJV translation of the Greek present active in over
seventeen instances by adding to the verb clause “keeps on” or
“continues to” each time. The only principal time the NIV would not
seventeen instances by adding to the verb clause "keeps on" or
"continues to" each time. The only principal time the NIV would not
correct the translation of the Greek present active was when the Greek
word for believes was involved. The NIV left us still in the dark on
the most important doctrine of all: salvation. There is no defense for
@ -231,13 +231,13 @@ trust on your part. John 5:24 correctly translated reads:
You can verify the verb tenses by downloading the free Interlinear Scripture Analyzer.
Thus, while Paul says a one-time ( aorist ) belief in certain facts saves you ((Rom. 10:9)) and now there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1), a contrary meaning arises from John 5:24. There is no condemnation for those who keep on listening to Jesus and who keep on trusting/believing in the Father. In other words, John is remembering words of Jesus at total odds with Paul. Yet, our KJV and NIV lead us to believe there is agreement between Paul and Jesus by using in John 5:24 hears and believes. These are in the English Simple Present form. They are not in the English Continuous Present. Both the KJV and NIV translations use a tense that corresponds to Paul’s aorist tense in Romans 10:9, not John’s actual present active tense. It is completely obvious when you peak under the covers and look at the verb tenses. Now anyone can do this by using the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer free for download. The emperor has no clothes any more.
Thus, while Paul says a one-time ( aorist ) belief in certain facts saves you ((Rom. 10:9)) and now there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1), a contrary meaning arises from John 5:24. There is no condemnation for those who keep on listening to Jesus and who keep on trusting/believing in the Father. In other words, John is remembering words of Jesus at total odds with Paul. Yet, our KJV and NIV lead us to believe there is agreement between Paul and Jesus by using in John 5:24 hears and believes. These are in the English Simple Present form. They are not in the English Continuous Present. Both the KJV and NIV translations use a tense that corresponds to Paul's aorist tense in Romans 10:9, not John's actual present active tense. It is completely obvious when you peak under the covers and look at the verb tenses. Now anyone can do this by using the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer free for download. The emperor has no clothes any more.
If you are tempted to throw out John’s Gospel now that you know its
If you are tempted to throw out John's Gospel now that you know its
intent is anti-Pauline, it is pointless to do so. You would also have
to get rid of Luke. For the verb pisteuo was used in the same manner
as John in Luke’s account of the Parable of the Sower. Jesus in this
account uses believing in the identical manner as in John’s
as John in Luke's account of the Parable of the Sower. Jesus in this
account uses believing in the identical manner as in John's
Gospel. For in Luke, Jesus identifies a believing negative manner. The
Parable of the Sower teaches that the failure to continue in faith or
trust leads to becoming lost. It never says faith that later fails
@ -248,19 +248,19 @@ this is not a parable that Paulunists can avoid by claiming its
meaning remains a mystery. Jesus explained its symbolic meaning in
excruciating detail.
Let’s analyze with care the Parable of the Sower.
Let's analyze with care the Parable of the Sower.
The first seed never believes because Satan snatches the word from his
heart before he can believe “and be saved.” (Luke 8:12). Unlike the
heart before he can believe "and be saved." (Luke 8:12). Unlike the
first seed, the second seed ( i.e ., the seed on rocky soil) (Luke
8:6) “sprouted.” Jesus explains this means the second seed “received
the word with joy” and “believes for a while.” (Luke 8:13.)
8:6) "sprouted." Jesus explains this means the second seed "received
the word with joy" and "believes for a while." (Luke 8:13.)
In Luke 8:13, the Greek tense for “believes” is the present indicative
active of pisteuo. Jesus is saying the seed on rocky ground “keeps on
believing.” Jesus then adds an adverb meaning “for a while.” In this
In Luke 8:13, the Greek tense for "believes" is the present indicative
active of pisteuo. Jesus is saying the seed on rocky ground "keeps on
believing." Jesus then adds an adverb meaning "for a while." In this
context, the present indicative is indistinguishable from the present
participle active of pisteuo which is used unifonnly in John’s Gospel. 14
participle active of pisteuo which is used unifonnly in John's Gospel. 14
14.The Greek word for believes in Luke 8:13 is pisteuosin. This is one
form of the present participle active when a masculine dative is
@ -273,26 +273,26 @@ participle active because the subject is a masculine nominative. This
difference in believes between Luke 8:13 and John 3:16 is not
substantive. Both correspond to a continuous tense. See Appendix A:
(i.e., shriveled up). (Luke 8:6). Jesus explains this means it fell
into “temptation” (sinned) and “fell away.” (Luke 8:13, aphistami.)
Why did it fall away? It shriveled up “because it lacked moisture.”
into "temptation" (sinned) and "fell away." (Luke 8:13, aphistami.)
Why did it fall away? It shriveled up "because it lacked moisture."
(Luke 8:6). The Greek of this verb was present active as well, meaning
“it did not continue to have moisture.” Jesus explains again why,
saying the seed “did not have root.” (Luke 8:13). The verb, however,
is again present active in Greek ( ecousin ) and means “it did not
keep holding on to the Root.”
"it did not continue to have moisture." Jesus explains again why,
saying the seed "did not have root." (Luke 8:13). The verb, however,
is again present active in Greek ( ecousin ) and means "it did not
keep holding on to the Root."
Table captionTABLE 4. Parable of the Sower: Second Seed
| Second Seed Metaphor | Jesus’ Explanation |
| Second Seed Metaphor | Jesus' Explanation |
| sprouted | received the word with joy\\continued to believe for a while |
| did not continue to have moisture | did not keep holding to the root |
| withered away (shriveled up) | tempted, fell away |
Thus, Jesus is saying that someone who received the word with Joy,
“continued to believe for a while,” and thus “sprouted,” then fell
"continued to believe for a while," and thus "sprouted," then fell
into temptation. This person ends up withered away (dead). Dead means
no life. No life means no eternal life. The reason is they “did not
keep holding to the Root” and so they “fell away.” This was a lesson
no life. No life means no eternal life. The reason is they "did not
keep holding to the Root" and so they "fell away." This was a lesson
about faith lacking endurance and being destroyed by sin
(temptation). Thus, it is a negative message about faith.
@ -302,20 +302,20 @@ about faith lacking endurance and being destroyed by sin
![Picture #39](images/img_0039.png)
you are opposite of the saints who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Rev. 14:12). By falling into temptation you fail to “keep...the commandments...and faith of Jesus” and become lost.
you are opposite of the saints who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12). By falling into temptation you fail to "keep...the commandments...and faith of Jesus" and become lost.
There is no missing this point if you see the precise parallel to (Rev. 2:4-5).
There Jesus tells the Ephesians they have “left your first love,” and
“art fallen,” so “repent” and do your “first works.”
There Jesus tells the Ephesians they have "left your first love," and
"art fallen," so "repent" and do your "first works."
Compare this then to the second seed in the Parable of the Sower. The
second seed had “joy” in the word at first, like the Ephesians had
“love at first.” The second seed “sprouted” and thus had “first
works,” just like the Ephesians. The second seed then sinned and “fell
away,” just as the Ephesians “art fallen.” The solution, as always, is
“repent,” as Jesus told the Ephesians in (Rev. 2:4-5) and do your
“first works.”
second seed had "joy" in the word at first, like the Ephesians had
"love at first." The second seed "sprouted" and thus had "first
works," just like the Ephesians. The second seed then sinned and "fell
away," just as the Ephesians "art fallen." The solution, as always, is
"repent," as Jesus told the Ephesians in (Rev. 2:4-5) and do your
"first works."
Now who is the only saved person in the Parable of the Sower? It is
the fourth seed, which is the only one who brings forth fruit
@ -323,49 +323,49 @@ or...dare I use the synonym...works.
The fourth seed is the good and noble heart that is saved. To
understand the fourth seed, we must see the contrast to the third
seed. The KJV says the third seed “brings no fruit to perfection.”
seed. The KJV says the third seed "brings no fruit to perfection."
(Luke 8:14, KJV.) However, the translation is lacking. The third seed
is choked by thorns ( i.e ., the worries of this world) and so does
not telesphorousin. This Greek word combines teleos, which means end,
with phore, which means to produce, bring forth. Together, the two
words literally mean “to complete” or “bring to a finish.” Telesphore
words literally mean "to complete" or "bring to a finish." Telesphore
is often used with regard to fruit, pregnant women or
animals. (Robertson s Word Pictures.) Telesphorousin is the present
active fonn in Greek. So it means “did not keep on producing to the
end” or “did not continue to the finish.” The idea of “bringing fruit
to perfection’' is incorrect. The word “fruit” is also not actually in
active fonn in Greek. So it means "did not keep on producing to the
end" or "did not continue to the finish." The idea of "bringing fruit
to perfection'' is incorrect. The word "fruit" is also not actually in
this verse. Completion, not perfection, is in view. They did not
telephorousin, i.e., i.e., incomplete. ( Cfr. KJV “works not
perfect”). Failure to complete your works leads to a loss of
telephorousin, i.e., i.e., incomplete. ( Cfr. KJV "works not
perfect"). Failure to complete your works leads to a loss of
salvation.
Knowing the flaws of the third seed opens our understanding of the
fourth seed’s reason for being saved. The fourth seed, by contrast,
“fell into good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a
hundredfold.” (Luke 8:8). Listen to Jesus’ explanation of why this
fourth seed's reason for being saved. The fourth seed, by contrast,
"fell into good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a
hundredfold." (Luke 8:8). Listen to Jesus' explanation of why this
person alone among the four is ultimately saved:
And that in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good
heart, having heard the word, hold it fast, and bring forth fruit with
patience. (Luke 8:15 ASV).
The Greek verb for “hold it fast” is in the Greek present active
again. It means “keep on holding down.” It is not hold “fast,” but
hold “down.” (. Robertson s Word Pictures.) This is a significant
The Greek verb for "hold it fast" is in the Greek present active
again. It means "keep on holding down." It is not hold "fast," but
hold "down." (. Robertson s Word Pictures.) This is a significant
point. As Jesus tells the parable, the devil swooped down and stole
the word from the first sewn seed, depriving it of salvation. By
continuing to hold down the word, the fourth seed is guarding
itself. It is doing everything possible to keep Satan from snatching
the word away. It is the same meaning behind John 8:51. He who has
“kept guard” over Jesus’ word “should never [ever] taste death.” (John
"kept guard" over Jesus' word "should never [ever] taste death." (John
8:51, ASV.)
Finally, what does it mean that the only saved person in this parable
“brings forth fruit with patience.” (Luke 8:15, ASV)? Salvation
"brings forth fruit with patience." (Luke 8:15, ASV)? Salvation
depends on completing works to the end.
Luke 8:15 really means: “who keep carrying on producing fruit with
endurance.” The Greek verb this time is karpos (carrying) combined
Luke 8:15 really means: "who keep carrying on producing fruit with
endurance." The Greek verb this time is karpos (carrying) combined
with phore (produce, bear) in the Greek present indicative. So it has
a continuous meaning. This is followed by hupomeno in Greek. In most
translations of this verse, hupomeno is rendered as patience. However,
@ -373,12 +373,12 @@ almost everywhere else hupomeno appears in the NT it is translated as
endurance, which is the more likely intended meaning of Jesus. The
combination of karpos and Parable of the Sower: Fourth Seed
| Fourth Seed (The Saved) | Jesus’ Explanation |
| Fourth Seed (The Saved) | Jesus' Explanation |
| good ground | noble and good heart |
| seed sewn | heard the word |
| grew | kept holding the word down (protecting it) |
| keeps on producing fruit a hun | keeps on carrying on producing |
| dredfold | fruit with endurance. Cfr.\\To hold onto Pauline ‘faith alone’ doctrine, one has to do many twists and turns with this parable. Jesus explained it, so you cannot say it is a parable hard to understand. Jesus already explained it! |
| dredfold | fruit with endurance. Cfr.\\To hold onto Pauline 'faith alone' doctrine, one has to do many twists and turns with this parable. Jesus explained it, so you cannot say it is a parable hard to understand. Jesus already explained it! |
![Picture #40](images/img_0040.png)

68
JWO_08_02_LutherCouldNotComeUpWithAGlossToSolvetheParableoftheSower_0034.md

@ -2,27 +2,27 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Luther Could Not Come Up With A Gloss To Solve the Parable of the Sower
In fact, no one has ever properly explained how Jesus’ Parable of the
Sower can even remotely line up consistent with Paul. Luther’s effort
In fact, no one has ever properly explained how Jesus' Parable of the
Sower can even remotely line up consistent with Paul. Luther's effort
is so untenable that it proves how absolutely impossible it is to
reconcile the two. Luther must have realized Jesus contradicts
Paul. Thus, he injects Paul’s doctrine of faith, not works, into what
Paul. Thus, he injects Paul's doctrine of faith, not works, into what
saves the second seed. Luther then ignores how this mismatches the
rest of what the parable means.
Luther begins his commentary properly. The first type who has their
seed snatched are those who “hear the word” but do not understand
it. (Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. II, at 114.) 15 These “never
believe” and never become saved. {Id., at 115.)
seed snatched are those who "hear the word" but do not understand
it. (Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. II, at 114.) 15 These "never
believe" and never become saved. {Id., at 115.)
Luther then says the second seed knows the correct doctrine of
salvation, i.e., “they know the real truth” that they are saved by
without works” (Paul’s Gospel). However, “they do not
persevere.” He adds: “when it comes to the test that they must suffer
salvation, i.e., "they know the real truth" that they are saved by
without works" (Paul's Gospel). However, "they do not
persevere." He adds: "when it comes to the test that they must suffer
hann, disgrace and loss of life or property, then they fall and deny
it....in times of persecution they deny or keep silence about the Word.”
it....in times of persecution they deny or keep silence about the Word."
15.Martin Luther, “The Parable of the Sower,” The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther (Minneapolis, MN: Lutherans in All Lands, 1906) Vol. 11 reprinted as The Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House) (1983) Vol. II at 113 et seq.
15.Martin Luther, "The Parable of the Sower," The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther (Minneapolis, MN: Lutherans in All Lands, 1906) Vol. 11 reprinted as The Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House) (1983) Vol. II at 113 et seq.
Luther in essence is saying that they lose their salvation because
under pressure they deny this truth that salvation is by faith
@ -33,28 +33,28 @@ of faith alone or be lost. This is a self-contradiction, because then
faith alone did not save you. Faith and perseverance in faith alone
saves you. These two ideas are self-contradictory: if you must persist
in faith to be saved, then persistence, not the faith alone, is
necessary for salvation. Hence, Luther’s solution is nonsensical.
necessary for salvation. Hence, Luther's solution is nonsensical.
(Anyone who has read eternal security arguments know that they reject
Luther’s argument precisely because salvation then depends on more
Luther's argument precisely because salvation then depends on more
than a one-time faith. Luther is actually contradicting Paul to save
Paul from the Parable of the Sower.)
Luther’s comments on the third group are enlightening as well. This
group of seeds “always possess the absolutely pure Word....” (Id., at
116.) Their fault is “they do not earnestly give themselves to the
Luther's comments on the third group are enlightening as well. This
group of seeds "always possess the absolutely pure Word...." (Id., at
116.) Their fault is "they do not earnestly give themselves to the
Word, but become indifferent and sink in the cares, riches and
pleasures of this life....” (Id., at 117.) They are thus apparently
initially saved. Luther says “these have all in the Word that is
pleasures of this life...." (Id., at 117.) They are thus apparently
initially saved. Luther says "these have all in the Word that is
needed for their salvation, but they do not make any use of it, and
they rot in this life in carnal pleasures.” Luther seems to understand
they rot in this life in carnal pleasures." Luther seems to understand
Jesus is saying their problem is sin, not lack of proper faith. Luther
says that despite the proper knowledge of the Gospel, “they do not
bring under subjection their flesh.” (Id.)
says that despite the proper knowledge of the Gospel, "they do not
bring under subjection their flesh." (Id.)
This leads Luther to the correct conclusion why the fourth seed is
saved. Luther says they “bring forth fruit with patience, those who
saved. Luther says they "bring forth fruit with patience, those who
hear the Word and steadfastly retain it, meditate upon it and act in
harmony with it .” This leads to as true a statement as you will ever
harmony with it ." This leads to as true a statement as you will ever
hear by Luther:
Here we see why it is no wonder there are so few true Christians,
@ -66,9 +66,9 @@ hear by Luther:
Luther realizes that salvation depends in the Parable, as Jesus depicts it,
on YOU! It depends on the earnestness of your response and productivity!
This is the end of Luther’s substantive commentary. What did he do? He
explained Jesus’ parable correctly. Yet, he pretended it was
consistent with Paul by injecting Paul’s gospel as what saved the
This is the end of Luther's substantive commentary. What did he do? He
explained Jesus' parable correctly. Yet, he pretended it was
consistent with Paul by injecting Paul's gospel as what saved the
second and third seeds initially. Luther did so without acknowledging
it was self-contradictory nonsense. How can a seed that is saved by
faith alone have to persevere and not succumb to sin? How can it lose
@ -76,25 +76,25 @@ salvation by being overcome by the thorns (pleasures) of this life?
Nor did Luther try to ever explain away why the saved fourth seed
alone had completed works.
Luther’s response is a perfect example of how people retain Paul even
Luther's response is a perfect example of how people retain Paul even
when he contradicts Jesus. Luther is conceding certain unavoidable
aspects of this parable are at direct odds with Paul. Yet by injecting
Paul’s wording in the middle, Luther makes it appear that Jesus’ words
are compatible with Paul’s words. In this manner, Luther has somehow
Paul's wording in the middle, Luther makes it appear that Jesus' words
are compatible with Paul's words. In this manner, Luther has somehow
rationalized away that a conflict exists.
It is as Isaiah prophesied: “the wisdom of their wise men shall
perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”
It is as Isaiah prophesied: "the wisdom of their wise men shall
perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."
((Isa. 29:14).)
### Comparing the Parable of the Sower to John’s Gospel
### Comparing the Parable of the Sower to John's Gospel
Finally, now we can make a comparison between the Parable of the Sower
and John’s Gospel.
and John's Gospel.
John and Luke use pisteuo in the present active verb form to make the
same point about faith. In Luke, saving faith cannot be a seed that
fails to “keep holding onto the Root.” Thus, the Parable of the Sower
fails to "keep holding onto the Root." Thus, the Parable of the Sower
and John have the identical concept of faith that pertains to
salvation: it must continue. It must endure. If the believer fails to
keep enduring to the end, he or she will become lost. Faith in the

40
JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md

@ -4,13 +4,13 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Conclusion
The Parable of the Sower is an amazing nugget of Jesus’ doctrine. For
here is the whole true gospel of salvation from Jesus’ lips. It is all
The Parable of the Sower is an amazing nugget of Jesus' doctrine. For
here is the whole true gospel of salvation from Jesus' lips. It is all
contained in a very unassuming Parable of the Sower. Jesus tells you
how to be saved and what is necessary to complete your
salvation. Jesus tells you also how to be lost even after you have
faith and accepted His word with joy and experience initial growth
(“sprouted”).
("sprouted").
Accordingly, the Parable of the Sower puts an end to the salvation by
faith alone idea. It puts an end to the idea that producing fruit is
@ -18,37 +18,37 @@ not essential. It shows the folly of thinking you can get to heaven
having believed and withered, or having grown significantly and then
having been choked, never bringing your works to completion.
Thus Jesus in this parable shows the error of Paul’s starkly different
Thus Jesus in this parable shows the error of Paul's starkly different
doctrine. If you read Paul, it is all over once the seed is
successfully sown , no matter what happens next. Paul’s main salvation
successfully sown , no matter what happens next. Paul's main salvation
verses at odds with this Parable of the Sower are well-known:
* (Rom. 3:28) (“man is justified by faith apart from observing the law”).
* (Rom. 3:28) ("man is justified by faith apart from observing the law").
* (Rom. 4:5) (“To the man who does not work, but trusts God who
justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness”).
* (Rom. 4:5) ("To the man who does not work, but trusts God who
justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness").
* (Gal. 5:4) (“You who are trying to be justified by law have been
alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace”).
* (Gal. 5:4) ("You who are trying to be justified by law have been
alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace").
* (Rom. 7:6) (“Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been
* (Rom. 7:6) ("Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been
released from the law, so that we serve in a new way of the Spirit,
and not in the old way of the written code”).
and not in the old way of the written code").
* Gal. 2:16 (“A man is not justified by observing the law, but by
* Gal. 2:16 ("A man is not justified by observing the law, but by
faith in Jesus Christ, because by observing the law no one will be
justified”).
justified").
* (Eph. 2:8-9) (“For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.”)
* (Eph. 2:8-9) ("For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.")
Paul has a different voice than our Lord Jesus. Paul’s themes are alien to Jesus’s message of salvation. They undercut, if not destroy, the message of Jesus. The true sheep of Jesus recognize His voice, and will not follow another. (John 10:27-29). Who are you following?
Paul has a different voice than our Lord Jesus. Paul's themes are alien to Jesus's message of salvation. They undercut, if not destroy, the message of Jesus. The true sheep of Jesus recognize His voice, and will not follow another. (John 10:27-29). Who are you following?
Thus, how many times must Jesus make the same points about repentance from sin and productivity at odds with Paul’s different message before we will listen? If we think the Parable of the Sower is some distorted addition to Scripture, then think again. It appears in all three Synoptic gospels. (Matt. 13:3 et seq\ Luke 8:5 et seq\ (Mark 4:3) etseq.) There is no lineage of any early manuscript that ever omitted it. You have to deal with Jesus’ Words alone versus Paul’s different message.
Thus, how many times must Jesus make the same points about repentance from sin and productivity at odds with Paul's different message before we will listen? If we think the Parable of the Sower is some distorted addition to Scripture, then think again. It appears in all three Synoptic gospels. (Matt. 13:3 et seq\ Luke 8:5 et seq\ (Mark 4:3) etseq.) There is no lineage of any early manuscript that ever omitted it. You have to deal with Jesus' Words alone versus Paul's different message.
The fact we cannot find Paul’s gospel in Jesus’ words brings us back to the fundamental questions presented in this book:
The fact we cannot find Paul's gospel in Jesus' words brings us back to the fundamental questions presented in this book:
* When will we finally make a commitment to keeping Jesus’ words only?
* When will we finally make a commitment to keeping Jesus' words only?
* What is our Biblical justification for adding Paul to Scripture?
@ -56,6 +56,6 @@ The fact we cannot find Paul’s gospel in Jesus’ words brings us back to the
* Even if Paul gave a valid prophecy, does Paul seek to seduce us from
following the Law and thus is disqualified from being added to
Scripture by virtue of the Law’s strict disqualification rule in
Scripture by virtue of the Law's strict disqualification rule in
(Deut. 4:2) and 13:1-5 and (Isa. 8:20)?

102
JWO_09_01_IsJesus_SalvationDoctrineinRevelationARebuttaltoPaul__0036.md

@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Key features of the Book of Revelation are that:
* It is written long after Paul’s writings.
* It is written long after Paul's writings.
* It was written by one of the twelve apostles.
* It was written in a region where Paul’s writings were available to Apostle John.
* It was written in a region where Paul's writings were available to Apostle John.
* The churches addressed are in Gentile lands, thus potentially under the influence of Paul.
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ from inspired canon. 1
Other Paulunists openly recognize the problem and boldly decry the Book of Revelation. These Paulunists do so apparently unaware that Revelation can truly be linked to Apostle John based on the witness of his friend Papias. Thinking they can prove it is non-apostolic, they let down their guard on the Book of Revelation. They boldly proclaim the Jesus presented in the book of Revelation is heretical because this Jesus contradicts Paul on salvation issues.
In an article entitled Why the Book of Revelation is Heresy, Dr. Weakly—a Methodist Minister with a Masters in Theology—unwittingly lays out a case against Paul while he thinks he is debunking the Book of Revelation as heresy. We read:
In an article entitled Why the Book of Revelation is Heresy, Dr. Weakly-a Methodist Minister with a Masters in Theology-unwittingly lays out a case against Paul while he thinks he is debunking the Book of Revelation as heresy. We read:
Would Jesus vomit you and me out of the Kingdom of heaven for being only luke warm?
@ -34,67 +34,67 @@ Would Jesus change salvation by faith back to salvation by works?
k k k k
Pergamum (2: 12) is in Satan’s territory. It held fast and did not deny Jesus during persecutions. But [John of] Patmos’ Jesus rebukes them for eating food sacrificed to idols (2: 14). Here Patmos’ Jesus contrasts with Paul who said this is permitted (1Cor. 8).
Pergamum (2: 12) is in Satan's territory. It held fast and did not deny Jesus during persecutions. But [John of] Patmos' Jesus rebukes them for eating food sacrificed to idols (2: 14). Here Patmos' Jesus contrasts with Paul who said this is permitted (1Cor. 8).
1. See “Reformation Doubts About the Canonicity of Revelation” on page 9 of my article The Authenticity of the Book of Revelation Contradicting [[Paul’s]] Gospel, Jesus, Patmos’ salvation is by works and not by faith.
1. See "Reformation Doubts About the Canonicity of Revelation" on page 9 of my article The Authenticity of the Book of Revelation Contradicting [[Paul's]] Gospel, Jesus, Patmos' salvation is by works and not by faith.
Philadelphia (3:7) has done everything right according to Patmos’ Jesus. They have endured patiently. If they will just keep on enduring, they will receive their reward. Reward here is based on enduring rather than believing. It is these who endure that Patmos’ Jesus will save. Those who cannot handle persecutions are outside the blessings. [[Patmos’]] Jesus is entirely different [from Pauline doctrine]. * * * *
Philadelphia (3:7) has done everything right according to Patmos' Jesus. They have endured patiently. If they will just keep on enduring, they will receive their reward. Reward here is based on enduring rather than believing. It is these who endure that Patmos' Jesus will save. Those who cannot handle persecutions are outside the blessings. [[Patmos']] Jesus is entirely different [from Pauline doctrine]. * * * *
Laodice (3: 14) is neither hot nor cold so Patmos Jesus will vomit the lukewarm Christians out of his mouth expel them from the body of Christ (3: 15,16)....Patmos’ Jesus qualifies who he will bless by their works, their endurance being the measure by which they are judged worthy to be saved and remain saved.
Laodice (3: 14) is neither hot nor cold so Patmos Jesus will vomit the lukewarm Christians out of his mouth expel them from the body of Christ (3: 15,16)....Patmos' Jesus qualifies who he will bless by their works, their endurance being the measure by which they are judged worthy to be saved and remain saved.
Works are the basis salvation for Patmos’ Jesus. That doctrine is specifically stated in Revelation’s twentieth chapter (20: 12,13).
Works are the basis salvation for Patmos' Jesus. That doctrine is specifically stated in Revelation's twentieth chapter (20: 12,13).
k k k k
John Patmos’ Jesus salvation by works takes away this ‘blessed assurance. ’ and viciously punishing.
John Patmos' Jesus salvation by works takes away this 'blessed assurance. ' and viciously punishing.
His is not the loving Abba Heavenly Father of Apostle John’s Jesus.
His is not the loving Abba Heavenly Father of Apostle John's Jesus.
‘Revelation’ continues the ancient argument about ‘works’ (James’ Letter) versus ‘faith’ alone (Paul) that is explained in Paul’s letters, ((Rom. 10), esp. 10:4). 2
'Revelation' continues the ancient argument about 'works' (James' Letter) versus 'faith' alone (Paul) that is explained in Paul's letters, ((Rom. 10), esp. 10:4). 2
These are excellent points. Dr. Weakley agrees Paul pennits eating meat sacrificed to idols. However, he also agrees Jesus in Revelation prohibits it. Paul says salvation is by faith (alone), without works, but Dr. Weakley say Jesus in Revelation repeatedly contradicts this.
Thus, we have a flat contradiction of Paul by Jesus after Paul’s writings were published and well-known. These passages in Revelation contradict Paul’s salvation formula that excludes works. The message of Revelation is that instead of us being judged by faith, we are judged and justified by works. As one commentator writes:
Thus, we have a flat contradiction of Paul by Jesus after Paul's writings were published and well-known. These passages in Revelation contradict Paul's salvation formula that excludes works. The message of Revelation is that instead of us being judged by faith, we are judged and justified by works. As one commentator writes:
Jesus says in the book of Revelation also that we are justified by our works.
It reads: ‘Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according to his WORK shall be.’ (Rev. 22:) 12.
It reads: 'Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according to his WORK shall be.' (Rev. 22:) 12.
And death and hell delivered up the dead that were in them, and they were judge every man according to their WORKS.’ (Rev. 20:) 12.
And death and hell delivered up the dead that were in them, and they were judge every man according to their WORKS.' (Rev. 20:) 12.
So now we have Jesus and his disciple...John
are different than Paul’s teaching.
are different than Paul's teaching.
2. Clare G. Weakley, Jr., Why the Book of Revelation is Heresy analyze them by their works
according to the law . 3
There is never any assurance given in Revelation that without works you are seen as perfect based upon a one-time belief in Jesus. There is never any suggestion in Revelation that works are not your personal responsibility and now you can lean back and relax and expect God to perform in you or attribute to you based on faith. Let’s review what Jesus tells us about salvation and test whether Paul lines up with Jesus’ words.
There is never any assurance given in Revelation that without works you are seen as perfect based upon a one-time belief in Jesus. There is never any suggestion in Revelation that works are not your personal responsibility and now you can lean back and relax and expect God to perform in you or attribute to you based on faith. Let's review what Jesus tells us about salvation and test whether Paul lines up with Jesus' words.
### Faith and Works in Revelation
Jesus in Revelation aims a dagger right at Paul’s teaching on faith and works. Jesus is going to strike hard again and again. In Revelation, salvation is under constant threat for members of seven churches. Jesus gives several warnings on how to overcome, and how not to be blotted out from the book of life. In the salvation message in Revelation dating to 90 A.D., grace is never mentioned although it was Paul’s banner slogan from 45-62 A.D. Faith in the sense of a mental assent is likewise ignored. Jesus does so despite faith being the lynch-pin of the salvation doctrine from Paul 25-45 years earlier. (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 10:9; Rom. 4:4). Rather, in Jesus’ Book of Revelation, faithfulness is promised the crown of life: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a
Jesus in Revelation aims a dagger right at Paul's teaching on faith and works. Jesus is going to strike hard again and again. In Revelation, salvation is under constant threat for members of seven churches. Jesus gives several warnings on how to overcome, and how not to be blotted out from the book of life. In the salvation message in Revelation dating to 90 A.D., grace is never mentioned although it was Paul's banner slogan from 45-62 A.D. Faith in the sense of a mental assent is likewise ignored. Jesus does so despite faith being the lynch-pin of the salvation doctrine from Paul 25-45 years earlier. (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 10:9; Rom. 4:4). Rather, in Jesus' Book of Revelation, faithfulness is promised the crown of life: "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a
crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10). 4
crown of life." (Rev. 2:10). 4
3. Judgment According to Our Works I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Rev. 2:23.)
3. Judgment According to Our Works I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Rev. 2:23.)
Jesus promises again later that on Judgment day “every man” is “judged...according to their works.”
Jesus promises again later that on Judgment day "every man" is "judged...according to their works."
(Rev. 20:13). 5 Cf. Matt. 12:36-37 (“every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”)
(Rev. 20:13). 5 Cf. Matt. 12:36-37 ("every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.")
“We are saved by faith, but we will be judged by our works! The final Judgment will be based on our works of obedience.”
"We are saved by faith, but we will be judged by our works! The final Judgment will be based on our works of obedience."
Pastor Reimar Schultz (on Rev. 20:13)
4. Paulunists are loathe to admit this is synonymous with eternal life. The only other reference to the “crown of life" in the New Testament is in James. “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him.’’ ((Jas. 1:12).) This verse stands in contrast to Luke 8:13 where the seed “believes for a while” but in “time of temptation” falls away and is lost. This seed does not endure in obedience. Thus, James is holding up the fate of the fourth seed against the second seed. The crown of life must be eternal life. Gill and Henry claim James means eternal happiness, not life, while Jamieson admits James means eternal life by the term crown of life.
4. Paulunists are loathe to admit this is synonymous with eternal life. The only other reference to the "crown of life" in the New Testament is in James. "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to them that love him.'' ((Jas. 1:12).) This verse stands in contrast to Luke 8:13 where the seed "believes for a while" but in "time of temptation" falls away and is lost. This seed does not endure in obedience. Thus, James is holding up the fate of the fourth seed against the second seed. The crown of life must be eternal life. Gill and Henry claim James means eternal happiness, not life, while Jamieson admits James means eternal life by the term crown of life.
5. In Rev. 20:11-15, the final
![Picture #45](images/img_0045.png)
Then Jesus emphasizes to members of particular churches that holding fast is the way to avoid being blotted out of the book of life. Contrary to the Paulunist spin of these passages, Jesus is addressing individuals on their personal salvation within a church. Jesus is not measuring the value of the corporate body’s activity. For a church can neither be written in nor blotted out as a body from the book of life.
Then Jesus emphasizes to members of particular churches that holding fast is the way to avoid being blotted out of the book of life. Contrary to the Paulunist spin of these passages, Jesus is addressing individuals on their personal salvation within a church. Jesus is not measuring the value of the corporate body's activity. For a church can neither be written in nor blotted out as a body from the book of life.
(3) Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and holdfast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief...(5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Rev.
@ -106,13 +106,13 @@ To those who will not hold fast the word and do not repent, Jesus has a warning.
(16) So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. ? He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Yet, Paul hinged everything on his doctrine of salvation on faith alone without works. ((Eph. 2:8-9); (Rom. 4:4). This was his entire gospel. Every word quoted from Revelation’s different message is cringed at by Paulunists because they know if they lose this battle then they lose everything. Their domination over Jesus Christ with Paul as their most revered apostle will be exposed. They have banked everything on Paul’s doctrine. Now it is time for Jesus to speak!
Yet, Paul hinged everything on his doctrine of salvation on faith alone without works. ((Eph. 2:8-9); (Rom. 4:4). This was his entire gospel. Every word quoted from Revelation's different message is cringed at by Paulunists because they know if they lose this battle then they lose everything. Their domination over Jesus Christ with Paul as their most revered apostle will be exposed. They have banked everything on Paul's doctrine. Now it is time for Jesus to speak!
To do this, we must start with the Parable of the Ten Virgins, for Jesus definitely alludes to it in Revelation as the means to rebuff Paul. Thus, to understand Revelation fully, we need to go back to Jesus’ earthly preaching.
To do this, we must start with the Parable of the Ten Virgins, for Jesus definitely alludes to it in Revelation as the means to rebuff Paul. Thus, to understand Revelation fully, we need to go back to Jesus' earthly preaching.
Parable of the Ten Virgins and (Rev. 3:1-3)
In (Matt. 25:1) et seq., They postponed getting the extra oil too long. The door was shut. When the second five heard the groom arriving, they turned back from their shopping trip. These five tried knocking on the door for entry. However, they found they were excluded from the banquet. They suffer weeping and gnashing of teeth outside. Jesus then says this should teach us “you will not know the day nor hour.” So the lesson is we must always be ready for our Lord’s return. We cannot rest on our good intentions to someday get the oil we need. Instead, God will absolutely require sufficient oil burning when that time comes.
In (Matt. 25:1) et seq., They postponed getting the extra oil too long. The door was shut. When the second five heard the groom arriving, they turned back from their shopping trip. These five tried knocking on the door for entry. However, they found they were excluded from the banquet. They suffer weeping and gnashing of teeth outside. Jesus then says this should teach us "you will not know the day nor hour." So the lesson is we must always be ready for our Lord's return. We cannot rest on our good intentions to someday get the oil we need. Instead, God will absolutely require sufficient oil burning when that time comes.
To whom is this parable directed? A Christian or a non-Christian?
@ -122,19 +122,19 @@ A virgin in Scripture usually symbolizes a blameless person. A saved person. The
Jesus closes this parable saying we must be ready and watch for when He returns because you know not the day nor hour of His return. (Matt. 25:13.)
Could Jesus’ parable be a warning to a non-Christian to be watching and ready for when Jesus returns? That makes no sense. First, a non-Christian having oil makes no sense. Second, the label virgin entirely lacks the Holy Spirit. Something does not make sense in the NIV version.
Could Jesus' parable be a warning to a non-Christian to be watching and ready for when Jesus returns? That makes no sense. First, a non-Christian having oil makes no sense. Second, the label virgin entirely lacks the Holy Spirit. Something does not make sense in the NIV version.
It turns out the NIV is a mistranslation. The original Greek does not say they did not bring any oil, nor they brought no oil with them. The original Greek simply says the five foolish virgins did “not bring oil.” By contrast, the wise virgins brought “extra oil in jars.” Yet, the Greek also clearly reflects the unwise virgins had oil for a time burning in their lamps. Even the Calvinist The Expositor s Bible Commentary points out the Greek says their “lamps were going out,” implying a flickering out process as the oil burned away. It notes the Greek is the “present tense” of the verb “ are going
It turns out the NIV is a mistranslation. The original Greek does not say they did not bring any oil, nor they brought no oil with them. The original Greek simply says the five foolish virgins did "not bring oil." By contrast, the wise virgins brought "extra oil in jars." Yet, the Greek also clearly reflects the unwise virgins had oil for a time burning in their lamps. Even the Calvinist The Expositor s Bible Commentary points out the Greek says their "lamps were going out," implying a flickering out process as the oil burned away. It notes the Greek is the "present tense" of the verb " are going
out,” and not as the KJV has it: ‘are gone out.’ 6 Something in their lamps is burning, but is going out. They had oil in their lamps, but they did not carry extra oil with them like the wise had done.
out," and not as the KJV has it: 'are gone out.' 6 Something in their lamps is burning, but is going out. They had oil in their lamps, but they did not carry extra oil with them like the wise had done.
Thus, most commentators acknowledge the foolish virgins must have initially had oil in their lamps, but unlike the wise, they did not bring extra oil in separate jars. Otherwise, there is no way of explaining how the five foolish virgins had lamps that were burning for a while. They complain later that their “lamps are being quenched,” implying they were burning but going out. The Amplified Bible realizes this and translates the passage to say the five foolish ones did not bring “extra oil in jars.”
Thus, most commentators acknowledge the foolish virgins must have initially had oil in their lamps, but unlike the wise, they did not bring extra oil in separate jars. Otherwise, there is no way of explaining how the five foolish virgins had lamps that were burning for a while. They complain later that their "lamps are being quenched," implying they were burning but going out. The Amplified Bible realizes this and translates the passage to say the five foolish ones did not bring "extra oil in jars."
So there are several clear indicators that the five foolish virgins were Christians.
What is happening with them? While they are pure virgins, they also have very little oil in their lamps and the light is about to flicker out in them. When the oil is
6. The Expositor s Bible Commentary (1989), supra, oil burning focuses on some work. The line between foolish and wise is drawn between two kinds of initially justified and innocent persons (i.e., virgins). If a Christian can be foolish and later become lost, then some kind of personal irresponsibility becomes relevant to salvation. Paul’s contrary message would be exposed if any kind of spiritual interpretation is applied to a Christian from this parable.
6. The Expositor s Bible Commentary (1989), supra, oil burning focuses on some work. The line between foolish and wise is drawn between two kinds of initially justified and innocent persons (i.e., virgins). If a Christian can be foolish and later become lost, then some kind of personal irresponsibility becomes relevant to salvation. Paul's contrary message would be exposed if any kind of spiritual interpretation is applied to a Christian from this parable.
Thus, the Paulunist simply denies the Parable of the Ten Virgins has any parabolic meaning. This approach is clearly set forth in the Calvinist The Expositor s Bible Commentary (1989):
@ -142,65 +142,65 @@ There is no point in seeing hidden meanings in the oil...
The oil cannot easily apply to...the Holy Spirit. It is merely an element in the narrative showing that the foolish virgins were unprepared for the delay...
The point is not these girls’ virginity, but simply that ten...maidens oil or the word virgin. They try to recast the virgins as simply maidens. The reason is that The Expositor s Bible Commentary states it is aware that otherwise a condition exists upon the virgin being accepted in the kingdom: “there must be behavior acceptable to the master, the discharge of allotted responsibilities.” Id., Vol. VIII at 512.
The point is not these girls' virginity, but simply that ten...maidens oil or the word virgin. They try to recast the virgins as simply maidens. The reason is that The Expositor s Bible Commentary states it is aware that otherwise a condition exists upon the virgin being accepted in the kingdom: "there must be behavior acceptable to the master, the discharge of allotted responsibilities." Id., Vol. VIII at 512.
If we accepted the obvious that the virgin represents a Christian, and the oil represents the Holy Spirit, we would have a dilemma. The Paulunist would have to accept that Jesus expressly taught that a Christian will not go to Heaven absent “behavior acceptable to the master, the discharge of allotted responsibilities.” Jesus would contradict Paul. Rather than ever question their paradigm thinking that assumes Paul is an inspired writer, these Paulunists would prefer taking the outrageous step of saying Jesus had no parabolic intent in a parable. This, of course, leaves the parable utterly meaningless. This is frankly shocking.
If we accepted the obvious that the virgin represents a Christian, and the oil represents the Holy Spirit, we would have a dilemma. The Paulunist would have to accept that Jesus expressly taught that a Christian will not go to Heaven absent "behavior acceptable to the master, the discharge of allotted responsibilities." Jesus would contradict Paul. Rather than ever question their paradigm thinking that assumes Paul is an inspired writer, these Paulunists would prefer taking the outrageous step of saying Jesus had no parabolic intent in a parable. This, of course, leaves the parable utterly meaningless. This is frankly shocking.
In fact, it is deplorable that a Bible commentary would insist that there is no “need” to see “hidden meaning” to the significant objects of this parable such as the oil and the virgins. A parable precisely calls an aware Christian to meditate on a symbolic meaning. We could respect the commentary if it suggested other symbolic meanings. However, to suggest that we should not try to imagine there is any symbolic meaning is shocking. Yet, it helps us see the lengths to which reputable Paulunists must go to resist letting their paradigm viewpoint be challenged by the words of Jesus. The Paulunist is forever jumping into foxholes to dodge Jesus’ challenges to his system of thinking.
In fact, it is deplorable that a Bible commentary would insist that there is no "need" to see "hidden meaning" to the significant objects of this parable such as the oil and the virgins. A parable precisely calls an aware Christian to meditate on a symbolic meaning. We could respect the commentary if it suggested other symbolic meanings. However, to suggest that we should not try to imagine there is any symbolic meaning is shocking. Yet, it helps us see the lengths to which reputable Paulunists must go to resist letting their paradigm viewpoint be challenged by the words of Jesus. The Paulunist is forever jumping into foxholes to dodge Jesus' challenges to his system of thinking.
The solution in this parable is easy: oil is the Holy Spirit and the word virgins means cleansed and washed Christians.
Now let’s explore the meaning behind the fact five had their dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die,
Now let's explore the meaning behind the fact five had their dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die,
(2) for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of God. (3) Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come. (ASV)
These three verses exactly parallel the Parable of the Ten Virgins:
* The lamps of five virgins are about to flicker out and die due to lack of oil. The Sardisians likewise have something in them “about to die.”
* The lamps of five virgins are about to flicker out and die due to lack of oil. The Sardisians likewise have something in them "about to die."
* The foolish virgins failed to watch and be ready. The lesson Jesus draws is that “Watch, for you will not know the day nor hour” (Matt. 25:13). This is likewise the precise lesson to the Sardisians. “I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come.” (Rev. 3:3.)
* The foolish virgins failed to watch and be ready. The lesson Jesus draws is that "Watch, for you will not know the day nor hour" (Matt. 25:13). This is likewise the precise lesson to the Sardisians. "I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come." (Rev. 3:3.)
It is obvious in both situations that the Spirit is present, but in both cases the Spirit is going out. In the Book of Revelation, this is explained. What is bringing about the Sardisians’ spiritual death is their works were not complete in God’s sight. In fact, Jesus says they have a reputation for being alive, but they are See Matt. 13:42 (“and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth”).
It is obvious in both situations that the Spirit is present, but in both cases the Spirit is going out. In the Book of Revelation, this is explained. What is bringing about the Sardisians' spiritual death is their works were not complete in God's sight. In fact, Jesus says they have a reputation for being alive, but they are See Matt. 13:42 ("and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth").
So (Rev. 3:1-3) sounds a lot like a dead faith without completed works does not save. Where have we ever read that before?
Jesus’ Confirmation of James’ Doctrines and Rejection of Paul’s
Jesus' Confirmation of James' Doctrines and Rejection of Paul's
Where else does the Bible say a Christian without deeds has a faith that is dead and such faith cannot save? Yes, the often resisted (Jas. 2:14-25) passage. (Jas. 2:17) reads: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” James asks rhetorically “can such faith save?” which calls for a negative answer. Thus, faith without works, James says,
Where else does the Bible say a Christian without deeds has a faith that is dead and such faith cannot save? Yes, the often resisted (Jas. 2:14-25) passage. (Jas. 2:17) reads: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James asks rhetorically "can such faith save?" which calls for a negative answer. Thus, faith without works, James says,
7
cannot save.
7. Greek scholars admit that James’ meaning is that faith without completed works cannot save, i.e., works are not merely a forensic proof of your already saved condition. James means works (besides faith) are indispensable for you to be saved. See page 261 obey it and repent .” A non-Christian does not have anything to remember. They never have been a Christian. Nor does a non-Christian receive a spark which then is later dying out in them. Non-Christians are not judged for incomplete works, but sin. Only a Christian can be in view in Jesus’ words in (Rev. 3:3).
7. Greek scholars admit that James' meaning is that faith without completed works cannot save, i.e., works are not merely a forensic proof of your already saved condition. James means works (besides faith) are indispensable for you to be saved. See page 261 obey it and repent ." A non-Christian does not have anything to remember. They never have been a Christian. Nor does a non-Christian receive a spark which then is later dying out in them. Non-Christians are not judged for incomplete works, but sin. Only a Christian can be in view in Jesus' words in (Rev. 3:3).
Thus, because the Parable of the Ten Virgins parallels the warning of (Rev. 3:3), we know the foolish virgins are Christians like those warned in (Rev. 3:1-3).
Accordingly, Jesus is teaching in the Parable of the Ten Virgins that faith without works is dead. You are spiritually dying and about to have the Spirit quenched. How do we know this? Because Jesus gives a precisely parallel message in (Rev. 3:1-3) that duplicates the Ten Virgins Parable in declarative statements. While in the parable we are not sure what it means to have the spirit flickering out, (Rev. 3:3) tells us precisely: the Sardisians are lacking completed works.
Incidentally, the Sardisians’ spiritual condition identically matches the third seed in the Parable of the Sower. This seed has thorns choke them. Jesus says they did not telesphourin. (Luke 8:14). This means the third seed fails to produce to the end, or fails to bring its fruit to completion. (For more discussion, see “What The Parable of the Sower Confirms About Faith in John’s Gospel” on page 171.)
Incidentally, the Sardisians' spiritual condition identically matches the third seed in the Parable of the Sower. This seed has thorns choke them. Jesus says they did not telesphourin. (Luke 8:14). This means the third seed fails to produce to the end, or fails to bring its fruit to completion. (For more discussion, see "What The Parable of the Sower Confirms About Faith in John's Gospel" on page 171.)
Finally, those statements in (Rev. 3:1-3) about not completing your works contain one more piece of crucial information. It says that despite their reputation for being alive they are dead. faith alone...cannot save. If you do not add works of charity which James mentions, your faith is dead. The Spirit is about to leave you. Quicken what little remains. If not, you will suffer spiritual death and be sent to a place of weeping and gnashing, being left outside. Jesus tells us this is the fiery furnace—hell itself. (Matt. 13:42). Jesus’ warning is to repent and obey, and bring the works assigned to you to “completion.”
Finally, those statements in (Rev. 3:1-3) about not completing your works contain one more piece of crucial information. It says that despite their reputation for being alive they are dead. faith alone...cannot save. If you do not add works of charity which James mentions, your faith is dead. The Spirit is about to leave you. Quicken what little remains. If not, you will suffer spiritual death and be sent to a place of weeping and gnashing, being left outside. Jesus tells us this is the fiery furnace-hell itself. (Matt. 13:42). Jesus' warning is to repent and obey, and bring the works assigned to you to "completion."
Why? Because Jesus can come as a thief anytime, and you will find yourself, once a pure virgin with the oil of the Holy Spirit burning, so dead and the spirit so lacking (flickering out) that it will be too late when Jesus returns. You will find yourself left outside weeping and gnashing your teeth. This is precisely the meaning of the warning of the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Jesus makes works absolutely vital to add to faith so we are ready when He returns.
What kind of works? They might primarily or exclusively be works of charity if James’ illustration is a definitive application of (Rev. 3:1-3). We shall later see that Jesus confirms it at least means works of charity in his Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. We will discuss that parable in the next section.
What kind of works? They might primarily or exclusively be works of charity if James' illustration is a definitive application of (Rev. 3:1-3). We shall later see that Jesus confirms it at least means works of charity in his Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. We will discuss that parable in the next section.
So we see that Jesus is approving James’ position. (Rev. 3:1-3) mentions “incomplete works” and “dead.” Jesus is stepping into the debate between James and Paul. Jesus is coming down on the side of James. Jesus did this elsewhere in (Rev. 2:14) on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus does it again here. This time Jesus is resolving the faith-alone versus faith-plus-works debate.
So we see that Jesus is approving James' position. (Rev. 3:1-3) mentions "incomplete works" and "dead." Jesus is stepping into the debate between James and Paul. Jesus is coming down on the side of James. Jesus did this elsewhere in (Rev. 2:14) on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus does it again here. This time Jesus is resolving the faith-alone versus faith-plus-works debate.
No one wants to see this. Almost everyone prefers thinking that “incomplete works” (Rev. 3:2) has something to do with corporate worship interpretations. The parallel between Revelation and James chapter 2 and Jesus’ Parable of the Ten Virgins likewise proves Revelation speaks to individuals in churches. The Book of Revelation is not simply addressing churches who happen to have individuals.
No one wants to see this. Almost everyone prefers thinking that "incomplete works" (Rev. 3:2) has something to do with corporate worship interpretations. The parallel between Revelation and James chapter 2 and Jesus' Parable of the Ten Virgins likewise proves Revelation speaks to individuals in churches. The Book of Revelation is not simply addressing churches who happen to have individuals.
To understand the works that Jesus is referring to in (Rev. 3:1-3) that one must complete, we need to look at one more parable of Jesus. It is a parable often overlooked and ignored but focuses on works of charity. As you read this, ask yourself are such works optional for salvation as Jesus tells the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.
### The Parable of the Sheep and The Goats Proves Faith Alone Does Not Save
Jesus tells a parable known as the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. ((Matt. 25:30-46).) Jesus says that one group who calls Him Lord serves Jesus’ brothers in need with food and clothing. This group goes to heaven. Another group who calls Him Lord but who fails to do likewise are sent to hell.
Jesus tells a parable known as the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. ((Matt. 25:30-46).) Jesus says that one group who calls Him Lord serves Jesus' brothers in need with food and clothing. This group goes to heaven. Another group who calls Him Lord but who fails to do likewise are sent to hell.
Jesus is commanding charity to his brothers on threat of going to hell if you do not do it. Jesus is promising eternal life to those who do it. Faith that is alone does not save.
As we shall see below, Jesus’ statement that charity is crucial for salvation is exactly repeated by his brother James. We read in James’ Epistle chapter two a discussion of precisely these same works eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (25:41.)
As we shall see below, Jesus' statement that charity is crucial for salvation is exactly repeated by his brother James. We read in James' Epistle chapter two a discussion of precisely these same works eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (25:41.)
Why the different ends? Is it because one believed and the other did not? Or rather is it because among those who knew the Lord some served Him by clothing, feeding and visiting the “brothers” of the King while others did not?
Why the different ends? Is it because one believed and the other did not? Or rather is it because among those who knew the Lord some served Him by clothing, feeding and visiting the "brothers" of the King while others did not?
Or another way of asking this is to inquire why do the sheep inherit the kingdom. Is it because they are believers who are saved despite failing to do works of charity? Was their faith alone enough? One has works of charity and one doesn V. That is the dividing line in being finally saved, as told in this parable. Both the sheep and goats call him Lord, so both had faith. One was dead
@ -210,4 +210,4 @@ and one was alive.
If, instead, you reject this interpretation, and believe only the sheep had faith, then you have the incongruous lesson that Jesus is warning people already lost (the goats) that they better do works of charity for His brothers or face hell.
8. On the significance that both groups call Jesus Lord , Paulunists deny it any significance. In doing so, they merely engage in ad hoc denial that the lost were at one time Christians. They cite no adequate proof for this reading. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary —an evangelical text—states: “There is no significance in the fact that the goats address him as Lord... for at this point there is no exception whatever to confessing Jesus as Lord.” (Vol. 8, at 522.) What does this mean? The argument appears to be that this event occurs on judgment day when according to their interpretation of Paul everyone must confess Jesus as Lord. However, Paul never said this. It is a pure myth he did so, by amalgamating two disparate verses together. The first is (Phil. 2:11). Paul says God exalted Jesus so that “every tongue should confess Jesus is the Lord.” Nothing is said about this actually occurring universally at the judgment seat. The second is (Rom. 14:11-12) where Paul says God will examine each person at the judgment seat. There “every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God. So that every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” There confession of sins, not of Jesus, is in view. Some amalgamate the two verses to mean “every tongue shall confess Jesus is Lord” when “every tongue shall confess” at the judgment seat. Yet, the two verses cannot be combined without violence to the original context of each verse. Thus, the Expositor ’s is relying upon a commonly heard amalgamation of two distinct verses. This common axiom says every tongue must confess Jesus as Lord at the judgment seat. However, in relying upon this, the Expositor s is relying on a myth. There is no basis to suppose non-Christians are going to confess Jesus on judgment day. The truth is Jesus in the parable wants us to know not only that the sheep and the goats are both believers but also that mere belief docs alone. Jesus clearly says this is the dividing line between the two groups. Jesus would be making salvation depend only on works (of charity). Thus, it follows that Jesus wants us to understand the goats were already Christians (i.e., had accepted him as Lord and Savior) but they failed to serve Him by works of charity to his followers. The formula is faith and works (of charity). This charitable service then becomes the dividing line in terms of who is and who is not ultimately saved among people who have faith in Jesus.
8. On the significance that both groups call Jesus Lord , Paulunists deny it any significance. In doing so, they merely engage in ad hoc denial that the lost were at one time Christians. They cite no adequate proof for this reading. The Expositor's Bible Commentary -an evangelical text-states: "There is no significance in the fact that the goats address him as Lord... for at this point there is no exception whatever to confessing Jesus as Lord." (Vol. 8, at 522.) What does this mean? The argument appears to be that this event occurs on judgment day when according to their interpretation of Paul everyone must confess Jesus as Lord. However, Paul never said this. It is a pure myth he did so, by amalgamating two disparate verses together. The first is (Phil. 2:11). Paul says God exalted Jesus so that "every tongue should confess Jesus is the Lord." Nothing is said about this actually occurring universally at the judgment seat. The second is (Rom. 14:11-12) where Paul says God will examine each person at the judgment seat. There "every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God. So that every one of us shall give account of himself to God." There confession of sins, not of Jesus, is in view. Some amalgamate the two verses to mean "every tongue shall confess Jesus is Lord" when "every tongue shall confess" at the judgment seat. Yet, the two verses cannot be combined without violence to the original context of each verse. Thus, the Expositor 's is relying upon a commonly heard amalgamation of two distinct verses. This common axiom says every tongue must confess Jesus as Lord at the judgment seat. However, in relying upon this, the Expositor s is relying on a myth. There is no basis to suppose non-Christians are going to confess Jesus on judgment day. The truth is Jesus in the parable wants us to know not only that the sheep and the goats are both believers but also that mere belief docs alone. Jesus clearly says this is the dividing line between the two groups. Jesus would be making salvation depend only on works (of charity). Thus, it follows that Jesus wants us to understand the goats were already Christians (i.e., had accepted him as Lord and Savior) but they failed to serve Him by works of charity to his followers. The formula is faith and works (of charity). This charitable service then becomes the dividing line in terms of who is and who is not ultimately saved among people who have faith in Jesus.

10
JWO_09_03_GoatstoJamesChapter2_0038.md

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Goats to James Chapter 2
The fact that (Matt. 25:30-46) appears similar to James chapter two is
not in one’s imagination. They are virtually verbatim copies of each
not in one's imagination. They are virtually verbatim copies of each
other. Again, I have not seen a single commentator noticing this.
James writes:
@ -19,11 +19,11 @@ James writes:
Now compare this faith that is not completed because it lacks works of
charity and thus cannot save, in James "I was hungry and you gave me
nothing to eat.” (Matt. 25:42.)
nothing to eat." (Matt. 25:42.)
works was to merely prove you have faith. The parable prevents any attempt to say we are seen as righteous by God by faith alone without having to do any of the crucial deeds of (Matt. 25:30-46). Good intentions to one day have such works is not enough. (This was also the point of the Parable of the Ten Virgins.)
In response to such clarity, Paulunists attempt to marginalize Jesus and James. Their goal is simply to save Paul. They say James is merely a forensic test of works to show an inward completely-sufficient reality. Paulunists claim James really means that works only prove we are already saved. However, James makes it just as clear as Jesus’ parable that faith alone without these identical deeds of charity
In response to such clarity, Paulunists attempt to marginalize Jesus and James. Their goal is simply to save Paul. They say James is merely a forensic test of works to show an inward completely-sufficient reality. Paulunists claim James really means that works only prove we are already saved. However, James makes it just as clear as Jesus' parable that faith alone without these identical deeds of charity
![Picture #46](images/img_0046.png)
@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ In response to such clarity, Paulunists attempt to marginalize Jesus and James.
![Picture #49](images/img_0049.png)
Why Is Charity So Central in God’s Word?
Why Is Charity So Central in God's Word?
Thus, face the fact even as Luther did: James contradicts Paul. (See page 247.) And thus so does Jesus contradict Paul in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.
@ -41,4 +41,4 @@ What makes the contradiction by James of Paul intentional and self-evident is Ja
Abraham, as Paul does, to give this lesson. 9
Thus, it is false to teach that we “prove” we are saved through faith by works of charity, but we could still be saved by faith and be derelict in works of charity. Rather, we are saved by (among other things) doing works of charity to complete our faith. That is how Jesus and James wanted us to see the risk and the requirement. Works of charity are not optional, nor mere proof of faith. Faith alone does not save. James says it is “faith... working with [our] works” (synergei tois ergois ) that saves us. (See Footnote 22, page 261.) Those works are dependent on our prayer relationship to Jesus (John 15:1-6), but they are not thereby no longer our personal responsibility.
Thus, it is false to teach that we "prove" we are saved through faith by works of charity, but we could still be saved by faith and be derelict in works of charity. Rather, we are saved by (among other things) doing works of charity to complete our faith. That is how Jesus and James wanted us to see the risk and the requirement. Works of charity are not optional, nor mere proof of faith. Faith alone does not save. James says it is "faith... working with [our] works" (synergei tois ergois ) that saves us. (See Footnote 22, page 261.) Those works are dependent on our prayer relationship to Jesus (John 15:1-6), but they are not thereby no longer our personal responsibility.

32
JWO_09_04_WhyIsCharitySoCentralinGodsWord__0039.md

@ -5,32 +5,32 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Why would charity toward others be so crucial to salvation, as Jesus
says? We could do an entire Bible study on this. It appears that
charity toward others is the most significant way you mark departure
from your old life of sin. Daniel can tell the king “break off
(discontinue) your sins. ..by showing mercy to the poor.” (Dan. 4:27).
from your old life of sin. Daniel can tell the king "break off
(discontinue) your sins. ..by showing mercy to the poor." (Dan. 4:27).
9. See page 258 et seq.
Charity in the Hebrew Scriptures was frankly one of the most elevated
commands to obey. One might even say it is central to Torah. It
reflects obedience to God’s command to love thy neighbor in a concrete
way. Thus, the Law of Moses said if a brother of God’s people is in
your midst who is “needy” then “thou shalt surely open thy hand unto
reflects obedience to God's command to love thy neighbor in a concrete
way. Thus, the Law of Moses said if a brother of God's people is in
your midst who is "needy" then "thou shalt surely open thy hand unto
him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which
he wanteth.” (Deut. 15:7-8). Thirty-six times the Bible then commands
the same charity must be shown to the “stranger” in your midst for
“you were once strangers in the Land of Egypt.” E.g., (Deut. 10:1.9)
he wanteth." (Deut. 15:7-8). Thirty-six times the Bible then commands
the same charity must be shown to the "stranger" in your midst for
"you were once strangers in the Land of Egypt." E.g., (Deut. 10:1.9)
The charity-principle is one of the most characteristic ways of doing
justice in God’s eyes. God desires it more than any blood
justice in God's eyes. God desires it more than any blood
sacrifice. (Prov. 21:3; (Mark 12:33).) In (Isa. 58:7) etseq. (NLT),
God promises “salvation shall come like the dawn” if you bring the
God promises "salvation shall come like the dawn" if you bring the
poor into your home, give him clothes, etc. If you are charitable, God
promises if you call on Him, then “the Lord will answer.” (Isaiah 58:9).
promises if you call on Him, then "the Lord will answer." (Isaiah 58:9).
Thus, even the issue of whether God will speed an answer to prayer
depends on how charitable you are being to the poor.
Furthermore, if you are charitable, God will guide you “continually”
Furthermore, if you are charitable, God will guide you "continually"
and make you like a watered garden. ((Isa. 58:11).) God promises
special blessings to those who give charity to the poor.
@ -42,12 +42,12 @@ As already noted, charity in Daniel was also linked to the end of
sinning in your life. (Dan. 4:27). As Jesus tells it, charity has this
function. After repentance from sin, then you need to be charitable to
enter into eternal life. At least this is what Jesus told the young
rich man is how to “enter eternal life.” ((Matt. 19:16-26); (Mark
rich man is how to "enter eternal life." ((Matt. 19:16-26); (Mark
10:17-31); Luke 18:18-26). While it may not match Pauline doctrine,
Jesus was consistent about this. When Zaccheus repented of his sin and
gave his wealth to the poor, Jesus assured him that “salvation has
come to this house.” (Luke 19:9.)
gave his wealth to the poor, Jesus assured him that "salvation has
come to this house." (Luke 19:9.)
One might say charity is a work worthy of repentance. As Jesus
explains it, it is not optional. It completes your faith. Hence, faith
plus works of charity are essential in Jesus’ doctrine.
plus works of charity are essential in Jesus' doctrine.

108
JWO_09_05_PaulinistInterpretationoftheParableoftheSheepandGoats_0040.md

@ -7,39 +7,39 @@ Christian expresses my own experience, and perhaps your own:
In my Baptist upbringing, and even after becoming a Christian,
(Matt. 25)[:31 et seq .] was NEVER touched on, mentioned, taught,
etc. And you’d be surprised how easy it is to gloss over it in
etc. And you'd be surprised how easy it is to gloss over it in
your own studies when your own denomination, pastor, teachers, and
friends don’t give it any notice, either. 10
friends don't give it any notice, either. 10
Whenever the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is actually examined,
because it is (Jas. 2:14-17) stated as a parable, Paulunists lose all
semblance of reasonable interpretation.
Dillow endorses the view that the sheep are Christians who ministered
with food and clothing and visited in prison Jews, Jesus’ “brothers.”
with food and clothing and visited in prison Jews, Jesus' "brothers."
However, they are not just simply any Jew of every generation, but
only Jews living in the great tribulation period. (Dillow, Reign of
the Servant Kings, supra, at 73.) Dillow explains that if we do not
choose this interpretation which imposes ‘faith plus works saves’ as
choose this interpretation which imposes 'faith plus works saves' as
true for a very small future historical group, then the present
standard ‘gospel’ is ruined for the rest of us. Dillow says that but
for this explanation, (Matt. 25:34) means “that inheriting the kingdom
standard 'gospel' is ruined for the rest of us. Dillow says that but
for this explanation, (Matt. 25:34) means "that inheriting the kingdom
is conditioned on obedience and service to the King, a condition far
removed from the New Testament \i.e., Pauline] teaching of
justification by faith alone for entrance into heaven.” (Id.)
justification by faith alone for entrance into heaven." (Id.)
10.
http://onefortruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/sheep-and-goats-parable-orprophecy.html
(Ninjanun comment to 9-29-05 blog).
Thus, this spin of the parable defers Jesus’ teaching on salvation by
Thus, this spin of the parable defers Jesus' teaching on salvation by
works to only those trapped in the tribulation who were never
Christians pre-tribulation. Dillow believes Paul’s “faith alone”
Christians pre-tribulation. Dillow believes Paul's "faith alone"
doctrine remains the valid salvation formula for us pre-tribulation.
However, James said “faith alone” does not save. In fact, the words
“faith alone” only appear in the entire Bible in one passage:
(Jas. 2:17). And he says “faith alone” does not justify you.
However, James said "faith alone" does not save. In fact, the words
"faith alone" only appear in the entire Bible in one passage:
(Jas. 2:17). And he says "faith alone" does not justify you.
Furthermore, consider how absurd it is to interpret a parable as
having a distinct salvation message for only the tribulation
@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ period. Why would it change just for those in this seven year period?
So the Pauline spin of this passage ends up teaching there is a
separate salvation message for a small historical group that does
require works of charity plus faith. Therefore, we today are comforted
that we do not have to change Paul’s gospel message until the
that we do not have to change Paul's gospel message until the
tribulation is upon us. In this view, reconciling Paul to Jesus is not
necessary because Jesus’ teaching applies when Christians ‘are gone anyway.’
necessary because Jesus' teaching applies when Christians 'are gone anyway.'
In this manner, this parable is neatly swept under the rug to be
dusted off when the time is right for non-Christians to find
@ -59,20 +59,20 @@ a non-heretical doctrine; it just does not fit our time, according to
Paulunists.)
This tribulation-only solution can be dismissed with just one Bible
verse. Christ’s ‘brethren’ does not mean ethnic Jews, let alone only
Jews of a seven year future period. Jesus asked once “who are my
brothers?” Jesus answered that His brothers and sisters should be
those “doing the will of God.” ((Matt. 12:48-50).)
verse. Christ's 'brethren' does not mean ethnic Jews, let alone only
Jews of a seven year future period. Jesus asked once "who are my
brothers?" Jesus answered that His brothers and sisters should be
those "doing the will of God." ((Matt. 12:48-50).)
If one must escape this parable with such a nonsensical notion that
Jesus’ brothers are non-Christian Jews of the tribulation period,
Paulinism is not being held even loosely based on Jesus’ words. The
Jesus' brothers are non-Christian Jews of the tribulation period,
Paulinism is not being held even loosely based on Jesus' words. The
Paulunist view of salvation is being held in spite of whatever Jesus
teaches.
Another example of this is Calvin’s even weaker explanation of this
Another example of this is Calvin's even weaker explanation of this
Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Calvin claimed that when Jesus
says to one group who performed charity that they will “inherit” 11
says to one group who performed charity that they will "inherit" 11
the kingdom, the word inherit means they did not receive it by works,
but by a gift. This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow. Jesus says
the crucial difference in salvation was that some did works of charity
@ -81,35 +81,35 @@ told by Jesus, is charitable works. The concept of inheritance cannot
erase this fact.
Furthermore, Calvin mistakenly spun this to suggest the word inherit
implies somehow salvation is contingent on God’s donative intent—His
implies somehow salvation is contingent on God's donative intent-His
intent to make a gift. However, an inheritance in the Law does not
rely upon donative intent. Rather, one inherits based on family
relationship, without any donative intent at all. ((Num. 27:7-11).)
The only relevance of intent is that a parent could always disinherit
a son for disobedience. God declares He can do so in Numbers 14:12
toward us. God says to the disobedient “I will disinherit them.” A son
toward us. God says to the disobedient "I will disinherit them." A son
under the Law who had proven disobedient despite chastening was
obviously disinherited by denying you ever knew him. This was the only
way to spare the son of the Law’s only other option of a death
way to spare the son of the Law's only other option of a death
penalty. Deut. 21:1821. The First Century legal fiction was you would
say the son’s disobedience meant he “denied” his parent, allowing the
parent to “deny” he ever knew the son. Thus, a parent’s intent only
say the son's disobedience meant he "denied" his parent, allowing the
parent to "deny" he ever knew the son. Thus, a parent's intent only
had relevance to prove the grounds to deny inheritance. An inheritance
was otherwise required by Law with no intent to make a gift being involved.
11. This is not necessarily a correct translation. The Greek word also
means receive or share.
12, Calvin, Institutes, 20, 822 (III, xviii, 2) Calvin wrote: “even in
12, Calvin, Institutes, 20, 822 (III, xviii, 2) Calvin wrote: "even in
these very passages [Matt 25:34-46 and Col. 3:23-24] where the Holy
Spirit promises everlasting glory as a reward for works, [yet] by
expressly terming it an ‘inheritance’ he is showing that it comes to
us from another source [than works].”
expressly terming it an 'inheritance' he is showing that it comes to
us from another source [than works]."
Thus, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats was an example of a
disinheritance warning. Do charitable works, and you will safely
inherit eternal life. Fail to do them, and be forewarned—God will
inherit eternal life. Fail to do them, and be forewarned-God will
disinherit you. Thus, the dividing line in the Parable is clearly
works. There is nothing in the word inheritance that suggests even
remotely that salvation is a nostrings attached gift, and that Jesus
@ -120,22 +120,22 @@ law of wills and trusts (which does depend upon donative intent) with
the law of inheritance. Calvin erred when he construed the word
inherit to necessarily imply God was giving salvation as a gift to the
sheep. Then with this error in hand, Calvin then somehow viewed the
word inherit as overpowering Jesus’ meaning that charity was crucial
word inherit as overpowering Jesus' meaning that charity was crucial
to salvation. For Calvin, making Jesus sound like Paul was the only
priority that mattered. Letting Jesus correct Paul’s doctrine was an
priority that mattered. Letting Jesus correct Paul's doctrine was an
inconceivable option for Calvin.
13. Jesus spoke of those who did many miracles and prophecies in His
name but worked anomia that He will tell them “I never knew you.”
(Matt. 7:23). Paul refers to how this works: “if we endure, we shall
also reign with him: if we shall deny him, he also will deny us.” 2Ti
2:12 ASV. Obviously, in both Paul’s and Jesus’ statements, the people
name but worked anomia that He will tell them "I never knew you."
(Matt. 7:23). Paul refers to how this works: "if we endure, we shall
also reign with him: if we shall deny him, he also will deny us." 2Ti
2:12 ASV. Obviously, in both Paul's and Jesus' statements, the people
who are denied were one-time believers. They are true sons. Otherwise,
how could they have done miracles and prophecies in Jesus’ name? Paul
how could they have done miracles and prophecies in Jesus' name? Paul
likewise refers to a collective we which includes himself. How do
these passages help explain the legal practice of that era to
disinherit a son? In the earlier time of the Code of Hammurabi, a son
who was disobedient was said to have “denied his father.” The Code of
who was disobedient was said to have "denied his father." The Code of
Hammurabi (2500 BC) (Translated by L. W. King)(With commentary from
Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. (1915), reprinted at
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/hammurabi.html. It
@ -149,40 +149,40 @@ warnings of disinheritance of eternal life based on disobedienc
e/anomia. (Incidentally, Paul in 2Tim. 2:13 then undermines his own
warning, which Charles Stanley has accepted as more true.)
Furthermore, while the Greek word kleronomeo in (Matt. 25:34) (“
inherit the kingdom prepared for you”) can mean one receives property
Furthermore, while the Greek word kleronomeo in (Matt. 25:34) ("
inherit the kingdom prepared for you") can mean one receives property
by the right of inheritance, it has other meanings. These other
meanings are legitimate and arguably preferable translations. The word
kleronomeo in Matthew 25:34 means also simply receive, share or
obtain. (Strongs #2816 “getting by apportionment”; “receive as one’s
own or as a possession; to become partaker of, to obtain.”) These are
obtain. (Strongs #2816 "getting by apportionment"; "receive as one's
own or as a possession; to become partaker of, to obtain.") These are
completely satisfactory alternative renderings. Thus, Jesus says you
shall share in, receive, or obtain eternal life if you do these
charitable works. If you fail to do so, you are sent to hell’s
fire. Even if Calvin’s argument about inheritance were possible, it is
charitable works. If you fail to do so, you are sent to hell's
fire. Even if Calvin's argument about inheritance were possible, it is
not necessarily an accurate translation. Either way you look at this,
Calvin’s point is irrelevant.
Calvin's point is irrelevant.
In sum, anyone can see inherit does not imply a gift. In fact, an
inheritance is obtained by right of sonship and lost by
disobedience. No donative intent is implied. God can make your sonship
and right of inheritance depend on your behavior and
attitudes. See. Ps. 39:9-11 and Matt. 5:5 (“the meek shall inherit the
earth”); Matt. 19:29 (“every one that hath left houses, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name’s
sake, shall ....inherit eternal life”); Rev. 21:7-8 (“he that
attitudes. See. Ps. 39:9-11 and Matt. 5:5 ("the meek shall inherit the
earth"); Matt. 19:29 ("every one that hath left houses, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's
sake, shall ....inherit eternal life"); Rev. 21:7-8 ("he that
overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be His God and he
shall be my son, but the fearful and unbelieving...and all liars shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire.”) Cf. Ps. 149:4
(“he will beautify the meek with salvation”).
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire.") Cf. Ps. 149:4
("he will beautify the meek with salvation").
Thus, Calvin’s spin was clearly erroneous. Nothing in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats suggests the saved sheep receive salvation based solely on grace without works.
Thus, Calvin's spin was clearly erroneous. Nothing in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats suggests the saved sheep receive salvation based solely on grace without works.
Finally, others like Bob Wilkin who cannot reconcile the parable to
Paul insist we are forced to do so regardless of the language.
[[I]]t follows from the discussion above that the basis
of‘inheriting the kingdom’ (Matt. 25:34) is good works. Since
of'inheriting the kingdom' (Matt. 25:34) is good works. Since
Scripture cannot contra dict itself, we know from a host of other
passages that cannot mean that these people will gain entrance to
the kingdom because they were faithful. 14

40
JWO_09_07_TheGoats_0042.md

@ -4,15 +4,15 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
We see in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus clearly
teaches here the message of James chapter 2. You must do works of
charity (feed and clothe) to Jesus’ brothers—those who do the will of
charity (feed and clothe) to Jesus' brothers-those who do the will of
God. However, if you fail to do works of charity for those who needed
food and clothing when you had the means—you will be sent to
food and clothing when you had the means-you will be sent to
hell. Like James says, if you do not feed and clothe your spiritual
brothers when you can, such faith is dead. Such faith cannot save
you. There are perhaps no two more alike passages in all of
Scriptures, outside of Synoptic parallels.
Because James chapter 2 is a thorn by itself to the “faith alone”
Because James chapter 2 is a thorn by itself to the "faith alone"
view, none of the major commentators has ever drawn the parallel to
(Matt. 25:30-46). The latter makes it that much harder to explain away
James chapter 2.
@ -31,36 +31,36 @@ First, we must determine, regardless of consequences, what the
intended meaning of each of the biblical writers is. We must let each
one speak for himself and avoid construing him by recourse to what
another writer said. Otherwise there is no escape from subjectivism
in biblical interpretation. (Fuller, supra, “Biblical Theology” fn. 22.)
in biblical interpretation. (Fuller, supra, "Biblical Theology" fn. 22.)
Thus, reading Jesus through the overlay of Paul is wrong. You cannot
press Jesus’ words down so they fit Paul. Such conduct is
press Jesus' words down so they fit Paul. Such conduct is
reprehensible. In fact, the duty to construe Jesus free from other
writers is an imperative. The very validity of other authors, such as
Paul, turns on whether they transgress Jesus’ teaching. As 2 John 1:9
teaches us, “Whoever goes beyond and doesn’t remain in Christ’s
teaching, doesn’t have God. He who remains in the teachings [of Jesus
Christ], the same has both the Father and the Son.” Jesus is the
standard whether Paul is valid. If you refuse to read Jesus’ meaning
Paul, turns on whether they transgress Jesus' teaching. As 2 John 1:9
teaches us, "Whoever goes beyond and doesn't remain in Christ's
teaching, doesn't have God. He who remains in the teachings [of Jesus
Christ], the same has both the Father and the Son." Jesus is the
standard whether Paul is valid. If you refuse to read Jesus' meaning
apart from Paul, and you are unwilling to see the differences, you are
rejecting your duty to test Paul as 2 John 1:9 requires.
15.What is it about (Col. 3:23-24) which many believe implies
salvation by faith plus works? Paul writes: “And whatsoever ye do, do
salvation by faith plus works? Paul writes: "And whatsoever ye do, do
it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the
Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the
Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which
he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.” (Col 3:23-25)
he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." (Col 3:23-25)
Unless parsed narrowly, this tells someone who is serving Christ that
any wrong they do “shall receive for the wrong which he had done”and
any wrong they do "shall receive for the wrong which he had done"and
emphasizes you are not given any different escape than
non-Christians. God has “no respect of persons.” Matthew Henry sees
this meaning: “There is a righteous God, who, if servants wrong their
non-Christians. God has "no respect of persons." Matthew Henry sees
this meaning: "There is a righteous God, who, if servants wrong their
masters, will reckon with them for it, though they may conceal it from
their master’s notice. And he will be sure to punish the unjust as
well as reward the faithful servant.” The “no respect of persons” is
also explained by Matthew Henry who states: “The righteous Judge of
their master's notice. And he will be sure to punish the unjust as
well as reward the faithful servant." The "no respect of persons" is
also explained by Matthew Henry who states: "The righteous Judge of
the earth will be impartial, and carry it with an equal hand ...not
swayed by any regard to men’s outward circumstances and condition of
life. The one and the other will stand upon a [single] level at his tribunal.”
swayed by any regard to men's outward circumstances and condition of
life. The one and the other will stand upon a [single] level at his tribunal."

44
JWO_09_08_TheSalvationMessageofRevelationIsStraightFromtheParableoftheSower_0043.md

@ -9,30 +9,30 @@ the criteria that Jesus used in the Parable of the Sower. This is done
ever so subtly. Thus, many commentators miss this.
There are some who left their first love. (Rev. 2:4). They correspond
to the second seed that starts with joy. This seed “believes for a
while” but in time of temptation falls away. (Luke 8:13). In
Revelation, these do not “produce to completion” because of incomplete
to the second seed that starts with joy. This seed "believes for a
while" but in time of temptation falls away. (Luke 8:13). In
Revelation, these do not "produce to completion" because of incomplete
works. (Rev. 3:2.)
Then there are believers at another church who are neither hot nor
cold but lukewarm. Jesus explains why: “Because thou sayest, I am
rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing.” (Rev. 3:17.)
cold but lukewarm. Jesus explains why: "Because thou sayest, I am
rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing." (Rev. 3:17.)
These correspond to the third seed which was choked not only by the
cares of this world, but also by “riches and pleasures” of this
cares of this world, but also by "riches and pleasures" of this
life. Thus, they did not produce to the end. (Luke 8:14.)
Yet, there is one church and one seed that is viewed as on the right path.
This is the church of Philadelphia which compares to the fourth seed
in the Parable of the Sower. The church at Philadelphia is told “I
in the Parable of the Sower. The church at Philadelphia is told "I
know thy works," and as a result a door is in front of them that no
one can shut. (Rev. 3:8). This church has very little “power” left,
but “did keep my word, and did not deny my name.” (Rev. 3:8 .) This
corresponds to the fourth seed which “in an honest and good heart,
one can shut. (Rev. 3:8). This church has very little "power" left,
but "did keep my word, and did not deny my name." (Rev. 3:8 .) This
corresponds to the fourth seed which "in an honest and good heart,
having heard the word, hold it fast, and bring forth fruit with
patience.” (Luke 8:15 .) There is an unmistakable parallelism
between “keep my word” (Rev. 3:8 ) and “hold it fast” (Luke 8:15 )
as well as “thy works” (Rev. 3:8 ) and “bring forth fruit....” (Luke 8:15)
patience." (Luke 8:15 .) There is an unmistakable parallelism
between "keep my word" (Rev. 3:8 ) and "hold it fast" (Luke 8:15 )
as well as "thy works" (Rev. 3:8 ) and "bring forth fruit...." (Luke 8:15)
![Picture #50](images/img_0050.png)
@ -43,14 +43,14 @@ Parable of the Sower. Why?
Precisely because there is no more difficult passage for a Paulunist
to explain in the Synoptic Gospels on salvation than the Parable of
the Sower. Jesus in the Book of Revelation invokes the Sower Parable
obviously to rebuff Paul’s message that faith alone saves, and works
obviously to rebuff Paul's message that faith alone saves, and works
matter not at all. In the Sower Parable, those whose faith died, who
fell in times of temptation, or whose works were incomplete were
lost. Only the one who produces fruit to the end with endurance was
saved in the Parable of the Sower. (Eph. 2:8-9) is thus dead on
arrival when you let Jesus teach you in the Parable of the Sower. As a
result, when this completely anti-Pauline message in the Parable of
the Sower appears again in the Book of Revelation, Jesus’ purpose is evident.
the Sower appears again in the Book of Revelation, Jesus' purpose is evident.
### What About Grace?
@ -58,10 +58,10 @@ This is doubly-evident because Jesus at the same time in Revelation
ignores the word grace. Because Paul previously made this his most
often used term to explain salvation (Rom. 3:24; 4:4, 16, 5:2, 15, 17,
20, 21; 6:1, 14, 15; 11:5-6; 12:3, 6; Gal. 1:16; 2:21; 5:4; Eph. 2:5,
8; Titus 2:11, 3:7), Jesus’ later prophecy of Revelation has a
not-so-subtle message. If Paul’s doctrine were true, why does Jesus
implicitly teach in Revelation that Paul’s version of grace-teaching
deserves no attention? Jesus’ focus is to remind us of the criteria
8; Titus 2:11, 3:7), Jesus' later prophecy of Revelation has a
not-so-subtle message. If Paul's doctrine were true, why does Jesus
implicitly teach in Revelation that Paul's version of grace-teaching
deserves no attention? Jesus' focus is to remind us of the criteria
for salvation from the Parable of the Sower. His most often used
exhortation to the churches in Revelation is repent, do the same works
you did at first, obey, etc. In Revelation, grace is only mentioned in
@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ simple greetings by Apostle John. (Rev. 1:4; 22:21). By its use, John
merely means mercy.
This does not cast in doubt the canonicity of Revelation. For Jesus in
His earthly ministry never once taught Paul’s doctrine of grace. The
His earthly ministry never once taught Paul's doctrine of grace. The
word grace never once is uttered by Jesus in any of the four gospels!
Nor did Jesus use in a theological sense the word grace grace
theology, as Paul explained it, had no place in Jesus’ teachings. In
Jesus’ teachings on salvation, we find forgiveness and justification
theology, as Paul explained it, had no place in Jesus' teachings. In
Jesus' teachings on salvation, we find forgiveness and justification
were always based upon repentance from sin, turning to God in faith,
and staying on the path of obedience, e.g., you had to thereafter
forgive others. (Parable of the Publican and Pharisee; Parable of the

20
JWO_09_09_Conclusion_0044.md

@ -3,26 +3,26 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Conclusion
Thus, it is evident in Revelation, Jesus wants us to forget about
Paul’s overly simplistic teaching of God’s grace. He wants us to get
back to Jesus’ own repentance-oriented and faith-plus-works message of
Paul's overly simplistic teaching of God's grace. He wants us to get
back to Jesus' own repentance-oriented and faith-plus-works message of
grace. Paul starkly stands for the opposite message. We know this
stark difference all too well. Paul’s doctrine has been drumb-beated
stark difference all too well. Paul's doctrine has been drumb-beated
into our subconscious from a thousand sermons. We must stop this
brainwashing and wake up to reality: Paul abandoned Jesus’ teaching of
brainwashing and wake up to reality: Paul abandoned Jesus' teaching of
the keys to the kingdom: repentance-from-sin, obedience, and
appropriation of His atonement by submitting to Him as Lord. Paul’s
words insisted that the obvious messages from Jesus’ parables and
appropriation of His atonement by submitting to Him as Lord. Paul's
words insisted that the obvious messages from Jesus' parables and
blunt lessons, if taken seriously, were heretical. Rather than insult
Jesus with the label heretic, Paulunists declare all of Jesus’
Jesus with the label heretic, Paulunists declare all of Jesus'
parables are too hard to interpret. If any parable or teaching is too
plain, they either ignore it or twist it unreasonably so it fits their
Pauline doctrine. If that will not work, they do like Luther did with
Revelation — he declared all the words of Jesus in Revelation are
non-canonical. Calvin followed a similar approach — he ignored the
Revelation - he declared all the words of Jesus in Revelation are
non-canonical. Calvin followed a similar approach - he ignored the
Book of Revelation, never once providing a commentary upon it. This
approach is no longer tenable.
We must break free from this constant thumping on Paul’s doctrine in
We must break free from this constant thumping on Paul's doctrine in
our churches. It is time to return to what Jesus taught not only in
His parables but also in the Book of Revelation.

64
JWO_10_01_DidJesusApplaudtheEphesiansforExposingPaulasaFalseApostle__0045.md

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Is There A Thirteenth Apostle?
It is hard to imagine that Paul’s thirteen letters never came to the attention of any of the twelve apostles. One would expect to find some testing by the apostles of Paul’s claims to be an apostle.
It is hard to imagine that Paul's thirteen letters never came to the attention of any of the twelve apostles. One would expect to find some testing by the apostles of Paul's claims to be an apostle.
Jesus in (Rev. 2:2) mentions a trial at Ephesus of persons who told the Ephesians they were apostles. The verdict found they were not true apostles. Jesus told the Ephesians:
@ -12,25 +12,25 @@ I have known thy works, and thy labour, and thy endurance, and that thou art not
In Revelation, Jesus did not say the same thing to any of the other six churches whom He addressed. Jesus made this remark to the only church among the seven whom we know Paul visited: the church at Ephesus. And among the seven churches, it was only the church at Ephesus whom we know Paul told that he was an apostle. (Eph. 1:1). Paul wrote this church:
From Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. To God’s people who live in Ephesus and are faithful followers of Christ
From Paul, chosen by God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. To God's people who live in Ephesus and are faithful followers of Christ
Jesus. ((Eph. 1:1) ASV.) not an apostle, thus bringing (Rev. 2:2) directly to bear on Paul?
Indeed, there is no evidence for Paul being an apostle, except from Paul’s own mouth. As Segal mentions, in Acts “Luke makes no reference [to the twelve accepting Paul’s
Indeed, there is no evidence for Paul being an apostle, except from Paul's own mouth. As Segal mentions, in Acts "Luke makes no reference [to the twelve accepting Paul's
apostalate].” Of course, the four gospel accounts have no mention of Paul, and thus offer no basis to confirm Paul as an apostle.
apostalate]." Of course, the four gospel accounts have no mention of Paul, and thus offer no basis to confirm Paul as an apostle.
It is also clear from Acts that the Apostles themselves understood their number was set at twelve, but that this did not include Paul. Long before (Rev. 2:2) was written, we know from Acts 1:21-26 that the twelfth apostle—Matthias— was chosen to replace Judas. The apostles’ criteria for the replacement was that it had to be someone who was with the others from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Luke reveals therefore that the eleven had a criteria that would likewise exclude adding Paul as an apostle.
It is also clear from Acts that the Apostles themselves understood their number was set at twelve, but that this did not include Paul. Long before (Rev. 2:2) was written, we know from Acts 1:21-26 that the twelfth apostle-Matthias- was chosen to replace Judas. The apostles' criteria for the replacement was that it had to be someone who was with the others from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Luke reveals therefore that the eleven had a criteria that would likewise exclude adding Paul as an apostle.
Then Jesus in the Book of Revelation reveals twelve is the number of apostles for all time. The verse of (Rev. 21:14) follows the mention of the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem. Each gate has a name of the twelve tribes of Israel on it. (Rev. 21:14) then says:
1. Some of the oldest surviving manuscripts omit explicit mention of Ephesus in verse 1. Metzger argues this was due to an earlier effort to universalize the letter. Metzger concludes it probably did originally mention Ephesus. (Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) at 265.)
2. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert twelve foundation stones. On each of the stones was written the name of one of the Lamb’s twelve apostles.
2. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert twelve foundation stones. On each of the stones was written the name of one of the Lamb's twelve apostles.
(Rev. 21:14 CEV.)
There is a clear correspondence of one apostle for each of the twelve tribes, gates, and foundation stones. The number each time is only twelve. It implies there are not supposed to be more than twelve apostles. You cannot have thirteen or fourteen apostles judging the twelve tribes. Jesus made this clear during His earthly ministry as well. Jesus said the role of the twelve apostles was to “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28.)
There is a clear correspondence of one apostle for each of the twelve tribes, gates, and foundation stones. The number each time is only twelve. It implies there are not supposed to be more than twelve apostles. You cannot have thirteen or fourteen apostles judging the twelve tribes. Jesus made this clear during His earthly ministry as well. Jesus said the role of the twelve apostles was to "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28.)
The apostles understood it the same way. When Judas fell away and was lost, they added Matthias to bring their number back to twelve. (Acts 1:22-26). When apostles were martyred later, such as Apostle James (the brother of John), mentioned in Acts 12:2, the apostles did not replace him. Had they done so, this would bring their number to thirteen in the resurrection ruling over the New Jerusalem. The apostles must have seen the mis-match which a thirteenth apostle would represent in fulfdling their role as twelve judges over the twelve tribes into eternity.
@ -44,21 +44,21 @@ ceased with the end of the apostolic era. Never does Paul claim in Acts to be an
Twelve. 5
Furthermore, Crossan and Reed make the point that Luke’s story of how Matthias replaced Judas excludes the possibility of a thirteenth apostle such as Paul. They write:
Furthermore, Crossan and Reed make the point that Luke's story of how Matthias replaced Judas excludes the possibility of a thirteenth apostle such as Paul. They write:
Luke insists in Acts 1 that, after Jesus’ resurrection, there were still, always, and only ‘the twelve apostles.’...For Luke, Paul is simply not
Luke insists in Acts 1 that, after Jesus' resurrection, there were still, always, and only 'the twelve apostles.'...For Luke, Paul is simply not
an apostle . 6 Without Matthias’ explicit selection, one might have imagined that Luke’s Paul was at least implicitly Judas’ replacement as the twelfth apostle. With it, Luke implies that Paul was not an apostle and could never be one....[H]e could never be the one thing Paul always insisted that he was, namely, an apostle
an apostle . 6 Without Matthias' explicit selection, one might have imagined that Luke's Paul was at least implicitly Judas' replacement as the twelfth apostle. With it, Luke implies that Paul was not an apostle and could never be one....[H]e could never be the one thing Paul always insisted that he was, namely, an apostle
3. Alan Johnson, “Revelation,” Hebrews-Revelation in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary’ (Ed. F.E. Gaebelein)(Zondervan: 1981) Vol. 12 at 434.
3. Alan Johnson, "Revelation," Hebrews-Revelation in The Expositor's Bible Commentary' (Ed. F.E. Gaebelein)(Zondervan: 1981) Vol. 12 at 434.
4. See, e.g.,1Cor. 1:1; 2Cor. 1:1; (Gal. 1:1); 1 Ti. 1:1. See, viz., “Fori am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” (1Cor. 15:9, ASV) and “For I reckon that 1 am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” (2Cor. 11:5, ASV).
4. See, e.g.,1Cor. 1:1; 2Cor. 1:1; (Gal. 1:1); 1 Ti. 1:1. See, viz., "Fori am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1Cor. 15:9, ASV) and "For I reckon that 1 am not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." (2Cor. 11:5, ASV).
5. John Crossan and Jonathan Reed,//? Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome s Empire with God s Kingdom [Id., at 29.)
5. John Crossan and Jonathan Reed,//? Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome s Empire with God s Kingdom [Id., at 29.)
Thus, the only person to say Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ in the entire New Testament is Paul himself.
Yet, we know that Jesus said if He alone bore witness to Himself, then His witness would be untrue. (John 5:31, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”) Jesus was extending the Law’s principle, so that two witnesses were necessary to establish not only a wrong, but also anything as important
Yet, we know that Jesus said if He alone bore witness to Himself, then His witness would be untrue. (John 5:31, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.") Jesus was extending the Law's principle, so that two witnesses were necessary to establish not only a wrong, but also anything as important
n
@ -66,11 +66,11 @@ as God sending someone for a special role. In fact, Jesus in (Rev. 2:2) clearly
o
apostle is insufficient. Thus, Paul’s claim to being an apostle thus suffers from being self-serving. By a Biblical standard from Jesus Himself, Paul’s self-witness “is not true.”
apostle is insufficient. Thus, Paul's claim to being an apostle thus suffers from being self-serving. By a Biblical standard from Jesus Himself, Paul's self-witness "is not true."
Thus, the identity of the person who said he was an apostle to the Ephesians in (Rev. 2:2) but who could not be an apostle is proven from the Bible itself. Honest Pauline scholars have conceded this underlying problem to Paul’s validity. His claim to apostleship is uncorroborated and thus Jesus says Paul’s claim “is not true.” (John 5:31). As a result, it is obvious the person spoken of in (Rev. 2:2) is Paul because the New Testament gives us a record of:
Thus, the identity of the person who said he was an apostle to the Ephesians in (Rev. 2:2) but who could not be an apostle is proven from the Bible itself. Honest Pauline scholars have conceded this underlying problem to Paul's validity. His claim to apostleship is uncorroborated and thus Jesus says Paul's claim "is not true." (John 5:31). As a result, it is obvious the person spoken of in (Rev. 2:2) is Paul because the New Testament gives us a record of:
6. Luke does describe Paul and Barnabas as messengers from the church at Antioch. In Acts 14:4 and 14, the Greek word for messenger is used for them, apostoli. However, as the Christian historian Ben Witherington explains: “The use of the term apostoli in [[Acts]] 14:4 and 14 seems to indicate that Paul and Barnabas are being viewed as agents/apostles of the Antioch church (cf. 2Cor. 8:23), not apostles with a capital A.” (Witherington, New Testament History (Baker Academic: 2001) at 229.) In fact, the context clearly shows Paul was merely a messenger (i apostoios ) of the church of Antioch. Paul was not one of the apostoli of Jesus. Even if Luke had called Paul an apostle of Jesus, Luke does not attribute such title as coming from the twelve apostles, or from Jesus in any vision that Paul relates. Thus, it would have been Luke’s remark alone. Luke never claims he himself is a prophet. Nor even if he was a prophet, we still lack the second witness. Nevertheless, Luke’s meaning was apostoli with a small a. one person told the Ephesians he was an apostle who was in fact not one of the twelve apostles (i.e., Paul).
6. Luke does describe Paul and Barnabas as messengers from the church at Antioch. In Acts 14:4 and 14, the Greek word for messenger is used for them, apostoli. However, as the Christian historian Ben Witherington explains: "The use of the term apostoli in [[Acts]] 14:4 and 14 seems to indicate that Paul and Barnabas are being viewed as agents/apostles of the Antioch church (cf. 2Cor. 8:23), not apostles with a capital A." (Witherington, New Testament History (Baker Academic: 2001) at 229.) In fact, the context clearly shows Paul was merely a messenger (i apostoios ) of the church of Antioch. Paul was not one of the apostoli of Jesus. Even if Luke had called Paul an apostle of Jesus, Luke does not attribute such title as coming from the twelve apostles, or from Jesus in any vision that Paul relates. Thus, it would have been Luke's remark alone. Luke never claims he himself is a prophet. Nor even if he was a prophet, we still lack the second witness. Nevertheless, Luke's meaning was apostoli with a small a. one person told the Ephesians he was an apostle who was in fact not one of the twelve apostles (i.e., Paul).
* A complete record of the twelve apostles in Acts excludes Paul.
@ -78,35 +78,35 @@ Thus, the identity of the person who said he was an apostle to the Ephesians in
* In Acts, Paul never claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ and thus no record exists of an authoritative acceptance by the twelve of Paul as such an apostle.
7. Jesus was corroborated by God’s Holy Spirit in the appearance of a Dove as well as the Father’s voice from heaven. (Matt. 3:16-17). Paul lacks any corroboration on his claim. The theme of corroboration by two witnesses runs throughout the Bible. The Law said that no crime could be established by a single witness. (Deut. 19:15, “any crime or any wrong”). Jesus taught in event of a dispute over a wrong, obtain witnesses so by “the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.” (Mat 18:16). Why must this principle apply to wouldbe apostles? Because without two witnesses with competent knowledge, one’s claim is entirely self-serving. If two witnesses were needed to prove a crime, how much more so to prove something far more important eternally such as one being an apostle. In this case, the Ephesians must have realized proof that someone was an apostle required more than the person’s say-so that he was an apostle. Just as Jesus’ witnesses were the voice of Yahweh and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, Paul needed two witnesses. In this case, the only valid two witnesses would be Jesus on one side and/or the joint decision of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ on the other. The binding authority of the apostles required a joint decision, and not the solitary decision of a single apostle. This is precisely how Matthias was added as the twelfth. (See “Apostolic Decisions Were Binding In Heaven Only When Reached Jointly” on page 494.) However, such proof from either Jesus or the twelve is entirely lacking in the New Testament. Paul’s supposed apostleship is never stated by Jesus 9
7. Jesus was corroborated by God's Holy Spirit in the appearance of a Dove as well as the Father's voice from heaven. (Matt. 3:16-17). Paul lacks any corroboration on his claim. The theme of corroboration by two witnesses runs throughout the Bible. The Law said that no crime could be established by a single witness. (Deut. 19:15, "any crime or any wrong"). Jesus taught in event of a dispute over a wrong, obtain witnesses so by "the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established." (Mat 18:16). Why must this principle apply to wouldbe apostles? Because without two witnesses with competent knowledge, one's claim is entirely self-serving. If two witnesses were needed to prove a crime, how much more so to prove something far more important eternally such as one being an apostle. In this case, the Ephesians must have realized proof that someone was an apostle required more than the person's say-so that he was an apostle. Just as Jesus' witnesses were the voice of Yahweh and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, Paul needed two witnesses. In this case, the only valid two witnesses would be Jesus on one side and/or the joint decision of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ on the other. The binding authority of the apostles required a joint decision, and not the solitary decision of a single apostle. This is precisely how Matthias was added as the twelfth. (See "Apostolic Decisions Were Binding In Heaven Only When Reached Jointly" on page 494.) However, such proof from either Jesus or the twelve is entirely lacking in the New Testament. Paul's supposed apostleship is never stated by Jesus 9
8. (Rev. 2:2) specifically says the persons on trial “said” they were apostles. Yet, such a self-serving statement did not suffice. Jesus says the claimants were appropriately found to be liars. Thus, Jesus’ own words in (Rev. 2:2) agree that self-serving testimony cannot ever be the basis to treat someone as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
8. (Rev. 2:2) specifically says the persons on trial "said" they were apostles. Yet, such a self-serving statement did not suffice. Jesus says the claimants were appropriately found to be liars. Thus, Jesus' own words in (Rev. 2:2) agree that self-serving testimony cannot ever be the basis to treat someone as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
9. For background on Ephesus, see Ben Witherington, New Testament Histojy Map of the Roman province of Proconsular Asia
![Picture #51](images/img_0051.png)
In Second Timothy, Paul talks of a trial he endured in a Christian congregation. Paul says he put up “his first defense” among them. However, Paul says “all forsook me.” (2Tim. 4:14-17). In an exact parallel, Paul identifies in the same epistle that this trial took place in Asia—where Ephesus is the capital. Paul writes that all the Christians of Asia defected from him. What else other than a heresy trial at Asia’s leading church of Ephesus can explain this action? In (2Tim. 1:15), Paul writes:
In Second Timothy, Paul talks of a trial he endured in a Christian congregation. Paul says he put up "his first defense" among them. However, Paul says "all forsook me." (2Tim. 4:14-17). In an exact parallel, Paul identifies in the same epistle that this trial took place in Asia-where Ephesus is the capital. Paul writes that all the Christians of Asia defected from him. What else other than a heresy trial at Asia's leading church of Ephesus can explain this action? In (2Tim. 1:15), Paul writes:
This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me; of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. (ASV)
Paulunists have no explanation of this verse except to deny Paul’s words. Adam Clarke says Paul must be referring to Asiatic Christians at Rome. “He cannot be speaking of any general defection of the Asiatic Church....” However, Asia is primarily two major cities: Ephesus and Smyrna. It is not that hard to believe such a defection took place. We are not talking of a large area covering many major churches. Furthermore, Clarke has no explanation for denying Paul means what he says. It is self-evident Clarke is appealing to our respect for Paul. We cannot imagine Paul sinking so low.
Paulunists have no explanation of this verse except to deny Paul's words. Adam Clarke says Paul must be referring to Asiatic Christians at Rome. "He cannot be speaking of any general defection of the Asiatic Church...." However, Asia is primarily two major cities: Ephesus and Smyrna. It is not that hard to believe such a defection took place. We are not talking of a large area covering many major churches. Furthermore, Clarke has no explanation for denying Paul means what he says. It is self-evident Clarke is appealing to our respect for Paul. We cannot imagine Paul sinking so low.
![Picture #52](images/img_0052.png)
Paul and Luke Mention A Heresy Trial of Paul at Ephesus
Thus, even Paul’s own words that “all... in Asia turned away from me...” cannot convince those devoted to Paul that what Paul says is true.
Thus, even Paul's own words that "all... in Asia turned away from me..." cannot convince those devoted to Paul that what Paul says is true.
However, contrary to Clarke’s spin, Luke in Acts chapter 19 records the event leading to what Paul mentioned in (2Tim. 1:15) and 4:14-17. Luke records that the budding church of Ephesus decided at one point to have nothing further to do with Paul. In fact, Luke appears to be implying a heresy trial of Paul took place at Ephesus in Asia. Here is what Luke records in Acts 19:1, 8-9 (ASV):
However, contrary to Clarke's spin, Luke in Acts chapter 19 records the event leading to what Paul mentioned in (2Tim. 1:15) and 4:14-17. Luke records that the budding church of Ephesus decided at one point to have nothing further to do with Paul. In fact, Luke appears to be implying a heresy trial of Paul took place at Ephesus in Asia. Here is what Luke records in Acts 19:1, 8-9 (ASV):
(1)...Paul...came to Ephesus....(8) And he entered into the synagogue [at Ephesus], and spake boldly for the space of three months, reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God. (9) But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them [i.e., the Ephesians].
Thus, in Luke’s account, Paul no longer went to the budding church at Ephesus where he had been “persuading” them for three months. While it appears the leadership favored Paul, he encountered opposition eventually from some influential members. 10 Clearly, this event would be a muted way that a friend like Luke would record a heresy trial.
Thus, in Luke's account, Paul no longer went to the budding church at Ephesus where he had been "persuading" them for three months. While it appears the leadership favored Paul, he encountered opposition eventually from some influential members. 10 Clearly, this event would be a muted way that a friend like Luke would record a heresy trial.
10.It is hard to imagine after three months of Paul’s preaching (“reasoning and persuading concerning the kingdom of God”) that this assembly lacked a significant support for Jesus as Messiah. Paul apparently always preached correctly the Messianic prophecies in the Law and Prophets. (Acts 28:23 et seq.) Thus, there could have been a significant number among the leadership who accepted Jesus as Messiah. However, then Luke says “some were hardened” at the end of this three month period. It does not appear this came at the leadership level. Apparently something Paul said at the end of three months turned off influential members completely to Paul s version of the Way. Thus, it appears the leadership of the assembly had previously turned to Christ, but now influential members objected to Paul’s preaching there, forcing a trial to resolve the issue. Thus, this synagogue qualifies to be seen as the assembly Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life: (9) yea, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead: (ASVj
10.It is hard to imagine after three months of Paul's preaching ("reasoning and persuading concerning the kingdom of God") that this assembly lacked a significant support for Jesus as Messiah. Paul apparently always preached correctly the Messianic prophecies in the Law and Prophets. (Acts 28:23 et seq.) Thus, there could have been a significant number among the leadership who accepted Jesus as Messiah. However, then Luke says "some were hardened" at the end of this three month period. It does not appear this came at the leadership level. Apparently something Paul said at the end of three months turned off influential members completely to Paul s version of the Way. Thus, it appears the leadership of the assembly had previously turned to Christ, but now influential members objected to Paul's preaching there, forcing a trial to resolve the issue. Thus, this synagogue qualifies to be seen as the assembly Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we despaired even of life: (9) yea, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead: (ASVj
Hence, Paul alludes to an affliction in Proconsular Asia—in which Ephesus was the leading city—which felt like an experience of a death-sentence. The fact Paul was not killed is proof he is speaking figuratively. A church heresy verdict in Asia would perfectly fit Paul’s meaning. If Paul were the one Jesus has in mind in (Rev. 2:2) (i.e., someone tried as a false claimant to being an apostle), such a verdict would be like a sentence of death. It would be a crushing blow to Paul’s evangelism.
Hence, Paul alludes to an affliction in Proconsular Asia-in which Ephesus was the leading city-which felt like an experience of a death-sentence. The fact Paul was not killed is proof he is speaking figuratively. A church heresy verdict in Asia would perfectly fit Paul's meaning. If Paul were the one Jesus has in mind in (Rev. 2:2) (i.e., someone tried as a false claimant to being an apostle), such a verdict would be like a sentence of death. It would be a crushing blow to Paul's evangelism.
### Evidence of the Actual Verdict At Ephesus in The Writings ofTertullian in 207 A.D.
@ -114,13 +114,13 @@ It appears in 207 A.D. that Tertullian in a work entitled Against Marcion memori
1 9
James’ teachings.
James' teachings.
This is never disputed by Paulunists. The first ‘orthodox’ postapostolic thinker who Paulunists ever cite as holding Pauline doctrines is Augustine from the late 300s A.D. He was the first and only early Christian voice to espouse predestination as taught by Paul. He also spoke of the gift of perseverance. Augustine was a leading Roman Catholic figure whose writings date to the Fourth Century.
This is never disputed by Paulunists. The first 'orthodox' postapostolic thinker who Paulunists ever cite as holding Pauline doctrines is Augustine from the late 300s A.D. He was the first and only early Christian voice to espouse predestination as taught by Paul. He also spoke of the gift of perseverance. Augustine was a leading Roman Catholic figure whose writings date to the Fourth Century.
However, there was someone prior to Augustine who held Pauline doctrines on grace and salvation: it was Marcion. He arose around 144 A.D. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed at page ix.)
“The writings of Tertullian...were often on the lips of Calvin and Luther.”
"The writings of Tertullian...were often on the lips of Calvin and Luther."
David C. Noe, Ph.D., Cloud of Witnesses (2004) Bethel
@ -128,10 +128,10 @@ Presbyterian Church (Va.)
11 .This is the period that antedates the rise of Roman Catholicism as we think of it today. While there was a bishop of Rome since apostolic times, there was no superiority of this bishop acknowledged by any others until after 325 A.D. Even after that point, this superiority was only recognized within the Roman Empire. Within its territory, the Roman government gave official sanction and exclusive legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church. For more background, see footnote 16.
12.See “Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.) Rejected Paul’s Salvation Doctrine” on page 425. See “The Patristic Era Church Also Rejected Paul’s Predestination Doctrine” on page 432. See “The Patristic Era Also Blasted Paul’s Doctrine on Eating Idol Meat” on page 435. See “The Eastern Orthodox Church and Paul” on page 438. See also Paul or James’ Church: Who Was The Most Successful Evangelist?,
12.See "Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.) Rejected Paul's Salvation Doctrine" on page 425. See "The Patristic Era Church Also Rejected Paul's Predestination Doctrine" on page 432. See "The Patristic Era Also Blasted Paul's Doctrine on Eating Idol Meat" on page 435. See "The Eastern Orthodox Church and Paul" on page 438. See also Paul or James' Church: Who Was The Most Successful Evangelist?,
![Picture #53](images/img_0053.png)
Despite Marcion’s core doctrines agreeing with Paul, the early church in that period pursued Marcion and his followers as heretics. The Marcionites clearly held Paul’s doctrines of salvation by faith alone (i.e. without obedience) as the true gospel. (See page 49.) Marcion insisted the twelve apostles (and their gospel narratives) were wrong on the doctrine of grace. Marcion claimed their gospel narratives were for the era of Law. Marcion opted for a narrative of Jesus’ life that reads a lot like Luke’s gospel. However, it is missing the first three chapters of Luke and a few other passages. Based on Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Marcion claimed the Law of Moses was abrogated. We do not have to obey the God of the ‘Old Testament’ but only the God of the New.
Despite Marcion's core doctrines agreeing with Paul, the early church in that period pursued Marcion and his followers as heretics. The Marcionites clearly held Paul's doctrines of salvation by faith alone (i.e. without obedience) as the true gospel. (See page 49.) Marcion insisted the twelve apostles (and their gospel narratives) were wrong on the doctrine of grace. Marcion claimed their gospel narratives were for the era of Law. Marcion opted for a narrative of Jesus' life that reads a lot like Luke's gospel. However, it is missing the first three chapters of Luke and a few other passages. Based on Paul's letter to the Galatians, Marcion claimed the Law of Moses was abrogated. We do not have to obey the God of the 'Old Testament' but only the God of the New.
To counter this movement, the issue of Paul’s validity had to be resolved. It is in this context that the well-respected Christian leader, Tertullian, stood up in 207 A.D. and wrote Against Marcion.
To counter this movement, the issue of Paul's validity had to be resolved. It is in this context that the well-respected Christian leader, Tertullian, stood up in 207 A.D. and wrote Against Marcion.

102
JWO_10_02_TertulliansPointsAboutPaul_0046.md

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Tertullian s Points About Paul
What Tertullian wrote about Paul’s validity has all the earmarks of
What Tertullian wrote about Paul's validity has all the earmarks of
what one would expect would be a judicial decision at Ephesus
involving Paul.
@ -10,61 +10,61 @@ Tertullian makes the following sobering points about Paul:
* Jesus never made Paul an apostle from the records that we can read.
* Paul’s claim to apostleship solely relies upon Paul’s veracity.
* Paul's claim to apostleship solely relies upon Paul's veracity.
* If Paul were a true apostle, he is still an inferior apostle because Paul in Acts 15 submitted his doctrine to the twelve.
* If Paul later varied from the twelve, we must regard the twelve as more authoritative than Paul because he came later.
* Paul’s claim of being selected as an apostle later by Jesus seems implausible* That story asks us to believe Jesus had not planned things adequately with the twelve.
* Paul's claim of being selected as an apostle later by Jesus seems implausible* That story asks us to believe Jesus had not planned things adequately with the twelve.
* Lastly, Jesus warned us of false prophets who would come doing miracles in His name and signs and wonders, and Paul perfectly matches that prophesied type of prophet.
This passage from Tertullian is quoted verbatim later in this book at page 408 et seq.
Tertullian’s words are an echo of precisely what one would expect to
Tertullian's words are an echo of precisely what one would expect to
hear in a sensible verdict about Paul at Ephesus. Tertullian is
apparently revealing to us the findings in the (Rev. 2:2)
hearing. Paul is not to be regarded as an apostle on par with the
twelve, if at all. Whatever Paul truly represents in God’s eyes, in
twelve, if at all. Whatever Paul truly represents in God's eyes, in
our finite eyes we must realize Paul is subject to the authority and
superior teaching of the twelve. Finally, Tertullian said Paul
possibly is a liar and a false prophet because he came in the name of
Christ with signs and wonders and only had himself as a witness of his
apostolic status. Tertullian said this meant Paul potentially fits
Jesus’ express warning about false prophets. (See Matt. 7:21 et seq.)
Jesus' express warning about false prophets. (See Matt. 7:21 et seq.)
Thus, Tertullian concluded we must quote from Paul cautiously. In
other words, only if Paul’s words solidly line up with Jesus’ words
should we follow Paul’s words.
other words, only if Paul's words solidly line up with Jesus' words
should we follow Paul's words.
Tertullian’s teachings not only reflect apparently the ruling at
Tertullian's teachings not only reflect apparently the ruling at
Ephesus, but they also explain why we see the early church never
following most of Paul’s core teachings. This pattern continued for
following most of Paul's core teachings. This pattern continued for
almost two millennia until Luther revived Paulinism. In earliest
Christianity, Paul must have been deemed inferior by the church at
large, particularly on issues of salvation, or else the following
facts make no sense:
* The early church leaders from 125-325 A.D. universally reject almost
all of Paul’s unique doctrines, e.g., salvation by faith alone,
all of Paul's unique doctrines, e.g., salvation by faith alone,
total depravity, predestination, man lacks free-will, docetism, etc.
13.See footnote 12 on page 225. On Paul’s docetism, and its rejection, see “Did Paul Teach Jesus Did Not Truly Have Human Flesh?” on page 336 et seq.
13.See footnote 12 on page 225. On Paul's docetism, and its rejection, see "Did Paul Teach Jesus Did Not Truly Have Human Flesh?" on page 336 et seq.
* The Orthodox Church (now totalling 250 million members) can trace
back its origins to that same early church. It existed in territories
outside the Roman Empire and was free therefore to reject most of the
errors later arising in Roman Catholicism (< e.g ., extreme Mariology,
etc). 14 Yet, its doctrines are identical to the early church of
125-325 A.D. To this day the Orthodox reject all of Paul’s uniquely
Pauline doctrines. Furthermore, in direct contravention of Paul’s
directive in Galatians, the Orthodox also keep the Mosaic law’s
125-325 A.D. To this day the Orthodox reject all of Paul's uniquely
Pauline doctrines. Furthermore, in direct contravention of Paul's
directive in Galatians, the Orthodox also keep the Mosaic law's
command to rest on the Saturday-Sabbath. The Orthodox claim it was
never abrogated. (They have always also worshipped on Sunday.) 15
* Roman Catholicism, in the form we know it today, arose after 325
A.D. 16 Despite all its flaws, it still retained some of the core
teaching of James and Jesus on salvation, claiming sin causes loss of
salvation. Thus, Catholicism has always rejected Paul’s faith alone
salvation. Thus, Catholicism has always rejected Paul's faith alone
and eternal security teaching. Augustine, however, misled Catholicism
to adopt a Sacramental system where the church dispensed regeneration
by baptism even to infants without faith. The Catholic church also did
@ -72,16 +72,16 @@ accept two doctrines espoused uniquely by Paul: original sin and the
abrogation of the Mosaic law (e.g., abrogating Saturday Sabbath for
Christians). Thus, Catholicism in 363 A.D. broke the prior nearly
universal tradition among Christians of keeping Saturday Sabbath. By
contrast, the Orthodox—who long ago severed ties with Roman
Catholicism—reject the doctrine of original sin and Mariology while
contrast, the Orthodox-who long ago severed ties with Roman
Catholicism-reject the doctrine of original sin and Mariology while
they have kept the Saturday Sabbath for 2,000 years.
14.While the Orthodox do not engage in extreme Mariology, they do have
a potentially unhealthy attention on Mary. The Orthodox “do not view
a potentially unhealthy attention on Mary. The Orthodox "do not view
Mary as a Mediator and Co-redemptrix as does the Roman Catholic
church, but it does view Mary as the perpetual virgin and as an
intercessor to be prayed to. Orthodox theologians are quick to deny
that Mary is to be worshiped....” (Bill Crouse, The Orthodox Church
that Mary is to be worshiped...." (Bill Crouse, The Orthodox Church
(C.I.M.)) However, it is obvious praying to any person for
supernatural assistance other than God is having another god before
the True God. It is idol-worship. It violates the First and Second
@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ result, the papacy as we know it today arose sometime after 325
A.D. There is no denying that Peter around 47 A.D. founded a branch
church at Rome. He did the same earlier at Antioch. That gave Rome a
co-equal claim with the church at Antioch to apostolic origin. This
gave Rome a superior claim in the West over churches outside Antioch’s
influence. (Sixty-six churches were under Antioch’s authority.) The
gave Rome a superior claim in the West over churches outside Antioch's
influence. (Sixty-six churches were under Antioch's authority.) The
Roman church did become a leader among its close neighbors. (See
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (A.D. 189); Eusebius, Histoiy of the
Church, 6:14:1). But was this a direct administrative control by
@ -107,19 +107,19 @@ examples. However, even by these official Catholic accounts, both
times the bishop of Rome tried to exert influence outside Rome, it was
not appreciated. It is resisted. The first example is from
Tertullian. Tertullian ridicules the effort by the Roman bishop to be
“bishop of bishops.” This belies the authority was welcome or
"bishop of bishops." This belies the authority was welcome or
accepted. It certainly shows leaders at Carthage like Tertullian did
not deem the Roman bishop’s authority as infallible. The final example
not deem the Roman bishop's authority as infallible. The final example
they cite is from Irenaeus, but it is more of the same. Rather than
proving the papacy existed prior to 325 A.D., these two examples prove
just the opposite. (See “The Pope,” The Catholic Encyclopedia,
just the opposite. (See "The Pope," The Catholic Encyclopedia,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.) Another distinctive
doctrine of the Roman Catholics is that Mary was sinless.This too
materialized late. It was a doctrine rejected in the so-called
patristic age (125-325 A.D.) As the Catholic Encyclopedia concedes,
“in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very
cautious: some of them even seem to be in error on the matter .”
(“Immaculate Conception,” C. Enc.,
"in regard to the sinlessness of Mary, the older Fathers are very
cautious: some of them even seem to be in error on the matter ."
("Immaculate Conception," C. Enc.,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm.)
Thus, what makes Roman Catholicism distinctly Catholic arose after 325
A.D. There were many later accretions that we also think of as
@ -132,36 +132,36 @@ A.D. It cannot trace its distinctive papal office and unique doctrines
back any farther in historical records.
This history demonstrates that the main church, other than heretics,
all rejected Paul’s unique core teachings for almost two
millennia. Tertullian’s words show a judicious approach to Paul, as if
all rejected Paul's unique core teachings for almost two
millennia. Tertullian's words show a judicious approach to Paul, as if
rendered by a court. Paul can be listened to insofar as he does not
contradict Jesus. But we do not treat Paul as inspired, ever. We make
no effort to bend Jesus’ words to fit Paul’s words. That appears to be
the actual verdict at Ephesus. This explains why Paul’s writings were
allowed to be connected physically to the Lord’s gospel.
no effort to bend Jesus' words to fit Paul's words. That appears to be
the actual verdict at Ephesus. This explains why Paul's writings were
allowed to be connected physically to the Lord's gospel.
With a proper introduction, it was believed Paul’s letters could be
With a proper introduction, it was believed Paul's letters could be
read for whatever worth they held. Otherwise, on any teaching at odds
with Jesus, Paul had to be and was ignored.
Tertullian’s comments on Paul’s validity, therefore, if affixed as an
introduction to Paul’s letters, would allow us to sift the good from
the bad. Tertullian’s thoughts on Paul were forgotten or ignored by
Luther and Calvin. Their emphasis on Paul’s words broke every caution
Tertullian's comments on Paul's validity, therefore, if affixed as an
introduction to Paul's letters, would allow us to sift the good from
the bad. Tertullian's thoughts on Paul were forgotten or ignored by
Luther and Calvin. Their emphasis on Paul's words broke every caution
that Tertullian put up in 207 A.D.
Thus, the Reformation was launched in the 1520s based on Paul’s
Thus, the Reformation was launched in the 1520s based on Paul's
writings without remembering how the church had kept Paul subordinate
to the twelve. Paul was subordinate in particular to the four gospel
accounts of the teachings of Jesus. This subordination apparently had
been cemented in the verdict in (Rev. 2:2). Paul’s place in the church
been cemented in the verdict in (Rev. 2:2). Paul's place in the church
was decreed at Ephesus. Jesus commended the verdict in (Rev. 2:2). It
stood solid until the 1520s when Luther began proclaiming once again,
like Marcion, the gospel of Paul.
### Why Is Paul Then In the Post-Apostolic Canon Lists?
As noted above, Tertullian’s view of Paul in 207 A.D. was that he was
As noted above, Tertullian's view of Paul in 207 A.D. was that he was
inferior to the true apostles. If this was wellknown and accepted,
then why was Paul added within the ensuing century to the New
Testament canon? The answer primarily depends on recognition that
@ -171,22 +171,22 @@ include popular writers in our New Testament along with the inspired
writers. We might attach the writings of C.S.Lewis or Billy Graham. We
would know the difference. We would acknowledge both are inferior to
the twelve apostles and Jesus. But we could still read them both for
edification. This was Jerome’s express understanding of canon in 411
edification. This was Jerome's express understanding of canon in 411
A.D. That year Jerome personally affixed the Apocrypha to his complete
translation of the Bible. This Bible was known as the Latin
Vulgate. Jerome clearly said he added the Apocrypha solely because it
was edifying. Its connection did not signify the Apocrypha could be
used as the basis of doctrine. In other words, it was not inspired.
This was also clearly the same point Tertullian made about Paul’s
This was also clearly the same point Tertullian made about Paul's
writings in Against Marcion (207 A.D.). Tertullian demonstrated a
judicious approach. He affirms Paul is not a true apostle and even is
possibly a false prophet. Tertullian goes on to say Paul is “my apostle.”
possibly a false prophet. Tertullian goes on to say Paul is "my apostle."
He finds edifying doctrines of Paul that are consistent with Jesus.
Tertullian was not ignoring Paul had contrary doctrine to Jesus on
salvation and eternal security. Tertullian goes to great lengths to
refute Paul’s contrary doctrines without mentioning Paul’s name.
refute Paul's contrary doctrines without mentioning Paul's name.
Why did Tertullian make any effort to retain Paul for edification
purposes while making otherwise highly critical observations about him
@ -196,23 +196,23 @@ gospel where obedience does not matter any more. God saves the
believer and no longer judges one for disobedience. 19 The Marcionites
insist the twelve apostles were legalistic. The twelve presented a
Jesus who made salvation turn on obedience. The Jesus of the twelve
did not present the gospel of Paul. The twelve’s gospel belonged to
the God of the Old Testament. Paul’s gospel belonged to the God of the
did not present the gospel of Paul. The twelve's gospel belonged to
the God of the Old Testament. Paul's gospel belonged to the God of the
New Testament. Tertullian was obviously struggling to find a solution
to this excessive marginalization of Jesus.
17. See Footnote Number 6 on page 36.
18. See “Tertullian Criticizes Every Pauline Doctrine of Marcion" on page 421.
18. See "Tertullian Criticizes Every Pauline Doctrine of Marcion" on page 421.
19. See page 49.
What solution did Tertullian choose? It was simple. He chose good
politics. We can hold onto Paul, read him for edification purposes,
but we must realize he is not inspired. He is not on par with the
twelve. This is what explains Paul’s presence in later canon lists.
twelve. This is what explains Paul's presence in later canon lists.
Thus, early canon lists which add Paul can only be understood in light
of Marcionism. Marcionite Paul-onlyism was bravely fought off by the
church. The price of peace was that Jesus’ true apostles had
pre-eminence, but Paul’s writings could be read for edification.
church. The price of peace was that Jesus' true apostles had
pre-eminence, but Paul's writings could be read for edification.

62
JWO_10_03_LukeEvenTellsUsWhatWereTheChargesofHeresyAgainstPaul_0047.md

@ -7,37 +7,37 @@ another important tid-bit. From this morsel, we can deduce what was
the charge against Paul at the Ephesus church. In Acts chapter 21,
Luke tells us that Jews from Asia at Jerusalem were saying Paul spoke
against the continuing validity of the Law and against the Jewish
people’s position within the New Covenant. In Acts 21:28, “Jews from
21:28, he would be contradicting God’s promise of a New Covenant in
people's position within the New Covenant. In Acts 21:28, "Jews from
21:28, he would be contradicting God's promise of a New Covenant in
(Jer. 31:31). This promise specifically insisted it was not to replace
the Mosaic Law. Nor was the New Covenant intended to forsake national
Israel as God’s covenant-partner.
Israel as God's covenant-partner.
“I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah...
I will put the Torah on their hearts.”
"I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah...
I will put the Torah on their hearts."
(Jer. 31:31-34)
21,(Jer. 31:31-34) (ASV) reads: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah [i.e. Yahweh], that 1 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:...This is the covenant that 1 will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my Law [[Torah]] in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and 1 will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah [i.e.,
21,(Jer. 31:31-34) (ASV) reads: "Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah [i.e. Yahweh], that 1 will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:...This is the covenant that 1 will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my Law [[Torah]] in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and 1 will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah [i.e.,
![Picture #54](images/img_0054.png)
99
Rather, in the book of Jeremiah, God made a point of promising a “New
Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah” based on intensifying
Rather, in the book of Jeremiah, God made a point of promising a "New
Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah" based on intensifying
internal knowledge of the Law of Moses. God would accompany this by
revealing Himself more personally and offering forgiveness and
mercy. Thus, the Covenant of Mercy (which this New Covenant
represents) was marked by making the knowledge of the terms of the Law
more readily known and practiced.*" As God similarly said in Isaiah,
when His Servant (Messiah) comes, God “will magnify the Law (Torah),
and make it honorable.” ((Isa. 42:21) KJV.)
when His Servant (Messiah) comes, God "will magnify the Law (Torah),
and make it honorable." ((Isa. 42:21) KJV.)
This Jeremiah prophecy also specifically said God did not mean by a
new covenant to imply he was exchanging an old partner for a new
one. Immediately after the promise of the “New Covenant with the House
of Israel and Judah,” God declares how impossible it would be for Him
to forsake the “seed of Israel.... ” Jeremiah chapter 31 reads:
one. Immediately after the promise of the "New Covenant with the House
of Israel and Judah," God declares how impossible it would be for Him
to forsake the "seed of Israel.... " Jeremiah chapter 31 reads:
(35) Thus saith Jehovah, who giveth the sun for a light by day,
and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by
@ -51,33 +51,33 @@ to forsake the “seed of Israel.... ” Jeremiah chapter 31 reads:
cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith
Jehovah. (Jer. 31:35-37) ASV
Dr. Renald Showers, in a prominent feature article on John Ankerberg’s
website, says this is too clear to ignore. “[I]t is evident that God
intended to establish the New Covenant with the literal people of Israel.”
Dr. Renald Showers, in a prominent feature article on John Ankerberg's
website, says this is too clear to ignore. "[I]t is evident that God
intended to establish the New Covenant with the literal people of Israel."
22. As one Jewish commentator explains Jer. 31:31 et seq, it “implies
no rejection of the Covenant of the Torah (aka ‘the Law’) but rather
that the Law shall be ‘inscribed in hearts’ of the Jewish people,
22. As one Jewish commentator explains Jer. 31:31 et seq, it "implies
no rejection of the Covenant of the Torah (aka 'the Law') but rather
that the Law shall be 'inscribed in hearts' of the Jewish people,
i.e. , they will not have to study the Law, as before, but all of its
details will be known ‘by heart’ and practiced by every Jew....” (A
details will be known 'by heart' and practiced by every Jew...." (A
Primer: Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus (2003) (available online.)
Indeed, how could “inscribed in their hearts” mean what Paulunists
claim it means instead—the Law was abrogated entirely?
Indeed, how could "inscribed in their hearts" mean what Paulunists
claim it means instead-the Law was abrogated entirely?
23.See Dr. Renald Showers, The New Covenant, i.e ., Israel’s father,
23.See Dr. Renald Showers, The New Covenant, i.e ., Israel's father,
Isaac) (Gal. 4:28), then Paul was guilty of the charge brought by the
Asian Jews in Acts 21:28. The fact we know Paul taught both things
charged by the “Asian Jews” heightens the probability he was convicted
at Ephesus of such charges. Let’s review the case.
charged by the "Asian Jews" heightens the probability he was convicted
at Ephesus of such charges. Let's review the case.
### Could A Law Eternal for AH Generations Be Abrogated in 33 A.D.?
To prove the likelihood that Paul could be found guilty at Ephesus,
let’s recreate the prosecutor’s probable case.
let's recreate the prosecutor's probable case.
This promise of a New Covenant toward the seed of Israel in
(Jer. 31:35-37) is itself based upon the promise of God that “these
ordinances” of the Law shall be “everlasting for all generations .”
(Jer. 31:35-37) is itself based upon the promise of God that "these
ordinances" of the Law shall be "everlasting for all generations ."
(Ex. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3;
Num. 10:8; 15:15.)
@ -86,15 +86,15 @@ generations, the Law remains valid. We kn i.e ., when human
generations cease), but that had not yet happened in 33 A.D. Thus, if
the charges against Paul proved he said the Jewish people were
released in 33 A.D. from their covenant obligation to keep the Law,
Paul’s Jewish-Christian opponents would have had a valid case against him.
Paul's Jewish-Christian opponents would have had a valid case against him.
In fact, we know Paul taught Jews were released from the Law in 33
A.D. Paul even insisted it was only because of stubbornness they
continue to follow the Law. ((Rom. 7:1) et seq.; Rom. 10:21. See
“Romans Chapter Seven Says the Jews Are Released From the Law” on page
"Romans Chapter Seven Says the Jews Are Released From the Law" on page
80 et seq.; Luther, Commentary on (Gal. 2:4-5).)
If Paul’s letters did not prove these charges at Ephesus, we might
If Paul's letters did not prove these charges at Ephesus, we might
doubt he was convicted there. However, because his actual writings
prove the charges as true, there is a heightened probability that Paul
was indeed convicted at Ephesus.

64
JWO_10_04_Conclusion_0048.md

@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Chapter 10 Conclusion
None in Acts. None in John’s letters. Never in Paul’s letters. None
certainly in Revelation. Not in any apostles’ letter. Nor even in the
None in Acts. None in John's letters. Never in Paul's letters. None
certainly in Revelation. Not in any apostles' letter. Nor even in the
pseudograph Second Peter." (Rev. 2:2) must therefore be talking about
Paul. Jesus commends the Ephesians for finding someone lied when he
said he was an apostle and was not. Paul was someone whom the Bible
@ -14,28 +14,28 @@ Paul. This means Jesus called Paul a liar. It also means Jesus
commends the church for making this kind of evaluation. It proves we
cannot shirk our duty to test the uncorroborated claims of Paul.
Note: Bonhoeffer — Modern Proponent of JWO
Note: Bonhoeffer - Modern Proponent of JWO
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran Pastor, wrote a book in 1937 entitled
Cost ofDiscipleship. Bonhoeffer writes an entire book on
salvation-principles that ignores Paul’s doctrines. Bonhoeffer then
expounds Jesus’ principles on salvation and the Law. By doing so,
Bonhoeffer subtly outlines what Jesus’ Words Only means in terms of
renovation of our doctrine: Preach and teach from Jesus’ words alone.
salvation-principles that ignores Paul's doctrines. Bonhoeffer then
expounds Jesus' principles on salvation and the Law. By doing so,
Bonhoeffer subtly outlines what Jesus' Words Only means in terms of
renovation of our doctrine: Preach and teach from Jesus' words alone.
24 .Most Christian scholars of every stripe, including Calvin, agree
Second Peter is a false addition to scripture. See “The Special
Question of Second Peter” on page xix of Appendix B. Even if written
by Apostle Peter, it does not help Paul’s case. Second Peter does not
describe him as an apostle. While Second Peter does imply Paul’s
writings are “Scripture,” that does not mean what one might
Second Peter is a false addition to scripture. See "The Special
Question of Second Peter" on page xix of Appendix B. Even if written
by Apostle Peter, it does not help Paul's case. Second Peter does not
describe him as an apostle. While Second Peter does imply Paul's
writings are "Scripture," that does not mean what one might
suppose. The word Scripture corresponds to the Hebrew for
Writings. The Bible of that era was: Torah (Law), Prophets and
Writings. The Writings section meant the book was not yet recognized
as fully inspired. Thus, Daniel was kept in the Writings not the
Prophets section as of Jesus’ day. It was not yet recognized that
Daniel’s prophecies had come to pass. Thus, even if Peter implied
Paul’s writings were scripture, this does not carry with it the
Prophets section as of Jesus' day. It was not yet recognized that
Daniel's prophecies had come to pass. Thus, even if Peter implied
Paul's writings were scripture, this does not carry with it the
connotation we give the word scripture
![Picture #55](images/img_0055.png)
@ -45,35 +45,35 @@ connotation we give the word scripture
First, Bonhoeffer concludes that Jesus has every intention that the
Law (the Ten Commandments) survive in the New Testament. Bonhoeffer
comments on (Matt. 19:16-24). There Jesus answers on how to have
eternal life by telling the young man “if you would enter life, obey
the commandments.” Bonhoeffer says Jesus, by quoting the Ten
Commandments, has made a call “to a simple obedience to the will of
God as it has been revealed.” (Cost, id., at 72.) Jesus reaffirms the
Ten Commandments “as the commandments of God.” (Id., at 73.) Jesus is
saying we must “get on with the task of obedience” and it is “high
time the young man began to hear the commandment and obey it.” (Id.)
eternal life by telling the young man "if you would enter life, obey
the commandments." Bonhoeffer says Jesus, by quoting the Ten
Commandments, has made a call "to a simple obedience to the will of
God as it has been revealed." (Cost, id., at 72.) Jesus reaffirms the
Ten Commandments "as the commandments of God." (Id., at 73.) Jesus is
saying we must "get on with the task of obedience" and it is "high
time the young man began to hear the commandment and obey it." (Id.)
Bonhoeffer then excoriates Christians who use Paul’s attack on
legalism to undermine Jesus’ message:
Bonhoeffer then excoriates Christians who use Paul's attack on
legalism to undermine Jesus' message:
We are excusing ourselves from single-minded obedience to the
words of Jesus [to the young rich man] on the pretext [that this
endorses] legalism and a supposed preference for the obedience ‘in faith.
endorses] legalism and a supposed preference for the obedience 'in faith.
(Id., at 80.)
As to faith-and-works, Bonhoeffer ignores the dialectic of
Paul. Instead, Bonhoeffer pits cheap grace against costly
grace. Bonhoeffer says contemporary Christian churches which teach
free grace engage in a “deliberate rejection” of Christ’s teachings of
the personal costliness of salvation. (Id. at 36.) Jesus’ message of a
costly grace has been overlaid with “the superstructure
of... doctrinal elements” in modem preaching that destroys the
free grace engage in a "deliberate rejection" of Christ's teachings of
the personal costliness of salvation. (Id. at 36.) Jesus' message of a
costly grace has been overlaid with "the superstructure
of... doctrinal elements" in modem preaching that destroys the
cost-element Jesus demanded. (Id.) Bonhoeffer discusses several
parables to prove obedience to the Law and repentance from sin are key.
As a result, Bonhoeffer envisioned an entire renovation of the
Christian church. He believed that cheap grace had infected all our
doctrine. We were a “Christianity without Christ.” (Cost
doctrine. We were a "Christianity without Christ." (Cost
ofDiscipleship, supra, at 39.) Bonhoeffer had some even tougher
words. He says of the cheap grace gospel that “Christ is misunderstood
anew, and again and again put to death.” (Bonhoefffer, Christ the Center
words. He says of the cheap grace gospel that "Christ is misunderstood
anew, and again and again put to death." (Bonhoefffer, Christ the Center

168
JWO_11_01_WasJamesWritingHisEpistleForATrialofPaul__0049.md

@ -6,17 +6,17 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Scholars now recognize the Epistle of James was intended for a
specific purpose: a trial. The epistle begins by explaining seating
rules for a trial at a “synagogue,” not at a church service.
rules for a trial at a "synagogue," not at a church service.
However, there is more to support this trial theory than what the
scholars have acknowledged. When one looks at James’ message, one has
scholars have acknowledged. When one looks at James' message, one has
the unmistakable sense that James is dismantling the doctrines taught
by Paul. This is particularly true in James’ discussion of faith and
by Paul. This is particularly true in James' discussion of faith and
works. James explains (Gen. 15:6) in a diametrically different way
than Paul explained the very same verse. James tells the story of
Abraham in a manner at total odds with Paul’s account. James leads the
Abraham in a manner at total odds with Paul's account. James leads the
reader to a diametrically opposite doctrine of justification by works
and “not faith [that is] alone.” There is also no mistaking that James
and "not faith [that is] alone." There is also no mistaking that James
defines salvation as crucially relying on faith and works, not one
without the other. He, in fact, mocks the idea that salvation depends
upon doctrines you only mentally agree with. If mental belief alone
@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Finally, when you look through all a judicial assembly of the church,
and that the rich and poor individuals are both members of the
believing community who are involved in a dispute to be adjudicated. 1
1. Stulac, James (1993), supra, rather than a worship service.”
1. Stulac, James (1993), supra, rather than a worship service."
(Stulac: 91.) He notes there is a subsequent reference to judges and
courts. ((Jas. 2:4), 2:6). Second, it rather neatly resolves the
questions some have had about this illustration in a worship
@ -37,20 +37,20 @@ to stand or sit?...
### Why would some stand and others be seated?
In Ward’s judicial setting, procedures of standing or sitting might
In Ward's judicial setting, procedures of standing or sitting might
well be unfamiliar to the participants, and clothing might be a factor
that would unfairly impress the judges. (Stulac: 91.)
Nor can we overlook that this proceeding was to take place in a
synagogue. In (Jas. 2:2-4), James uses the Greek word synagoge for
this meeting even though in other places in the same letter (in 5:14)
he refers to Christ’s church as an ecclesia. The word ecclesia was
he refers to Christ's church as an ecclesia. The word ecclesia was
typically used to mean church, as distinct from meetings at
synagoge. Also, incongruously, this word synagogue is only used in the
New Testament for a church-meeting in (Jas. 2:2-4). James intends it
to be a particular gathering place for Christians. James’ context
makes it clear as to this synagoge, there is “Christian ownership of
and authority over this assembly.” (Stulac: 91.)
to be a particular gathering place for Christians. James' context
makes it clear as to this synagoge, there is "Christian ownership of
and authority over this assembly." (Stulac: 91.)
Thus, when we put these two facts together, we can deduce James was
writing his letter in the context of an upcoming gathering at a
@ -61,32 +61,32 @@ Paul taught for three months. (Acts 19:8). It fits the story of the
synagogue at Ephesus from which Paul felt compelled to leave as
recorded in Acts 19:9. It fits the place where Paul put
2. Stulac cites R.B. Ward, “Partiality in the Assembly: (Jas. 2:2-4),” Harvard Theological Review etseq.) James’ Epistle appears to have been written for a trial of Paul. It appears it was for the trial at Ephesus which Jesus alludes to in (Rev. 2:2).
2. Stulac cites R.B. Ward, "Partiality in the Assembly: (Jas. 2:2-4)," Harvard Theological Review etseq.) James' Epistle appears to have been written for a trial of Paul. It appears it was for the trial at Ephesus which Jesus alludes to in (Rev. 2:2).
### James Is the Head Bishop of the Church
Why would James be giving an evaluation of Paul’s teachings for
Why would James be giving an evaluation of Paul's teachings for
purpose of a trial? Because James was the head of the church at that time.
Paul indirectly alludes to this in (Gal. 2:9:)
James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars... (ASVj.
Cephas was the Aramaic version of Peter’s name. Thus, Paul says the
Cephas was the Aramaic version of Peter's name. Thus, Paul says the
main supports (pillars) in Jerusalem appeared to be James, Peter, and John.
Second, we find in Acts that James takes the position of the final
decision-maker over and above the apostles on doctrinal issues. In
Acts 15:6, the “apostles and elders were gathered together to
consider” the issue whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. After
Paul and Peter speak, James gets up in Acts 15:19 and says “I judge”
(Young’s Literal). James then spells out exactly what is to be done
Acts 15:6, the "apostles and elders were gathered together to
consider" the issue whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised. After
Paul and Peter speak, James gets up in Acts 15:19 and says "I judge"
(Young's Literal). James then spells out exactly what is to be done
and all the particulars. A letter is to be written and several
specific requirements are to be demanded. Robertson’s Word Pictures
specific requirements are to be demanded. Robertson's Word Pictures
explains James uses an expression of krino Eusebius is regarded as a
conservative early Church historian, having at one time himself been
bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.
Eusebius agrees James was the initial leader of the church after Jesus’ resurrection.
Eusebius agrees James was the initial leader of the church after Jesus' resurrection.
James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem
had been entrusted by the apostles. [Ecclesiastical History, Chapter XXIII.)
@ -106,30 +106,30 @@ Jerome, the famous translator of the entire Bible into the Latin
Vulgate (405 A.D.), devotes chapter two of his On Famous Men to a
biography of James the Just. This is another name for the James who is
talking in Acts chapter 15. Incidentally, as you read this quote, you
will see Jerome is struggling on how this person can be “the brother
of Jesus” and yet Mary was a perpetual virgin. By the 400s, the Roman
will see Jerome is struggling on how this person can be "the brother
of Jesus" and yet Mary was a perpetual virgin. By the 400s, the Roman
Catholic church was now claiming Mary remained a perpetual
virgin. Jerome gives a very odd explanation of how James could be the
“brother of Jesus.” Jerome suggests that James is the son of a sister
"brother of Jesus." Jerome suggests that James is the son of a sister
of Mary. (This entire effort to make Mary a perpetual virgin is
unscriptural and dangerous .) However, what is important is that
Jerome cites Hegesippus for the fact that James was appointed the
“bishop 4 of Jerusalem” by the “apostles.” Jerome writes:
"bishop 4 of Jerusalem" by the "apostles." Jerome writes:
3. Roman Catholicism insists Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Yet, in (Matt. 13:55-56) when the people of Nazareth are amazed at Jesus, they ask: “Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [i.e., Jude]?” Catholic authorities claim brother here should be understood as cousin. However, there is a word in Greek for cousin, cmepsios. When ancient writers spoke of James, they called him the brother of Jesus. In the same context, they identified Jesus’ cousins, using the word cmepsios. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.4; see 2.23.4 and 3.20.1 (quoting Hegesippus).) Also, Matthew 1:24-25 states Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was bom. Once he knew of the pregnancy, Joseph “had no marital relations with her until she had bom a son.” This is the same as saying he had sexual relations with Mary only after she had a son. Furthermore, if Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have defrauded him. (1Cor. 7:5). Marriage in Judaism meant having sex with God’s purposes in mind: to sustain a family line. (Ben Witherington, Woman in the Ministry’ of Jesus head of the Church at Jerusalem.’
3. Roman Catholicism insists Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Yet, in (Matt. 13:55-56) when the people of Nazareth are amazed at Jesus, they ask: "Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas [i.e., Jude]?" Catholic authorities claim brother here should be understood as cousin. However, there is a word in Greek for cousin, cmepsios. When ancient writers spoke of James, they called him the brother of Jesus. In the same context, they identified Jesus' cousins, using the word cmepsios. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.4; see 2.23.4 and 3.20.1 (quoting Hegesippus).) Also, Matthew 1:24-25 states Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was bom. Once he knew of the pregnancy, Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had bom a son." This is the same as saying he had sexual relations with Mary only after she had a son. Furthermore, if Mary never had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have defrauded him. (1Cor. 7:5). Marriage in Judaism meant having sex with God's purposes in mind: to sustain a family line. (Ben Witherington, Woman in the Ministry' of Jesus head of the Church at Jerusalem.'
Likewise, Epiphanius, a bishop in the late 300s, writes of James
in his Panarion 29.3.4. He says that “James having been ordained
in his Panarion 29.3.4. He says that "James having been ordained
at once the first bishop, he who is called the brother of the Lord....
[[W]]e find as well that he is of David’s stock through being
Joseph’s son....” 5 To the same effect is Clement of Alexandria,
who said the apostles did not pick from their own number “because
[[W]]e find as well that he is of David's stock through being
Joseph's son...." 5 To the same effect is Clement of Alexandria,
who said the apostles did not pick from their own number "because
the savior [already] had specifically honored them, but [instead]
chose James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem.” 6
chose James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem." 6
“The Lord’s brother was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the
Lord’s time till our time has called him the Righteous.”
"The Lord's brother was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the
Lord's time till our time has called him the Righteous."
Hegesippus (quoted in Eusebius E.H. 2.23)
4. The concept of bishop in those days was a person whose principal function was to officiate and give a sermon at church gatherings (besides having authority over sibling churches in the same city). We learn this by the evidence of the Canons of Hippolytus
@ -144,19 +144,19 @@ was not the bishop of the Christian church when it first
began. Rather, as Acts chapter 15 depicts, in the early period Peter
speaks but then everyone waits for James to decide the issue.
This is not to detract from Peter’s important role either. Around 42
A.D., ten years into James’ service as bishop over Jerusalem, Peter
This is not to detract from Peter's important role either. Around 42
A.D., ten years into James' service as bishop over Jerusalem, Peter
founded a church at Rome.
Peter was, in effect, its first bishop. (Every city in Christendom had
its own bishop. Thus, Peter was de facto bishop at Rome even if some
bishop lists omit his name.) By the same token, Peter’s position at
Rome ten years into James’ primary position at Jerusalem does not
detract from James’ role.
bishop lists omit his name.) By the same token, Peter's position at
Rome ten years into James' primary position at Jerusalem does not
detract from James' role.
While scholars did not initially appreciate Professor Eisenman’s
While scholars did not initially appreciate Professor Eisenman's
resurrecting these historical references about James outlined above,
renown Christian scholars have now come to Eisenman’s defense. They
renown Christian scholars have now come to Eisenman's defense. They
acknowledge it was James, not Peter, who actually first led the church
from Jerusalem.
@ -168,9 +168,9 @@ possible but not plausible. Either Joseph must have been previously
married or Mary predeceases him. The latter alternative makes no
sense. When Mary is still very much alive, the townspeople ask about
Jesus and his brother James. In (Matt. 13:55-56), the townspeople of
Nazareth ask: “Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and
Judas [i.e., Jude]?” Thus, the only other possibility where Mary was
not James’ mother is if Joseph had children prior to marrying
Nazareth ask: "Is not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and
Judas [i.e., Jude]?" Thus, the only other possibility where Mary was
not James' mother is if Joseph had children prior to marrying
Mary. Yet, the picture of the flight to Egypt mentions only Jesus as
their son at that time. Consequently, James was born of Joseph and
Mary. There is no sin in Mary having sex with her husband. (See Song
@ -180,74 +180,74 @@ children. It is wrong to imply married sex is sin.
6. Clement of Alexandria, Hypostases , Bk. 6, cited by Eusebius, The
History of the Church right person to write a letter to Christians at
Ephesus for a trial. As head bishop, he was the one to guide them on
how to evaluate Paul’s doctrines. James was the voice of what was
how to evaluate Paul's doctrines. James was the voice of what was
orthodox in the church at that time.
### Luther s Admission of James ’ Direct Conflict with Paul
### Luther s Admission of James ' Direct Conflict with Paul
The primary proof that the Epistle of James is directed at Paul is the
clarity of the contradiction over faith and works. On this point, the
contradiction by James of Paul is pervasive, thorough, and
unmistakable. James certainly claims salvation is not by faith
alone. James says that one is justified by works. He gives several
examples. He uses Paul’s favorite example of Abraham. James quotes and
examples. He uses Paul's favorite example of Abraham. James quotes and
re-analyzes (Gen. 15:6) to reach a contrary conclusion to that of
Paul. No gloss can legitimately efface James’ point. Paul clearly says
Paul. No gloss can legitimately efface James' point. Paul clearly says
the opposite. (Rom. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6 etseq.)
James begins his message on faith and works at
(Jas. 2:14-25). (Jas. 2:17) reads: “Even so faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone.” James asks rhetorically “can
(Jas. 2:14-25). (Jas. 2:17) reads: "Even so faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone." James asks rhetorically "can
7. Peter was crucified in Rome in 67 A.D. during the reign of Nero. Eusebius says that this was after coming to Rome twenty-five years earlier. (Eusebius, The Chronicle.) Peter thus arrived at Rome about 42 A.D. Several sources claim Peter was the first bishop of Rome prior to Paul’s arrival. However, two more ancient Christian sources—the Constitution of the Apostles (ca. 200 A.D.) 7:46 and Origen (Haer. 3.3.3)— in their lists of the bishops of Rome begin with Linus. Constitution says he was appointed by Paul. However, Paul did not arrive in Rome, according to Jerome, until 25 years after Jesus’ resurrection. This means Paul arrived sometime after around 57 A.D. (Jerome, Lives of Famous Men, eh. V.) Peter apparently was acting bishop without ordination of the church he founded at Rome until Paul in 57 A.D. arrives. Then in Peter’s absence, Paul appoints a bishop—Linus. The Constitution works of charity), James says, cannot save.
7. Peter was crucified in Rome in 67 A.D. during the reign of Nero. Eusebius says that this was after coming to Rome twenty-five years earlier. (Eusebius, The Chronicle.) Peter thus arrived at Rome about 42 A.D. Several sources claim Peter was the first bishop of Rome prior to Paul's arrival. However, two more ancient Christian sources-the Constitution of the Apostles (ca. 200 A.D.) 7:46 and Origen (Haer. 3.3.3)- in their lists of the bishops of Rome begin with Linus. Constitution says he was appointed by Paul. However, Paul did not arrive in Rome, according to Jerome, until 25 years after Jesus' resurrection. This means Paul arrived sometime after around 57 A.D. (Jerome, Lives of Famous Men, eh. V.) Peter apparently was acting bishop without ordination of the church he founded at Rome until Paul in 57 A.D. arrives. Then in Peter's absence, Paul appoints a bishop-Linus. The Constitution works of charity), James says, cannot save.
What few commentators like to note is James’ words on faith and works
What few commentators like to note is James' words on faith and works
are directly based on (Matt. 25:30-46). In this Parable of the Sheep
and the Goats, the dividing line between the saved and lost, as Jesus
tells it, is whether one did works of charity to his brethren. Jesus
requires the very same acts of crucial charity that James
cites—provision of food, water, and clothes. (For further discussion,
cites-provision of food, water, and clothes. (For further discussion,
see page 201 et seq.) James then cites example after example to prove
that works justify. He concludes “man is justified by works and not by
faith alone” \i.e., a faith that is alone]. ((Jas. 2:24).) This is
discussed in more depth later on in this chapter in the topic “James
on Faith and Works” on page 249.
that works justify. He concludes "man is justified by works and not by
faith alone" \i.e., a faith that is alone]. ((Jas. 2:24).) This is
discussed in more depth later on in this chapter in the topic "James
on Faith and Works" on page 249.
The stark contrast between James and Paul was evident to a luminary as
great as Luther. He writes of James’ epistle:
great as Luther. He writes of James' epistle:
In a word, he [[James]] wanted to guard against those who relied on
faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit,
thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes
Paul and all Scripture. 9
8. When Professor Eisenman first reminded people about James’ role,
the response was very hostile. Eisenman was accused of “contradicting
the New Testament” which supposedly “depicts Jesus’ successor as
Peter.” (See “Book About Brother of Jesus Stirs Up Furor,” L.A. Times
(June 14, 1997) Metro, at 4.) Other professors claimed Eisenman’s
views on James were “marginal.” He is not even coming from “left
field,” but “from over the fence.” Id. Yet, Eisenman’s view is the
8. When Professor Eisenman first reminded people about James' role,
the response was very hostile. Eisenman was accused of "contradicting
the New Testament" which supposedly "depicts Jesus' successor as
Peter." (See "Book About Brother of Jesus Stirs Up Furor," L.A. Times
(June 14, 1997) Metro, at 4.) Other professors claimed Eisenman's
views on James were "marginal." He is not even coming from "left
field," but "from over the fence." Id. Yet, Eisenman's view is the
only conclusion supported in history. Professor Eisenman now has
allies willing to defend him, including the renown Christian scholar
Ben Witheringon III, in The Brother of Jesus (N.Y.: Harper Collins,
2003) at 89-211.
9. “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522),” from
the American Edition of Luther’s Works 10
9. "Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)," from
the American Edition of Luther's Works 10
Thus, indeed James is going directly after Paul’s teachings on
Thus, indeed James is going directly after Paul's teachings on
salvation. He is proving them, in his mind, to be false. The contrast
is stark and blunt. There is no rational basis to imagine James
intends to do something other than correct a perceived false teaching
by none other than Paul.
What aids this conclusion is that this correction process continues
throughout James’ Epistle. The fact the entire epistle continues in
anti-Paul directions therefore heightens the probability that James’
throughout James' Epistle. The fact the entire epistle continues in
anti-Paul directions therefore heightens the probability that James'
Epistle was aimed at Paul. Before reviewing each of those smaller
corrections by James of Paul, let’s explore the larger conflict
whether salvation can be by a faith that lacks works. James’ points
corrections by James of Paul, let's explore the larger conflict
whether salvation can be by a faith that lacks works. James' points
are so obviously aimed at Paul that it bespeaks this Epistle served as
a road map in a trial against Paul.
@ -258,46 +258,46 @@ works. (Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:16). 11 James taught the exact opposite in
James chapter two. Faith without works cannot justify and cannot save.
“The greatest danger zone in evangelical thinking is that most
"The greatest danger zone in evangelical thinking is that most
believe that because no works are required to reconcile us to God,
no works are necessary to get us to heaven!” Pastor Reimar
no works are necessary to get us to heaven!" Pastor Reimar
Schultze (citing the three judgment parables of Matt. 25)
10. W. G. Kummel, The New’ Testament: The History of the Investigation
10. W. G. Kummel, The New' Testament: The History of the Investigation
of its Problems et seq.) The
works-of-charity-as-necessary-for-salvation formula is merely a repeat
of (Isa. 58:5-8). Thus, Jesus and James are saying nothing novel. Paul
is the one staking out a novel claim that runs against the revealed
word of God. Paul is claiming salvation must never turn on adding
works to faith. Paul claims if you do so, you commit a heresy. You are
making salvation depend on putting God in your debt—God owes you
making salvation depend on putting God in your debt-God owes you
salvation. (Rom. 4:4.)
11. (Rom. 4:5) states: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on
11. (Rom. 4:5) states: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness.” (KJV). This clearly says you are justified by faith
righteousness." (KJV). This clearly says you are justified by faith
even if you have no works. Paul says the same thing in (Gal. 2:16:)
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.... [[E]]en
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.... [[E]]en
we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the
faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified.”
the law shall no flesh be justified."
12. The same message is in (Isa. 58:5-8) (NLT). God tells the people
that “you humble yourselves by going through the motions ” (v. 5) but
what God wants is for “you to share your food with the hungry and
that "you humble yourselves by going through the motions " (v. 5) but
what God wants is for "you to share your food with the hungry and
welcome the poor wanderer into your homes. Give clothes to those who
need them.” (v. 6-7). Then quite clearly, God says: “If you do these
things, your salvation will come like the dawn.” (v. 8.) Isaiah means
need them." (v. 6-7). Then quite clearly, God says: "If you do these
things, your salvation will come like the dawn." (v. 8.) Isaiah means
mere verbal expression of faith or even humility is not enough. Action
![Picture #58](images/img_0058.png)
Paul justified his conclusion based on (Gen. 15:6) where God’s promise
Paul justified his conclusion based on (Gen. 15:6) where God's promise
in Genesis 15:5 was reckoned by Abraham as righteousness. In the
Hebrew, Abraham, not God, is clearly the actor reckoning something as
righteousness. However, Paul interpreted the verse to mean God imputed
righteousness to Abraham based on faith. From this Paul deduced
salvation based on Abraham’s faith alone. (Gal. 3:6-9; (Rom. 4:3).)
salvation based on Abraham's faith alone. (Gal. 3:6-9; (Rom. 4:3).)
Paul is thus claiming (Gen. 15:6) is about Justification by Faith. As
we will discuss below, however, this verse lends no support at all,

100
JWO_11_02_JustificationinAbrahamsLife_JamesandPaulatOdds_0050.md

@ -2,91 +2,91 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Justification in Abraham s Life: James and Paul at Odds
In Young’s, (Gen. 15:6) reads:
“And he believed \emn\ in the Lord; and
He counted it to him for righteousness.”
In Young's, (Gen. 15:6) reads:
"And he believed \emn\ in the Lord; and
He counted it to him for righteousness."
In the original Hebrew, however, this more correctly says
“And he[Abram] believed the Lord, and [he, i.e., Abram ] reckoned
it [i.e., the promise of blessing in Gen. 15:5] to Him as justice.”
"And he[Abram] believed the Lord, and [he, i.e., Abram ] reckoned
it [i.e., the promise of blessing in Gen. 15:5] to Him as justice."
It had nothing to do with God reckoning anything to Abraham based on
faith. It was always about how Abraham viewed God’s blessing in
faith. It was always about how Abraham viewed God's blessing in
(Gen. 15:5).
As the evangelical scholar Victor Hamilton points out, the Young’s
As the evangelical scholar Victor Hamilton points out, the Young's
capitalization effort misleads you if you followed normal Hebrew
syntax and ignored Paul’s spin of the passage. This is because the He
syntax and ignored Paul's spin of the passage. This is because the He
with a capital h is an interpolation of what is assumed to be
present. He is actually missing. When the he is missing, under normal
rules of Hebrew, the he that must be interpolated is borrowed from the
subject of the preceding clause, namely Abram. Because this starts as
“he [i.e., Abram] believed the Lord,” it must finish “he [[Abram]]
counted it as righteousness to Him.” It was wrong for the YLT to
capitalize the he in the second part so it read “He [[God]] counted it
to hi m as righteousness.” Rather, it should have been
" he [[Abram]] counted it to Him as righteousness/justice.”
"he [i.e., Abram] believed the Lord," it must finish "he [[Abram]]
counted it as righteousness to Him." It was wrong for the YLT to
capitalize the he in the second part so it read "He [[God]] counted it
to hi m as righteousness." Rather, it should have been
" he [[Abram]] counted it to Him as righteousness/justice."
In Professor Victor P Hamilton’s New International Commentary on the
In Professor Victor P Hamilton's New International Commentary on the
Old Testament (Eerdmans 1990), we read in Vol. I at 425:
The second part of this verse records Yahweh’s response to Abram’s
exercise of faith: ‘he credited it to him as righteousness.’ But
The second part of this verse records Yahweh's response to Abram's
exercise of faith: 'he credited it to him as righteousness.' But
even here there is a degree of ambiguity. Who credited whom? Of
course, one may say that the NT settles the issue, for Paul
expressly identifies the subject as God and the indirect object as
Abram (Rom. 4:3). 13 If we follow normal Hebrew syntax, in which
the subject of the first clause is presumed to continue into the
next clause if the subject is unexpressed, then the verse’s
next clause if the subject is unexpressed, then the verse's
meaning is changed... Does he, therefore, continue as the logical
subject of the second clause? The Hebrew of the verse certainly
permits this interpretation, especially when one recalls that
sedaqa means both ‘righteousness’ (a theological meaning] and
‘justice’ (a juridical meaning]. The whole verse could then be
translated: “Abram put his faith in Yahweh, and he [[Abram]]
considered it [the promise of seed(s)] justice.”
sedaqa means both 'righteousness' (a theological meaning] and
'justice' (a juridical meaning]. The whole verse could then be
translated: "Abram put his faith in Yahweh, and he [[Abram]]
considered it [the promise of seed(s)] justice."
13. This is implied by Paul from the Septuagint — the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures circa 250 B.C. (Rom. 4:3) and (Gal. 3:6) both have “it was counted unto him for righteousness.” This is the Septuagint translation. Thus, Paul is reading into the ambiguity spawned by the Septuagint translation which has it as the subject of counted.
13. This is implied by Paul from the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures circa 250 B.C. (Rom. 4:3) and (Gal. 3:6) both have "it was counted unto him for righteousness." This is the Septuagint translation. Thus, Paul is reading into the ambiguity spawned by the Septuagint translation which has it as the subject of counted.
Thus, in the Hebrew original version of this verse, it had nothing to
do with justification of Abraham by God based on faith. It was Abraham
counting the promise of God in (Gen. 15:5) as justice by
God. Professor Hamilton was being honest despite how a true
translation would upset Hamilton’s own Protestant theology. 14
translation would upset Hamilton's own Protestant theology. 14
Furthermore, even if lie was the subject of counted, as the YLT
renders it, then the it which is the object of counted would likely
mean faith. The faith would be what is deemed righteousness, not
Abraham. Abraham’s faith would be deemed a righteous deed. This
Abraham. Abraham's faith would be deemed a righteous deed. This
matches the Jewish view that faith can be described as a work. 15
Thus, it is plausible to consider that every time you trust or believe
in God despite reason to doubt Him, you perform a work that pleases God.
The fact that faith (not Abraham) would be the best alternative of
what is imputed to be righteousness is clearly seen by comparing
(Gen. 15:6) with (Ps. 106:30-31). Phinehas’ action of killing the
wicked was “counted to him as righteousness.” In Hebrew, those words
(Gen. 15:6) with (Ps. 106:30-31). Phinehas' action of killing the
wicked was "counted to him as righteousness." In Hebrew, those words
in Psalm 106:30-31 are identical to Genesis 15:6. In context, Psalm
106 means the act of killing wicked people was reckoned an act of
righteousness. It did not imply any kind of salvific justification of
Phinehas. Thus, one should not read any salvific justification of
Abraham into the identical expression in Genesis 15:6. At best, it
could be Abraham’s faith was a righteous deed. It would be reckoned as
could be Abraham's faith was a righteous deed. It would be reckoned as
righteousness. Therefore, even if we viewed the he who is reckoning to
be God, the better view would be that faith, not Abraham, was deemed
righteous.
14. Victor P. Hamilton’s background is formidable. He is Professor of Bible and Theology at Asbury College. He has a B.A. from Houghton College 1963, a B.D. from Asbury Theological Seminary 1966; a Th.M. Asbury Theological Seminary 1967, an M.A., Brandeis University 1969; and a Ph.D. Brandeis University 1971. Hamilton’s commentary is based on his complete translation of Genesis itself.
14. Victor P. Hamilton's background is formidable. He is Professor of Bible and Theology at Asbury College. He has a B.A. from Houghton College 1963, a B.D. from Asbury Theological Seminary 1966; a Th.M. Asbury Theological Seminary 1967, an M.A., Brandeis University 1969; and a Ph.D. Brandeis University 1971. Hamilton's commentary is based on his complete translation of Genesis itself.
### The Misleading Septuagint Greek Translation of 247 B.C.
In 247 B.C., the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, and is known
as the Septuagint. Jewish scholars acknowledge “the Septuagint was
translated by very bad translators ” and “very often the [[Septuagint]]
as the Septuagint. Jewish scholars acknowledge "the Septuagint was
translated by very bad translators " and "very often the [[Septuagint]]
translators did not even know what they were reading and created
nonsensical sentences by translating word for word.” (Nehemiah Gordon,
nonsensical sentences by translating word for word." (Nehemiah Gordon,
Hebrew Yeshua vs. Greek Jesus (Jerusalem: 2006) at 3334.)
Paul swallowed these errors in the Septuagint time and time
@ -100,21 +100,21 @@ ambiguous. What was being counted as righteousness? Abraham, the faith
or the promise of (Gen. 15:5)? The Septuagint aggravates the error by
a second major mistake in translation of the verse.
15.To Jews, Abraham’s faith was just another work. (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburg, T. and T. Clark LTD, 1975) Vol. 1 at 229.) However, one cannot be sure this is true Biblically from the single ambiguity in (Gen. 15:6). Some try to prove faith can be a work from what Jesus says in John 6:29: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (KJV) The translation, however, is misleading by addition of punctuation and the wrong verb tense. Robertson’s Word Pictures points out, citing Westcott, the verse uses a present active subjunctive for pisteuo, meaning “that you may keep on believing” (trusting). Thus, literally Jesus says “This is the work of God that you may keep on believing on Him whom He sent.” In this usage, Jesus means by this Himself (including His ministry) is the work of God presented so that you may believe. The Greek is ho theos, “work of God,” not “work required by God.” When the subjunctive tense may believe is properly revealed, it rules out the typical interpretation. For the subjunctive makes it impossible to believe God’s work is that you merely only may believe. Rather, in context, it means Jesus is inviting them to accept Himself as "this is the work of God” which God presents so “they may keep on believing/trusting.” Thus, we cannot rely upon John 6:29 to prove faith can be a work.
15.To Jews, Abraham's faith was just another work. (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburg, T. and T. Clark LTD, 1975) Vol. 1 at 229.) However, one cannot be sure this is true Biblically from the single ambiguity in (Gen. 15:6). Some try to prove faith can be a work from what Jesus says in John 6:29: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (KJV) The translation, however, is misleading by addition of punctuation and the wrong verb tense. Robertson's Word Pictures points out, citing Westcott, the verse uses a present active subjunctive for pisteuo, meaning "that you may keep on believing" (trusting). Thus, literally Jesus says "This is the work of God that you may keep on believing on Him whom He sent." In this usage, Jesus means by this Himself (including His ministry) is the work of God presented so that you may believe. The Greek is ho theos, "work of God," not "work required by God." When the subjunctive tense may believe is properly revealed, it rules out the typical interpretation. For the subjunctive makes it impossible to believe God's work is that you merely only may believe. Rather, in context, it means Jesus is inviting them to accept Himself as "this is the work of God" which God presents so "they may keep on believing/trusting." Thus, we cannot rely upon John 6:29 to prove faith can be a work.
The Septuagint next erred by revising the verb involved. The
Septuagint tense in Greek for counted (elogisthe) is in the third
person singular aorist passive indicative. This means was
counted. While the third person means the subject could be he, she or
it, in context, the most likely subject is it. This is because the
passive fonn of the verb count — was counted —reads awkwardly if any
passive fonn of the verb count - was counted -reads awkwardly if any
subject other than it is used. Thus, it makes little sense to say he
was counted to himself. Thus, the KJV correctly reflects the Greek
Septuagint, which Paul relied upon. However, if the KJV is correct,
the translation flaw by the Septuagint is self-evident. The he as the
subject of counted in the original Hebrew has been erased, and now it
is the subject. This leaves who is doing the counting as ambiguous in
the Septuagint. “It was counted to him....” Perhaps it is God or
the Septuagint. "It was counted to him...." Perhaps it is God or
Abraham doing the counting. However, in the original Hebrew, as
Hamilton notes, nonnal Hebrew syntax says it was Abraham doing the
reckoning, not God.
@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ ambiguities, like a vortex.
Because of the Septuagint flaws, commentators within Judaism
post-dating the Septuagint understood God was imputing a righteousness
to Abraham. However, these same commentators believed it was based on
Abraham’s faithful obedience, not merely faith. This faithfulness
Abraham's faithful obedience, not merely faith. This faithfulness
preceded (Gen. 15:6). Abraham did not suddenly believe in Genesis 15:6
and become justified for the first time.
@ -140,17 +140,17 @@ recorded in (Gen. 15:6).
The contrary Jewish understanding of (Gen. 15:6) predating Paul is
best exemplified by 1 Maccabees 2:52 (135 B.C.). This was written in
Greek. 16 The following allusion to Genesis 15:6 obviously derives
from the Septuagint Greek translation. Maccabees 2:52 says “Was not
from the Septuagint Greek translation. Maccabees 2:52 says "Was not
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for
righteousness?” This has it as the subject of counted, and thus tracks
righteousness?" This has it as the subject of counted, and thus tracks
the Septuagint version, not the original Hebrew. More to the point,
this reading viewed the Septuagint (Gen. 15:6) as teaching it was
faithful obedience that led to an imputed righteousness. As Gathercole
comments, “Here it is faithfulness under temptation that leads to his
being granted a state of righteousness.’ It was not faith that
comments, "Here it is faithfulness under temptation that leads to his
being granted a state of righteousness.' It was not faith that
originally caused the imputation of righteousness, as Paul
claimed. This must be true from a Biblical perspective as
well. Otherwise, one has no explanation for all God’s earlier promises
well. Otherwise, one has no explanation for all God's earlier promises
and blessings on Abraham, including the promises to Abraham in Genesis
12 et seq.
@ -160,12 +160,12 @@ to impress to the point of faith? I think not. And I am in good
company. The Christian scholars who address this hard question agree
that Abraham had to be justified prior to (Gen. 15:6).
16.1 Maccabees was written in Greek, although it shows traces of use of Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) idiom. (“Books of Maccabees,” Jewish Encyclopedia at
16.1 Maccabees was written in Greek, although it shows traces of use of Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) idiom. ("Books of Maccabees," Jewish Encyclopedia at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=18&letter=M (last accessed 5-30-06).)
17.SimonJ. Gathercole. Where Is Boasting: Early Jewish Soteriology and Pauls Response in (Rom. 1-5). (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002) at 51.
### What the Bible Teaches About Abraham’s Status At This Point
### What the Bible Teaches About Abraham's Status At This Point
The Hebrew Bible does not depict Abraham as an unjustified sinner
until the believing on the Lord mentioned in (Gen. 15:6). This fact
@ -173,12 +173,12 @@ has not escaped thoughtful Christian scholars. In fact, such a notion
that Abraham was a lost soul until Genesis 15:6 (implied by Paul in
Romans chs.3-4) is ludicrous. James B. Coffman, a conservative scholar
in the Church of Christ tradition, pointed this out about Genesis 15:6
in his famous commentary on the ‘Old Testament.’ First, Coffman
in his famous commentary on the 'Old Testament.' First, Coffman
derides the view of this verse which Paul is under stood in Romans
chapters 3-4 to assert. “One may only be astounded at the amount of
chapters 3-4 to assert. "One may only be astounded at the amount of
nonsense written about this verse, which is hailed as the plan of
salvation for the sinners of all ages, some even claiming that Abram
was ‘saved by faith only’....” Finally, Coffman concludes:
was 'saved by faith only'...." Finally, Coffman concludes:
It is absolutely impossible properly to observe this place [i.e.,
Gen. 15:6] as the record of a new covenant. Gen. 12:lf contains
@ -189,23 +189,23 @@ was ‘saved by faith only’....” Finally, Coffman concludes:
As Whiteside, a scholar of great discernment, exclaimed:
‘One of the strangest things in all the field of Bible exegesis is
'One of the strangest things in all the field of Bible exegesis is
the contention so generally made that this language refers to the
justification of Abraham as an alien sinner. It seems to be taken
for granted that up to the time spoken of in this verse, Abraham
was an unforgiven, condemned sinner....The facts [from Scripture]
are all against such a supposition.’ 18
are all against such a supposition.' 18
18.Coffman cites R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary> on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas: The Manney Company, 1945) at 89-90.
18.Coffman cites R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary> on Paul's Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas: The Manney Company, 1945) at 89-90.
Thus, Paul’s contrary thesis in chapters three and four of Romans that
Thus, Paul's contrary thesis in chapters three and four of Romans that
Abraham was justified by his faith alone (first experienced in
(Gen. 15:6)) is pure nonsense. Paul wants us to see Abraham became the
father of all who believe by implying he was transformed from sinner
to a justified saint only by the step of believing. (See Rom. 3:9-10,
all have sinned; (Rom. 4:1-5), 10-18, Abraham first justified by
faith, and thus becomes father of all who believe.) However, Paul’s
faith, and thus becomes father of all who believe.) However, Paul's
notion totally contradicts what is clearly implied from Scripture,
namely how Abraham must have been justified prior to (Gen. 15:6).

100
JWO_11_03_JamesLikewiseSeesPaulsErroronAbrahamsJustification_0051.md

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
James, in his exposition of the very same verse, (Gen. 15:6), still
has the traditional interpretation of the Greek Septuagint in
mind. God had made a new hard-to-believe promise to Abraham about
offspring in his old age. (Gen. 15:5). Yet Abraham trusted God’s
offspring in his old age. (Gen. 15:5). Yet Abraham trusted God's
promise. At that point, this trust was simply just another good
characteristic of Abraham. It merely added to the status of
justification that Abraham already enjoyed. Because James assumed
@ -14,41 +14,41 @@ sense of final salvation, James must look ahead. That issue depends
crucially on the final test where Abraham offered up Isaac in
(Gen. 22). Thus, James understood the faith of Genesis 15:6 as part of
the justification process. However, if you want to know how God
measured Abraham’s final justification, then James implies that you
measured Abraham's final justification, then James implies that you
look at how he did on the last test, not at the test of his faith
alone. ((Jas. 2:21), 23.)
19. God said Abraham’s Covenant is an “eternal covenant” for all
generations (Gen. 17:7). God said He “will” create such a covenant
only if Abraham would first “walk before me blamelessly.” (Gen. 17:1)
19. God said Abraham's Covenant is an "eternal covenant" for all
generations (Gen. 17:7). God said He "will" create such a covenant
only if Abraham would first "walk before me blamelessly." (Gen. 17:1)
20. After Abraham was dead, God declared Abraham had been obedient to
all His “law, commandments and statutes,” and then affirmed He was
all His "law, commandments and statutes," and then affirmed He was
about to institute His end of the covenant with Isaac. (Gen. 26:4-5.)
James starts by quoting (Gen. 15:6) from the Septuagint. Then James
explains (Gen. 15:6) opposite of what Paul sees there. James says “see
that by works a man is justified and not faith alone.”
explains (Gen. 15:6) opposite of what Paul sees there. James says "see
that by works a man is justified and not faith alone."
((Jas. 2:23-24).) Those commentators influenced by Paul, and those who
attempt to translate Genesis 15:6 to match Paul’s thoughts, are left
mystified. They gasp: ‘How can James say this in light of what is
contained in Genesis 15:6?’
attempt to translate Genesis 15:6 to match Paul's thoughts, are left
mystified. They gasp: 'How can James say this in light of what is
contained in Genesis 15:6?'
However, James’ understanding lines up precisely with the
However, James' understanding lines up precisely with the
pre-Christian interpretation of (Gen. 15:6), in particular the quote
from Maccabees referenced above. To repeat, the non-canonical book of
1 Maccabees written in 135 B.C. says at 2:52: “Was not Abraham found
faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?”
1 Maccabees written in 135 B.C. says at 2:52: "Was not Abraham found
faithful in temptation, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?"
This verse is precisely what James alludes to in (Jas. 2:21). James
even phrased it almost identically: “Was not Abraham our father
even phrased it almost identically: "Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the
altar?”
altar?"
Now combine the parallel between Maccabees and James to see what you
find: ‘was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, i.e., justified
find: 'was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, i.e., justified
by works, and that faithfulness, i. e ., offering up Isaac on the
altar, was imputed to Abraham as righteousness?’ Maccabees and James
altar, was imputed to Abraham as righteousness?' Maccabees and James
thus both say (Gen. 15:6) is not the final verdict. It was an earlier
step. If Abraham had failed the test of (Gen. 22), and not offered up
Isaac, James is saying that then Abraham would be lost. But Abraham
@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ Abraham. The earlier faith, taken alone, could not have saved
Abraham. If he had failed in Genesis 22, then faith alone would have
failed him as a means of final justification. Cf. Ezek. 33:12 et seq.
21. James’ epistle reads similar to the Septuagint. This Septuagint
21. James' epistle reads similar to the Septuagint. This Septuagint
translation became the accepted version by most, and James apparently
elects not to debate the translation.
@ -76,25 +76,25 @@ reckoned as righteousness.
Therefore, because Moses in writing (Gen. 15:6) could not separate
faith and faithfulness, a Jewish mind would understand it from a
Hebrew perspective. Justification for Abraham would crucially depend
on how Abraham’s life finished, not how it started.
on how Abraham's life finished, not how it started.
Thus, James saw the faith in (Gen. 15:6) as a small step on a long
road. He thus was exposing the error of how Paul was reading Genesis
15:6. James in (Jas. 2:21-24) saw faith as faithfulness in Genesis
15:6. James, like the Maccabees’ interpretation, saw that the act of
faith in Genesis 15:6 was good, but more important was Abraham’s later
15:6. James, like the Maccabees' interpretation, saw that the act of
faith in Genesis 15:6 was good, but more important was Abraham's later
faithful action of offering up Isaac in Genesis chapter 22.
Some Paulunists try to claim James is not talking about the topic of
salvific justification, in order to avoid James’ criticism of Paul’s
salvific justification, in order to avoid James' criticism of Paul's
ideas. However, James is using/H.stified in the way Paul was trying to
spin (Gen. 15:6). James uses the identical Greek word for “justified”
spin (Gen. 15:6). James uses the identical Greek word for "justified"
that Paul used.
23.Later, at page 270, we discuss that in Hebrew, unlike Greek, faith
could not be distinct from faithfulness.
He is thereby responding to Paul’s interpretation of
He is thereby responding to Paul's interpretation of
(Gen. 15:6). James is saying that if you address the issue of
justification that counts eternally, then Genesis 15:6 is not
sufficient. Faith alone will not suffice. Nor was Abraham justified
@ -104,48 +104,48 @@ faithful obedience to God up to that point. The faith of Genesis 15:6
was just another step in what justified Abraham. However, if you want
to find the moment of final justification that counts, it must come
after faith. For Abraham, his continuing faithful obedience culminates
in Genesis 22. Such faithful obedience—both before and at the moment
of the offering of Isaac—is what keeps on justifying the man, not
faith alone. Accordingly, James concludes that “man is justified by
works and not by faith alone” [/.£., a faith that is
in Genesis 22. Such faithful obedience-both before and at the moment
of the offering of Isaac-is what keeps on justifying the man, not
faith alone. Accordingly, James concludes that "man is justified by
works and not by faith alone" [/.£., a faith that is
alone]. ((Jas. 2:24).) 24
### James on Paul’s Idea of Faith Alone
### James on Paul's Idea of Faith Alone
Just as Paul’s misreading of (Gen. 15:6) led to a faith alone
salvation ((Rom. 4:4-6)), James’ correction of how to read Genesis
15:6 led to a correction of Paul’s faith alone doctrine. James says in
Just as Paul's misreading of (Gen. 15:6) led to a faith alone
salvation ((Rom. 4:4-6)), James' correction of how to read Genesis
15:6 led to a correction of Paul's faith alone doctrine. James says in
the same context that a faith without deeds does not justify and
cannot save. James says this precisely in (Jas. 2:14), at direct odds
with Paul’s teachings.
with Paul's teachings.
24.James links the lack of justification with the concept of
incomplete works. (Jesus did likewise in the Parable of the Sower and
his letter to the church of Sardis in Revelation chapter 2.) James
does so by saying in (Jas. 2:20-24) first that Abraham’s “faith was
working with his works” ( synergei tois ergois ). Then James says
Abraham’s faith was made complete by works. “The verb eteletiothe
means ‘perfected’ (or ‘brought to maturity’).” (Stulac, James, supra,
does so by saying in (Jas. 2:20-24) first that Abraham's "faith was
working with his works" ( synergei tois ergois ). Then James says
Abraham's faith was made complete by works. "The verb eteletiothe
means 'perfected' (or 'brought to maturity')." (Stulac, James, supra,
at 115.) Stulac confesses that the Scriptural promise of justification
that Paul ascribes to faith, James says is “to be fulfilled by works.”
that Paul ascribes to faith, James says is "to be fulfilled by works."
Id. Thus, James says, like Jesus says, that there is no justification
without faith completed by works.
Stulac explains this verse in his commentary entitled James (Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 1993). James makes his point plain in (Jas. 2:14)
by means of the rhetorical question “can such faith [without works]
save?” The question calls for a negative answer. Stulac says James
means that faith without works is useless for “salvation itself.”
by means of the rhetorical question "can such faith [without works]
save?" The question calls for a negative answer. Stulac says James
means that faith without works is useless for "salvation itself."
(Id., at 108.) Peter Davids, another specialist on James, agrees. He
says James means the “use [-lessness of faith without works] takes on
serious consequences, for it is salvation which is at stake.”
says James means the "use [-lessness of faith without works] takes on
serious consequences, for it is salvation which is at stake."
Stulac explains that while James is not saying works alone without
faith saves, James rejects the idea that “faith by itself, without the
accompanying actions” can save. (Id. at 109.) Stulac (like others who
faith saves, James rejects the idea that "faith by itself, without the
accompanying actions" can save. (Id. at 109.) Stulac (like others who
admire James) tries to find ways to make Paul consistent with
James. However, mincing words cannot work. Stulac concedes James “uses
the same terms for deeds (ergo) as Paul.” (Id., at 111.) The words are
James. However, mincing words cannot work. Stulac concedes James "uses
the same terms for deeds (ergo) as Paul." (Id., at 111.) The words are
identical between Paul and James. However, the thoughts are at
odds. There is no question that James means faith plus works
justifies; faith alone does not.
@ -154,12 +154,12 @@ Luther was blunt about there being a conflict between James and
Paul. He said James contradicts Paul. Luther was right. This is what
further proves the Epistle of James was likely a document used to try
Paul. As a matter of Biblical interpretation, the erroneous Septuagint
misled Paul. As Hamilton’s expert knowledge of Hebrew tells us, it was
misled Paul. As Hamilton's expert knowledge of Hebrew tells us, it was
Abraham who was reckoning to God the promise of (Gen. 15:5) as an act
of righteousness. However, even if the Septuagint were correct,
(Ps. 106:30-31) likewise shows James (not Paul) was correct about
(Gen. 15:6). The Bible never taught justification by faith alone
without deeds. Paul’s misinterpretation of Genesis 15:6 is a serious
without deeds. Paul's misinterpretation of Genesis 15:6 is a serious
mistake.

76
JWO_11_04_WhatAboutJustificationByWorksintheHebrewScriptures__0052.md

@ -11,30 +11,30 @@ justification. (Deut. 6:25) clearly states:
27.Of course, if you believe both James and Paul are inspired, you
will hear attempts to reconcile the two. Stulac is an example. He
contends “James is not attempting to refute Paul.” (Id. at 114.) How
contends "James is not attempting to refute Paul." (Id. at 114.) How
so? Stulac concedes James viewed salvation apart from works as
impossible. Faith and works are an integral unity in the salvation
formula. (Id. at 110.) While most view Paul as teaching salvation by
faith alone apart from any works, Stulac disagrees. He claims Paul
teaches salvation cannot be by “rituals” or “acts of obedience”
teaches salvation cannot be by "rituals" or "acts of obedience"
alone. (Id. at 111.) In other words, Stulac claims Paul teaches
salvation is not by works alone. If true, then Paul and James are
saying the same thing, and Stulac would be correct. However, Paul and
James are diametrically apart. Stulac has ignored Paul’s actual
teachings. Paul makes it clear that if you are saved “by grace it is
no more by works.” ((Rom. 11:6).) This is even clearer in Rom 4:4-5:
“(4) Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace,
James are diametrically apart. Stulac has ignored Paul's actual
teachings. Paul makes it clear that if you are saved "by grace it is
no more by works." ((Rom. 11:6).) This is even clearer in Rom 4:4-5:
"(4) Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace,
but as of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness
.” This verse 5 clearly says that if you believe, and have no works ,
." This verse 5 clearly says that if you believe, and have no works ,
your faith alone justifies you. Hence Paul excludes the very
possibility that Stulac’s solution proposes to make Paul fit
possibility that Stulac's solution proposes to make Paul fit
James. Paul teaches faith alone saves. James teaches to the contrary
that faith alone without works does not save. If you believe Paul is
an apostle, and inspired, you can see he would make a heretic out of
James. That means the twelve apostles appointed as their leader
(James) a lost righteousness is imputed to the person if we observe
all God’s commands. The Protestants Keil and Delitzsch in their
all God's commands. The Protestants Keil and Delitzsch in their
Commentary on the Old Testament agree that this verse means precisely
this:
@ -43,38 +43,38 @@ this:
diligent in the observance of the law.
Is this obedience of which Deuteronomy speaks impossible? No. God in
(Deut. 30:11) then assures us obedience “is not too hard for thee,
neither is it far off.” (ASV.) Apostle John likewise says: “And his
commandments are not burdensome.” (1John 5:2-3). As Jesus too says,
“my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:29-30). It is a Pauline misconception
(Deut. 30:11) then assures us obedience "is not too hard for thee,
neither is it far off." (ASV.) Apostle John likewise says: "And his
commandments are not burdensome." (1John 5:2-3). As Jesus too says,
"my burden is light." (Matt. 11:29-30). It is a Pauline misconception
that obedience is a task beyond our ability. ((Rom. 7:24).) God
assures us we can do this.
Paul directly contradicts (Deut. 6:25) by Paul’s claim that
Paul directly contradicts (Deut. 6:25) by Paul's claim that
righteousness (justification) is not payment for sin. It did not make
you righteous, i.e., justify you. Rather, it made justification
possible in God’s eyes as long as His other standards are satisfied:
possible in God's eyes as long as His other standards are satisfied:
repentance from sin and turning from sin. Jesus taught this in
(Matt. 5:23-24), although some translations make it more difficult to
see His meaning. Jesus says that before you bring the “sacrifice”
(often mistranslated as ‘gift’) to the “sacrifice place” (poorly
translated as ‘altar’) make sure you are “reconciled to your brother”
see His meaning. Jesus says that before you bring the "sacrifice"
(often mistranslated as 'gift') to the "sacrifice place" (poorly
translated as 'altar') make sure you are "reconciled to your brother"
who has something against you.
28. The Greek word is doron. It can mean “gift,” blit its primary
meaning in context is “oblation” (sacrifice) {Interlinear Scripture
Analyzer.) To assess this word’s meaning, we first look at the Hebrew
28. The Greek word is doron. It can mean "gift," blit its primary
meaning in context is "oblation" (sacrifice) {Interlinear Scripture
Analyzer.) To assess this word's meaning, we first look at the Hebrew
equivalent. The Hebrew word for sacrifice is minchah (Hebrew Stg
4503). It came from an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e., bestow;
a donation; euphemism tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering
(usually bloodless and voluntary). As a noun, this Hebrew word meant
“gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.” The Greek
equivalent word is doron (Greek Stg 1435): “a present; specially a
sacrifice: gift, offering.”
"gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice." The Greek
equivalent word is doron (Greek Stg 1435): "a present; specially a
sacrifice: gift, offering."
29. The Greek word is thusiasterion. It literally means “sacrifice
place.” {Interlinear Scripture Analyzer only if one has first appeased
his neighbor.’’ Jesus simply made this principle a daily
29. The Greek word is thusiasterion. It literally means "sacrifice
place." {Interlinear Scripture Analyzer only if one has first appeased
his neighbor.'' Jesus simply made this principle a daily
one. Atonement could not be pled by one who had not first appeased
their neighbor to forgive them of some wrong.
@ -96,29 +96,29 @@ inspired teaching on salvation as possibly still
Interpretation (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2000) at 123.
31. Quoted in id., The danger of adding to Scripture in violation of
the duty in (Deut. 4:2) is that God’s very promises of justification
the duty in (Deut. 4:2) is that God's very promises of justification
by repentance and obedience are nullified. Thereby, a new conception
of God takes His rightful place.
I concur with the Paulunist that a new God appears depending on which side of this issue you end up teaching. If you are on James’ side, you are looking at God Almighty Yahweh. You have (Deut. 6:25) firmly fixed in your mind. However, if you look at it from Paul’s side, you have a god who barely resembles the God of Hebrew Scripture. Paul’s god teaches it is far too hard to keep the Law. Paul’s god says it is fruitless to try to obey the Law as a means of remaining just. Instead, as
I concur with the Paulunist that a new God appears depending on which side of this issue you end up teaching. If you are on James' side, you are looking at God Almighty Yahweh. You have (Deut. 6:25) firmly fixed in your mind. However, if you look at it from Paul's side, you have a god who barely resembles the God of Hebrew Scripture. Paul's god teaches it is far too hard to keep the Law. Paul's god says it is fruitless to try to obey the Law as a means of remaining just. Instead, as
“How do you stay saved? What do you do to stay saved? Nothing! Absolutely nothing.”
"How do you stay saved? What do you do to stay saved? Nothing! Absolutely nothing."
Charles Stanley Saved and Sure (Audiocasette AW114.)
32.The following is a common teaching among Paulunists: “
Blasphemy. The idea of earning anything from God by one’s meritorious
works is, strictly speaking, not simply a problem in soteriology’ but
in theology’ proper. You are not just saying something about your
32.The following is a common teaching among Paulunists: "
Blasphemy. The idea of earning anything from God by one's meritorious
works is, strictly speaking, not simply a problem in soteriology' but
in theology' proper. You are not just saying something about your
works, or about sin, if the object of acquisition is salvation from
the wrath to come, but you are saying something about God—or rather,
the wrath to come, but you are saying something about God-or rather,
about god. for you have made him finite. Thus, the best corrective to
merit legalism is found in Paul’s preaching to the pagans, not so much
merit legalism is found in Paul's preaching to the pagans, not so much
to the circumcision party in the Church." See,
![Picture #59](images/img_0059.png)
Paulunist J. Vernon McGee was fond to say: “He [[God]] never to lets
go. Now sit back, relax, and enjoy your salvation.’ Paul is the
Paulunist J. Vernon McGee was fond to say: "He [[God]] never to lets
go. Now sit back, relax, and enjoy your salvation.' Paul is the
effortless way. James and Jesus provide a way that requires agonizing
effort to enter. (Luke 13:24, Greek agonozai .)

10
JWO_11_05_WhatAboutJustificationByFaithintheHebrewScriptures__0053.md

@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ However, Paul forgets that God made a promise, i.e., a debt, that
justification would result from obedience to the Law! (Deut. 6:25.)
God promised it was not too difficult on our side to do!
(Deut. 30:11). Apostle John reaffirms that truth! (1 John 5:2-3). So
there is nothing contrary to God’s principles of mercy (grace) if I
there is nothing contrary to God's principles of mercy (grace) if I
insist justification thereafter is owed by God as a debt. God says it
is a debt. He will pay the debt for that justification, i.e.,
ultimately He will apply atonement for you. This is why it is called a
@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ Covenant!
33. McGee, How You Can Have the Assurance of Salvation (Pasadena: 1976) atl2.
34. Paul does the same in his quotes from Psalm 36 in (Rom. 3). This
outof-context proclivity of Paul is discussed in S.L.Edgar, “Respect
for Context in Quotations from the O.T.,” New Testament Studies 9
outof-context proclivity of Paul is discussed in S.L.Edgar, "Respect
for Context in Quotations from the O.T.," New Testament Studies 9
(196263) at 56.
Paul suffers from fallacious reasoning in this regard. He argues a
@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ doctrine of grace in (Ezek. 33:12).
Then is justification distinct and at a different point? Yes,
justification is at a different point in (Ezek. 33:12). Justification
follows repentance (and the receipt of grace). Remaining justified is
by staying on the “narrow” path of obedience. God makes a promise,
by staying on the "narrow" path of obedience. God makes a promise,
i.e., a debt, to justify you whenever you are staying on the narrow
path of obeying Him. (Deut. 6:25). This is the Covenant promise of
God!
@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ grace when you disobey, and He will give you unmerited favor for true
repentance in (Ezek. 33:12). Both principles of debt and grace are
simultaneously true, but operative at different points.
To arrive at Paul’s different conclusion, Paul quotes passages out of
To arrive at Paul's different conclusion, Paul quotes passages out of
context. As already mentioned, in (Rom. 4:6), Paul quotes Psalm 32:1-2
to prove one is justified solely by faith without works of the Law
(i.e., obedience to the Law). Yet, Paul omits verse 5. Paul only

30
JWO_11_06_JamesUsed‘Faith_intheSenseGenesisUsedtheWord_0054.md

@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## James Used ‘Faith ’ in the Sense Genesis Used the Word
## James Used 'Faith ' in the Sense Genesis Used the Word
In fact, in the Hebrew Scriptures that describe Abraham’s alleged
In fact, in the Hebrew Scriptures that describe Abraham's alleged
justification by faith, Paul misunderstood even there the nature of
faith. James understood it correctly.
@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ obedience and faith are inextricably intertwined.
When Yahweh sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, Go up and possess the
land which I have given you; then you rebelled against the commandment
of Yahweh your God, and you didn’t believe him, nor listen to his
of Yahweh your God, and you didn't believe him, nor listen to his
voice.
Hebrew Scripture thus was teaching that when you disobey God, it means
@ -23,30 +23,30 @@ when you obey God, it means you believe Him and you hear Him. They are
inextricably intertwined.
As the Dictionary of Fundamental Theology explains, faith in the
Hebrew Scriptures—what it calls the ‘Old Testament’—had this dual
Hebrew Scriptures-what it calls the 'Old Testament'-had this dual
nature:
[[T]]he faith of the 0[ld] T[estament]...is both trust and surrender
to God... it is obedience that assimilates the person.... 35
Abraham did not have faith in God that can exist apart from obeying
God’s voice. Mental belief apart from obedience is different from the
God's voice. Mental belief apart from obedience is different from the
Biblical-meaning of faith in the Hebrew Scripture. Works of obedience
are never apart from faith, as if they are mere fruit of a
tree. Rather, obedience has a synergy with mental belief. Together
they form the core meaning of believing in Hebrew Scriptures. Abraham
s believing was inextricably in tertwined with works of obedience. See
Gen. 26:4-5 (“In your seed will all the nations of the earth be
Gen. 26:4-5 ("In your seed will all the nations of the earth be
blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”)
commandments, my statutes, and my laws.")
Paul, however, wanted to read Abraham’s story in a new way. Paul
wanted to draw a line that you could be in disobedience to God’s law
Paul, however, wanted to read Abraham's story in a new way. Paul
wanted to draw a line that you could be in disobedience to God's law
(in fact abandon it) but still be able to be seen as just due to
belief mentally in two statements. These two statements were: (1)
Jesus is Lord and (2) Jesus was resurrected. See (Rom. 10:9).
35. Langevin, Gilles. “Faith,” Dictionary of Fundamental Theology. Ed.
35. Langevin, Gilles. "Faith," Dictionary of Fundamental Theology. Ed.
(Latourelle, Rene. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994) at 309.
o arrive at this, however, Paul was taking Genesis out-of-context. He
@ -61,21 +61,21 @@ of mental assent was inextricably dependent in Hebrew upon the
necessity of a simultaneous turn toward obedience. (Deut. 9:23). This
is precisely what James is explaining in James chapter two.
Thus, James’ statement that “faith [i.e.,pistis in Greek] without
works” does not save merely was explaining the original Hebrew. James
Thus, James' statement that "faith [i.e.,pistis in Greek] without
works" does not save merely was explaining the original Hebrew. James
was putting back what was missing in the Greek Septuagint
translation. It lacked the nuance which Hebrew implied about faith in
the life of Abraham. Paul by contrast was explaining a Hebrew word for
believe by a misleadingly deficient word in Greek— pistis. This Greek
believe by a misleadingly deficient word in Greek- pistis. This Greek
word sometimes can mean merely mental assent. Paul is interpreting
Hebrew by a deficient and different Greek word used to translate faith
in the Septuagint. By contrast, James is putting Gen. 15:6 back in
context of the original Hebrew.
Accordingly, James teaches the Bible’s doctrine on salvation which was
Accordingly, James teaches the Bible's doctrine on salvation which was
at total odds with Paul. James was bringing the discussion back to the
lessons of the Hebrew Scriptures. James was aware of the Septuagint
translation, but urged us to use the original Hebrew meanings. Paul
had relied upon an erroneous translation in the Septuagint of
(Gen. 15:6). James simply used the Hebrew meaning in the original
passages to undermine Paul’s doctrine. 36
passages to undermine Paul's doctrine. 36

82
JWO_11_07_James_ReproofthatFaithWithoutEnduranceSaves(James1_12)_0055.md

@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## James ’ Reproof that Faith Without Endurance Saves (Jas. 1:12)
## James ' Reproof that Faith Without Endurance Saves (Jas. 1:12)
Paul is read by almost everyone today as saying that one is saved even
if they do not endure in faith. Paul in (Rom. 10:11) says that anyone
who “trusts in Him will never be put to shame.” Charles Stanley says
this trust is a singular moment in time. Paul’s doctrine implies we do
who "trusts in Him will never be put to shame." Charles Stanley says
this trust is a singular moment in time. Paul's doctrine implies we do
not have to have an enduring faith to be saved. Rather, we need only
believe in a “singular moment in time” in our enduring Lord. (Stanley,
believe in a "singular moment in time" in our enduring Lord. (Stanley,
Eternal Security, supra, at 80-81.)
(Jas. 1:12) reproves this teaching. He says to the contrary:
@ -16,32 +16,32 @@ Eternal Security, supra, at 80-81.)
been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord
promised to them that love him.
James was merely repeating Jesus’ words. “He who endures to the end
shall be saved.” (Matt. 10:22). Jesus explained the lost (“withered
away’Vdead) includes those who “ believe for a while” but “in time of
temptation fall away.” (Luke 8:13). Elsewhere, breaking faith by
disobedience means one is unsaved. John 3:36 (“He who keeps on
James was merely repeating Jesus' words. "He who endures to the end
shall be saved." (Matt. 10:22). Jesus explained the lost ("withered
away'Vdead) includes those who " believe for a while" but "in time of
temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13). Elsewhere, breaking faith by
disobedience means one is unsaved. John 3:36 ("He who keeps on
believing has eternal life, but he who keeps on disobeying the son,
the wrath of God continues to remain on him.”)
the wrath of God continues to remain on him.")
36. It is ironic but Paulunist historians recognize this
contradiction, and use it to argue the Epistle of James was not
written by James. “The farreaching differences in soteriology indicate
written by James. "The farreaching differences in soteriology indicate
that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James
the Lord’s brother, who according to (Gal. 2).9 gave the right hand of
the Lord's brother, who according to (Gal. 2).9 gave the right hand of
fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the
gospel among the Gentiles.” (Udo Schnelle The History and Theology of
gospel among the Gentiles." (Udo Schnelle The History and Theology of
the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) at
385-86.) However, this ignores Acts chapter 21 is after the events
Paul mentions in Galatians 2:9. In Acts chapter 21, James still does
not know Paul’s doctrine on the Law. James asks and receives Paul’s
implicit reassurances that Paul is not teaching the Law’s abrogation.
not know Paul's doctrine on the Law. James asks and receives Paul's
implicit reassurances that Paul is not teaching the Law's abrogation.
### (Hab. 2:4:) What Does It Really Say?
How did Paul establish the contrary view to James? Besides his
out-of-context quote of Psalm 32:1-2 and his mistaken view of
(Gen. 15:6), Paul’s faith alone doctrine had one other proof
(Gen. 15:6), Paul's faith alone doctrine had one other proof
text. This came from Habakkuk. Paul claimed this passage establishes a
one-time faith saves, without any endurance in faithful living to the
Law. Paul was quoting (Hab. 2:4). Paul, however, quotes from the
@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ translation of the Hebrew original. The key word in Habakkuk is not
faith (i. e ., pistis in Greek), but faithfulness (i.e., emunah in
Hebrew). Also, Paul omits a crucial word that appears both in the
Septuagint and Hebrew: it is the word his before faithfulness . Both
corrections overturn Paul’s intended interpretation. The restoration
corrections overturn Paul's intended interpretation. The restoration
of these missing pieces establish the opposite of what Paul was trying to prove.
H. Ray Dunning, Professor of Theology at Trevecca Nazarene College in
@ -69,16 +69,16 @@ different. The professor is certainly normative in his views. He does
not show any sign of sympathy with my conclusions about Paul. Yet
Professor Dunning is clearly showing that Paul erred in his
understanding of Habakkuk 2:4. Here is the fruit of Professor
Dunning’s study:
Dunning's study:
The just shall live by his faith. The word rendered faith is the
Hebrew emunah, from a verb meaning originally “to be firm,” and is
Hebrew emunah, from a verb meaning originally "to be firm," and is
used in the Old Testament in the physical sense of steadfastness
(Smith, op. cit., p. 140). Thus the better rendering is
“faithfulness.” Faith is a word for which, in the New Testament
active sense, the Hebrew has no equivalent —though the term
“believe” is derived from the same root as emunah. (IB, VI, 989). 37
"faithfulness." Faith is a word for which, in the New Testament
active sense, the Hebrew has no equivalent -though the term
"believe" is derived from the same root as emunah. (IB, VI, 989). 37
Professor Dunning is explaining that there is a gap in translating
faithfulness in Hebrew into Greek. The simple concept faith in Greek
@ -87,34 +87,34 @@ properly to the word pistis in Greek, despite the Septuagint making
this choice. The Hebrew text therefore means the just shall live by
his faithfulness. What does faithfulness mean?
Professor Dunning gives many Biblical examples of emunah's meaning. He also does not shrink back from pointing out a meaning that disaffirms Paul’s interpretation:
Professor Dunning gives many Biblical examples of emunah's meaning. He also does not shrink back from pointing out a meaning that disaffirms Paul's interpretation:
Emunah is the word used to describe the uplifted hands of Moses, which
were steady (Exod. 17:12). It is also used of men in charge of money
who “dealt faithfully” (II Kings 12:15). It is closely akin, if not
identical, to the English idiomatic statement “Hold steady,” implying
that if one does not “bolt,” the circumstances that surround him will
alter. Lehrman’s suggested meaning of the intention of this
exhortation is good: “The righteous Israelite, who remains
who "dealt faithfully" (II Kings 12:15). It is closely akin, if not
identical, to the English idiomatic statement "Hold steady," implying
that if one does not "bolt," the circumstances that surround him will
alter. Lehrman's suggested meaning of the intention of this
exhortation is good: "The righteous Israelite, who remains
unswervingly loyal to the moral precepts, will endure, although he has
to suffer for his principles; whereas the wicked, who enjoy a
temporary ascendancy through their violation of right, are in the end
overthrown and humbled.” (Op. cit., p. 219).
overthrown and humbled." (Op. cit., p. 219).
37. H. Ray Dunning, “The Divine Response, (Hab. 2:4),” Beacon Hitt
Commentary’ (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1966) Vol. 5 at 277-78.
37. H. Ray Dunning, "The Divine Response, (Hab. 2:4)," Beacon Hitt
Commentary' (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1966) Vol. 5 at 277-78.
(Emphasis added.)
Emunah thus means faithfulness with its core meaning ‘holding steady,
holding firm, holding true to moral precepts.’ This is why for James
Emunah thus means faithfulness with its core meaning 'holding steady,
holding firm, holding true to moral precepts.' This is why for James
separating faith and faithfulness made no sense.
Professor Dunning goes on to explain that Paul was led into his
erroneous interpretation by relying upon the Septuagint translation of
the Hebrew into Greek. The Septuagint renders emunah with pistis. The
professor is thereby making an excuse for Paul’s misapplication.
professor is thereby making an excuse for Paul's misapplication.
Professor Dunning states:
The Septuagint translated emunah by pistis (faith). It was this
@ -123,18 +123,18 @@ Professor Dunning states:
Christian preaching (kerygma).
Paul quotes this clause twice (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11) in support of
his doctrine of justification by faith. By it he “intends that single
act of faith by...the sinner secures forgiveness and justification.”
his doctrine of justification by faith. By it he "intends that single
act of faith by...the sinner secures forgiveness and justification."
Hence, Professor Dunning is saying Paul has a onetime faith in
mind. This fits the Septuagint’s choice of pistis. Yet, as the
mind. This fits the Septuagint's choice of pistis. Yet, as the
professor already explained, the meaning in Hebrew requires
faithfulness, which means in context an “unswerving loyalty...to endure....”
faithfulness, which means in context an "unswerving loyalty...to endure...."
Paul simply erred.
Thus, once more we see (Jas. 1:12), 17 is reproving Paul’s entire
Thus, once more we see (Jas. 1:12), 17 is reproving Paul's entire
notion that a one-time faith saves. Rather, it is the faith that
endures times of temptation that will receive the “crown of life.”
James brushes aside Paul’s contrary view with one quick jab.
endures times of temptation that will receive the "crown of life."
James brushes aside Paul's contrary view with one quick jab.

54
JWO_11_08_JamesRidiculesAFaithBasedonMereMentalAssent_0056.md

@ -2,44 +2,44 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## James Ridicules A Faith Based on Mere Mental Assent
Paul in (Rom. 10:9) says that part of saving faith is “believing in
your heart that God has raised Him from the dead....” The focus in
Paul’s salvation formula is on acknowledgment of two facts: Jesus is
Paul in (Rom. 10:9) says that part of saving faith is "believing in
your heart that God has raised Him from the dead...." The focus in
Paul's salvation formula is on acknowledgment of two facts: Jesus is
Lord and Jesus resurrected from the dead. However, demons surely know
and believe both facts. It thus makes no sense that believing just
these facts gives you a guarantee that “you shall be saved” without
any repentance and obedience to follow. In modern evangelism, Paul’s
these facts gives you a guarantee that "you shall be saved" without
any repentance and obedience to follow. In modern evangelism, Paul's
actual words in his sterile salvation formula in Romans 10:9 are
generally ignored. Paul said you were saved if you believed Jesus is
Lord and you believed in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Modern
evangelists such as Stanley and Spurgeon must realize how sterile this
salvation formula appears upon reflection. Thus, they change the
formula to mean one has saving faith if one is “acknowledging the fact
you are a sinner and Jesus paid for your sins.” If you accept these
facts as true, you are assured that you are “saved.”
formula to mean one has saving faith if one is "acknowledging the fact
you are a sinner and Jesus paid for your sins." If you accept these
facts as true, you are assured that you are "saved."
Yet, that is not Paul’s true formula in (Rom. 10:9).
Yet, that is not Paul's true formula in (Rom. 10:9).
Whether Paul’s formula or the Stanley-Spurgeon formula, modern
Whether Paul's formula or the Stanley-Spurgeon formula, modern
evangelism presents this as a decision that you can do in the privacy
of your own heart. You do not have to confess it out loud. Otherwise
that would be a works-salvation, modern Paulunists teach. Whether we
keep to Paul’s for James says that the “demons believe” in God, but
they are not thereby saved. James says in 2:19: “Thou believest that
God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.”
keep to Paul's for James says that the "demons believe" in God, but
they are not thereby saved. James says in 2:19: "Thou believest that
God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder."
James then goes on to state works are necessary to add to mental
assent to make faith complete, as mentioned above. Faith without such
works, James relates, is therefore akin to the faith which demons
have. It lacks something essential.
38.Stanley, Eternal Security, supra, at 33-35 (trust in Jesus’ payment
for sin saves you). Spurgeon’s The Warrant of Faith (1863) typifies
38.Stanley, Eternal Security, supra, at 33-35 (trust in Jesus' payment
for sin saves you). Spurgeon's The Warrant of Faith (1863) typifies
the modern evangelical sermon. He adds an interesting twist that tries
to explain away James’ point in (Jas. 2:19). Spurgeon does this by
to explain away James' point in (Jas. 2:19). Spurgeon does this by
making faith in faith alone the act that James seeks beyond mere
acknowledgment of facts. At first, Spurgeon appears to agree with
James. After giving the Pauline gospel, he says: “The mere knowledge
of these facts will not, however, save us....” What then must we dol
James. After giving the Pauline gospel, he says: "The mere knowledge
of these facts will not, however, save us...." What then must we dol
Spurgeon then says we must trust in Jesus so we always accepts these
facts and assure ourselves of salvation by faith alone. Spurgeon
required the work of enduring in a faith in faith alone without
@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ an evangelical scholar and Pauline thinker, unwittingly states:
Remember that back in the Gospel accounts there were demons that
acknowledged the deity of the Lord Jesus'! When he appeared before
them they said, ‘We know who you are, the Holy One of God.’ (cf, (Mark
them they said, 'We know who you are, the Holy One of God.' (cf, (Mark
1:24), Luke 4:34). They acknowledged what the Jews were too blind to
see, the full deity of Jesus Christ, as well as his humanity. But,
though demons acknowledged this, they never confessed it.
@ -63,27 +63,27 @@ though demons acknowledged this, they never confessed it.
They never trusted him. They did not commit themselves to him, they
did not live by this truth. 39
Pastor Stedman does not realize how this demonstrates Paul’s
invalidity. Paul said we are saved if we believe in Jesus’
Pastor Stedman does not realize how this demonstrates Paul's
invalidity. Paul said we are saved if we believe in Jesus'
resurrection and that Jesus is Lord. ((Rom. 10:9).) The demons not
only believe both facts but are personally
39. Ray C. Stedman, When Unbelief is Right Demons would admit they sin
against God and they are proud of it! Thus, demons could be saved
under either Paul’s criteria (Rom. 10:9) or even Stanley’s or
Spurgeon’s criteria for salvation.
under either Paul's criteria (Rom. 10:9) or even Stanley's or
Spurgeon's criteria for salvation.
Now you can see that (Jas. 2:19) is a perfect response to Paul’s
Now you can see that (Jas. 2:19) is a perfect response to Paul's
teaching in (Rom. 10:9). James ridicules that formula by saying mere
mental assent by demons to truths about God would not save them any
more than it alone would save you. James’ response in 2:19 is
perfectly adapted to respond to Paul’s salvation formulas. Paul
more than it alone would save you. James' response in 2:19 is
perfectly adapted to respond to Paul's salvation formulas. Paul
emphasized mental assent as what saves you. James says this notion is
wrong.
Again, the Epistle of James appears perfectly adapted to be used at a trial of Paul.
Table captionJesus’ View on Works: Forensic Test or Intrinsic Requirement ?
Table captionJesus' View on Works: Forensic Test or Intrinsic Requirement ?
![Picture #60](images/img_0060.png)

60
JWO_11_09_JamesCritiqueofPaulsIdeaThatTheLawArousesSin_0057.md

@ -46,19 +46,19 @@ means that works prove you were saved. This is known as the, forensic
test. The contrary says works are an intrinsic requirement to
salvation. The intrinsic view is correct because Jesus warns
Christians repeatedly to have works or perish. (Matt. 7:19),
“every tree without good and by it slew me.
"every tree without good and by it slew me.
What is Paul saying? First, Paul very clearly says that he would not
have known to lust after women had he not been commanded against doing
so. Prior to that time, “without the law, sin was dead.” (v. 8).
so. Prior to that time, "without the law, sin was dead." (v. 8).
Paul then comes about this from the other side, making his point more
shocking. Prior to the law, Paul says “I was alive without the law” (
i.e ., spiritually alive), but then the law came, and “sin revived and
I died.” (v. 9) Paul is clearly saying the law brought sin to life in
shocking. Prior to the law, Paul says "I was alive without the law" (
i.e ., spiritually alive), but then the law came, and "sin revived and
I died." (v. 9) Paul is clearly saying the law brought sin to life in
him. Without the law, he was living sinless and spiritually, without
any temptation to sin. However, when the law came and he read its
prohibition, sin, by virtue of the law’s commands inciting in him to
prohibition, sin, by virtue of the law's commands inciting in him to
lust, occurred. Paul sinned and spiritually died.
James must have scratched his head reading this. How can anyone
@ -66,13 +66,13 @@ attribute to God and His law the temptation to sin? Yet, Paulunists
defend and explain that is precisely what Paul means.
However, Paul knows what he is saying, and knows we will object. So
Paul twice does a “God forbid hand-waive.” (Rom. 7:7, 13.) Paul takes
what he has just said and claims “God forbid” you should think he is
Paul twice does a "God forbid hand-waive." (Rom. 7:7, 13.) Paul takes
what he has just said and claims "God forbid" you should think he is
saying what he has otherwise clearly said. Yet, despite the God forbid
message, Paul leaves you, the reader, with only words to support the
view that the law tempted him to sin. Listen to the hand-waive in(Rom. 7:13);
Psalm 19:8-9 “The commandment of Yahweh is pure,
Psalm 19:8-9 "The commandment of Yahweh is pure,
![Picture #62](images/img_0062.png)
@ -80,40 +80,40 @@ Psalm 19:8-9 “The commandment of Yahweh is pure,
sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which
is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. (ASV).
This quote reveals Paul senses the blasphemy of saying the law “which is good”
was “made death to me.” So he says, if you think that were true, God forbid.
This quote reveals Paul senses the blasphemy of saying the law "which is good"
was "made death to me." So he says, if you think that were true, God forbid.
41. Paulunists admit Paul claims that reading the Law arouses
sin. Paul Borden’s audio online sermon The Frustration of Doing Good
sin. Paul Borden's audio online sermon The Frustration of Doing Good
is an exposition on (Rom. 7). Borden, an American Baptist, introduces
his sermon by saying “the apostle Paul eloquently explains how the law
causes us to do the very things we don’t want to do—clearly
accentuating our need for grace.” Borden is blunt: “Paul says the law
caused his sin to ‘spring to life’— makes him want to sin.” See
his sermon by saying "the apostle Paul eloquently explains how the law
causes us to do the very things we don't want to do-clearly
accentuating our need for grace." Borden is blunt: "Paul says the law
caused his sin to 'spring to life'- makes him want to sin." See
Christianity Today which hosted this sermon in 2005 at
http://resources.christianity.com/ministries/christianitytoday/main/talkInfo.jhtml?id=26945
(last visited 6/2005). Incidentally, Borden’s explanations later
(last visited 6/2005). Incidentally, Borden's explanations later
contradict Paul, claiming Paul means the Law merely incites rebellion
when we are told to stop the sin we love. Borden explains we like our
ways prior to hearing the Law. When the Law tells us that we are
sinning, we continue in our ways rebelliously. In Borden’s spin, the
Law did not cause the sin to start. In this manner, Borden’s spin
sinning, we continue in our ways rebelliously. In Borden's spin, the
Law did not cause the sin to start. In this manner, Borden's spin
contradicts Paul. For Paul says he did not know to lust for women
until he read the Law’s command against doing so. Paul says he was
until he read the Law's command against doing so. Paul says he was
previously living spiritually alive. Paulunists spin Paul to prevent exposing his blasphemy.
Paul Borden explains Paul “eloquently explains how | the law causes us
to do the very things we don’t want to do....” (2005) (online sennon).
Paul Borden explains Paul "eloquently explains how | the law causes us
to do the very things we don't want to do...." (2005) (online sennon).
![Picture #63](images/img_0063.png)
Yet, that is precisely what Paul has just said, and then immediately
repeats. He goes back to what he was saying before, adding the
postscript, “by the commandment [ i.e., the Law] sin became exceeding
sinful.” Paul was not being equivocal on that point. That is what Paul
postscript, "by the commandment [ i.e., the Law] sin became exceeding
sinful." Paul was not being equivocal on that point. That is what Paul
said backwards and now forwards. Paul gives himself an out from making
a blasphemous statement by saying that if you think he is saying the
law, which is good, “made death to me,” God forbid. However, Paul then
law, which is good, "made death to me," God forbid. However, Paul then
does not explain how we are supposed to square what he previously said
with his God forbid statement. He uses mumbo-jumbo of impenetrable
words that you are somehow to think answers your concern:
@ -122,16 +122,16 @@ words that you are somehow to think answers your concern:
which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding
sinful. (Rom. 7:13.)
Those are Paul’s only words to take the sting out of saying the Law
Those are Paul's only words to take the sting out of saying the Law
tempted him to sin. Rather, it appears to be reinforcing his prior
blaming his sin on the Law. He says by means of the “good” (the law)
and “by the commandment” sin became exceedingly sinful. What does that
mean? It appears to be repeating what Paul just said “God-forbid” you
blaming his sin on the Law. He says by means of the "good" (the law)
and "by the commandment" sin became exceedingly sinful. What does that
mean? It appears to be repeating what Paul just said "God-forbid" you
should think is what he means. Paul reduces his words into pure
mumbo-jumbo. He seeks to dumbfound the reader into thinking your
natural concern that Paul is uttering blasphemy has somehow been
addressed. Yet, it never happens!
In response, James simply trashes the entire discussion in
(Jas. 1:13-14). One quick jab, and Paul’s ideas are again refuted.
(Jas. 1:13-14). One quick jab, and Paul's ideas are again refuted.

48
JWO_11_10_James3_17_IsItaResponsetoBeingtheVictimofPaulsHypocrisy__0058.md

@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## (Jas. 3:17:) Is It a Response to Being the Victim of Paul s Hypocrisy?
The word hypocrite in Greek means an actor. It is someone who pretends
to be something he is not. Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for
hypocrites. (Matt. 23:13, 14, 23-28.) The Pharisees wore an actor’s mask.
They appeared righteous when inwardly they were full of dead men’s
to be something he is not. Jesus' harshest words were reserved for
hypocrites. (Matt. 23:13, 14, 23-28.) The Pharisees wore an actor's mask.
They appeared righteous when inwardly they were full of dead men's
bones. (Matt. 23:38). Jesus used the tenn hypocrite just as we
would. A hypocrite pretends to be something he is not.
@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ his epistle, he must have been fully aware that Paul did teach the Law
was abrogated as to Jews. Paul says this clearly in Romans chapter 7
which James is apparently still reading. All James can see is the
blatant hypocrisy that Paul previously committed against James in Acts
21:21 et seq. (For more on Paul’s position on the Law, see the chapter
entitled, “Did Paul Negate the Law’s Further Applicability?” on page
21:21 et seq. (For more on Paul's position on the Law, see the chapter
entitled, "Did Paul Negate the Law's Further Applicability?" on page
73.)
Most of us are unaware but in (Acts 21:21) Paul misleads James that he, Paul,
@ -44,20 +44,20 @@ does not advocate the Law given Moses has been abrogated even as to
Jews who would accept Christ. James clearly was seeking assurance from
Paul to this effect in (Acts 21:21).
Yet, Paul in (Rom. 7:2) proudly says that by virtue of Jesus’ death,
under the Laws of remarriage, Jews are “loosed from the Law” (KJV)
“released from the Law” (ALT) “discharged from the Law” (ASV) and “set
free from the Law” (YLT). They are now free to re-marry another—a God
Yet, Paul in (Rom. 7:2) proudly says that by virtue of Jesus' death,
under the Laws of remarriage, Jews are "loosed from the Law" (KJV)
"released from the Law" (ALT) "discharged from the Law" (ASV) and "set
free from the Law" (YLT). They are now free to re-marry another-a God
who has no Law of Moses any longer for them. The key Greek word is
katarge. Robertson’s Word Pictures explains this means “to make void.”
katarge. Robertson's Word Pictures explains this means "to make void."
Literally, Paul says the Law becomes of none effect for Jews any
longer when Christ died. Paul uses the same expression in (Eph. 2:15)
when he says the Law was “abolished.” The word there is again katagsas
—the aorist active participle in Greek of the same word in
(Rom. 7:2). Paul’s point is this principle of abolition applies to the
when he says the Law was "abolished." The word there is again katagsas
-the aorist active participle in Greek of the same word in
(Rom. 7:2). Paul's point is this principle of abolition applies to the
Jews. This is why, based on Romans 7:2, some Paulunists teach Jews and
Christians who follow the true Sabbath ( i.e ., sunset-to-sunset
Friday to Saturday) are “guilty of spiritual adultery.” The Law is so
Friday to Saturday) are "guilty of spiritual adultery." The Law is so
totally abolished as to Jews that a Jew (and a Christian) actually
shows unfaithfulness to God by following the original command from God
Himself! Oh my! What man cannot believe when he is at first deceived!
@ -66,27 +66,27 @@ But what explains Paul letting James in Acts 21:23-26 believe
erroneously that Paul taught the Law of Moses was still valid for
Jewish Christians? Clearly James asks Paul to submit to the Nazirite
vow to prove Paul does not in fact teach otherwise. Paul does submit
to the vow. This action and Paul’s silence thereby misleads James that
to the vow. This action and Paul's silence thereby misleads James that
Paul was living like a Jew not out of pretence but from a sincere
belief that the Law had to be followed.
42. “A11 Sabbatarians are guilty of adultery:...Paul said that
42. "A11 Sabbatarians are guilty of adultery:...Paul said that
[obeying the Ten Commandments] is equal to spiritual adultery, because
in order to be joined to Christ, all the old Law must be abolished.”
in order to be joined to Christ, all the old Law must be abolished."
http://www.bible.ca/7-10-commandments-abolished-Romans-7-l-7.htm
(last accessed 2005).
How could Paul justify such behavior? Paul gives us the answer: he
consciously practiced to make observers think he was observan t of the
Law when he did not believe it was any longer valid. In 1 Corinthians
chapter 6 Paul says he is “not under the Law” and in 1 Corinthians
chapter 6 Paul says he is "not under the Law" and in 1 Corinthians
chapter 9 Paul repeats this. Paul then adds that when around Jews he
acts like he is under the Law (Torah). When around Gentiles who are
not under the Law (Torah), he acts like one who is under no law even
though he is under the Law of Christ [i.e., back to Paul’s “expedient”
and “not be dominated” test of right and wrong in one’s
conscience]. Listen to Paul’s open admission of such blatantly
though he is under the Law of Christ [i.e., back to Paul's "expedient"
and "not be dominated" test of right and wrong in one's
conscience]. Listen to Paul's open admission of such blatantly
hypocritical tactics in (1Cor. 9:20-21):
(20) And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to
@ -96,11 +96,11 @@ hypocritical tactics in (1Cor. 9:20-21):
law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that
are without law. (ASV)
One Pauline pastor himself defines “without hypocrisy” in
One Pauline pastor himself defines "without hypocrisy" in
(Jas. 3:17). He unwittingly gives us a clear understanding of the
problem that James saw in Paul. This pastor says James means true
wisdom, if from God, involves “no attempt to play a role or pretend to
be what we are not.” 43 Paul blatantly admits he does this. Paul did
wisdom, if from God, involves "no attempt to play a role or pretend to
be what we are not." 43 Paul blatantly admits he does this. Paul did
this with James clearly in Acts 21:21 et seq. Therefore, (Jas. 3:17)
was saying Paul cannot be a prophet from God. Paul plays the
hypocrite, and teaches others to do the same. The end justifies the

68
JWO_11_11_James3_17onVariances(Inconsistencies)_0059.md

@ -11,26 +11,26 @@ From Above (Jas. 3:17),18 (1978), reprinted at
http://
www.biblebb.com/files/GR772.HTM (last visited 2005).
(Jas. 3:17) says the wisdom from above is “first pure, then peaceable,
(Jas. 3:17) says the wisdom from above is "first pure, then peaceable,
gentle, easy to be entreated [ i.e., asked a question], full of mercy
and good fruits, without variance...."
The Greek word for variance is adiakritos. To be adiakritos means to
be “unintelligible” or “undecided.” (Liddell Scott Lexicon.) Thus, if
you suffer from adiakritos, you engage in ambiguity. James says God’s
be "unintelligible" or "undecided." (Liddell Scott Lexicon.) Thus, if
you suffer from adiakritos, you engage in ambiguity. James says God's
true wisdom lacks ambiguous double-speak. By contrast, muddled
self-contradictory thoughts make one’s teaching ambiguous, hard to
discern, or unintelligible. James says God’s wisdom is, instead, pure,
self-contradictory thoughts make one's teaching ambiguous, hard to
discern, or unintelligible. James says God's wisdom is, instead, pure,
single, and unambiguous. When two thoughts are at odds with one
another, they reveal the speaker is somewhat undecided which direction
to take. The speaker wants to please both sides of an argument. He is
saying things each side wants to hear. By contrast, God’s wisdom is
saying things each side wants to hear. By contrast, God's wisdom is
unwavering, direct and not waffling.
How can this test apply to Paul?
James obviously saw the numerous “variances” (selfcontradictions) in
Paul’s writings and deeds. We also saw earlier Paul’s oft-repeated
James obviously saw the numerous "variances" (selfcontradictions) in
Paul's writings and deeds. We also saw earlier Paul's oft-repeated
technique of throwing a God-forbid hand waive into daringly
blasphemous discussions. It throws a bone to one side of an
argument. Paul then goes on to emphasize a message contrary to the
@ -38,63 +38,63 @@ implication that one would assume from the God-forbid statement. (See
page 281 et seq.) This methodology bespeaks intentional effort to
befuddle the reader/listener with ambiguous double-speak.
Another example of Paul’s self-contradiction is that Paul taught the
Galatians that if they became circumcised they would be “severed from
Christ.” (Gal. 5:4). Yet, in Acts 16:1-3, Paul has Timothy
Another example of Paul's self-contradiction is that Paul taught the
Galatians that if they became circumcised they would be "severed from
Christ." (Gal. 5:4). Yet, in Acts 16:1-3, Paul has Timothy
circumcised. Either Paul is contradicting himself or he is encouraging
hypocrisy, i.e., Timothy pretending to be submissive to the
Law. Either way, Paul comes out as not a godly teacher, i.e., either
he is self-contradictory or he plays the hypocrite to deceive people.
Another example of Paul’s “variances” is Paul writes: “A man is not
justified by the works of the Law” (Gal. 2:16). However, to the Romans
Paul wrote: “For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but
the doers of the Law shall be justified” (Rom 2:13). Which way is it?
Another example of Paul's "variances" is Paul writes: "A man is not
justified by the works of the Law" (Gal. 2:16). However, to the Romans
Paul wrote: "For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but
the doers of the Law shall be justified" (Rom 2:13). Which way is it?
Another time Paul says salvation is by works plus faith. In
(Rom. 2:6-7), Paul says God “will render to every man according to his
(Rom. 2:6-7), Paul says God "will render to every man according to his
works: to them that by patience in welldoing seek for glory and honor
and incorruption, eternal life." The Greek words translated as
‘patience in well-doing’ more correctly says endurance in good
works. Paul thus says ‘to those who endure patiently in doing good
works, God will render eternal life.’ Paul thus contradicts his own
'patience in well-doing' more correctly says endurance in good
works. Paul thus says 'to those who endure patiently in doing good
works, God will render eternal life.' Paul thus contradicts his own
claim that eternal life is a free gift, without works. (Eph. 2:8-9;
Romans 4:4). Which way is it?
Likewise, in (Phil. 2:12-13), Paul makes a statement that is
self-contradictory. First, in Philippians 2:12, Paul says “work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Yet, in Philippians 2:13,
Paul appears to negate your responsibility by saying “for it is God
which worketh in you both to will and to do [[His]] good pleasure.” The
self-contradictory. First, in Philippians 2:12, Paul says "work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling." Yet, in Philippians 2:13,
Paul appears to negate your responsibility by saying "for it is God
which worketh in you both to will and to do [[His]] good pleasure." The
commentators have engaged in an endless struggle to match verse 12
against verse 13. Verse 12 emphasizes human responsibility while verse
13 emphasizes the 100% agency of God in your human will. Which way is
it Paul? Were you unable to decide? Or did you have another purpose in
speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once? James senses this
problem, and says God’s true wisdom lacks variances.
problem, and says God's true wisdom lacks variances.
Further, Paul traps himself in a self-contradiction when he says the following:
One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, ‘Cretans are always
liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true (Titus 1:12).
One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, 'Cretans are always
liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true (Titus 1:12).
Paul thereby made a self-contradictory statement. For Paul says “one
of themselves” (a Cretan) made a statement that “Cretans are always
liars,” and Paul says this “is true.”
Paul thereby made a self-contradictory statement. For Paul says "one
of themselves" (a Cretan) made a statement that "Cretans are always
liars," and Paul says this "is true."
However, it cannot possibly be simultaneously true that a Cretan made
a true statement and Cretans are “always liars.” Many scholars have
poured over this to find an escape, and salvage Paul’s
a true statement and Cretans are "always liars." Many scholars have
poured over this to find an escape, and salvage Paul's
inspiration. Christian academics have struggled to solve this logical
impossibility. However, no amount of multi-dimensional analysis (which
is the only solution so far that conceivably works) is a serious
answer. Paul is trapped in a logical dilemma because Paul says a
Cretan was telling the truth when he said “Cretans are always liars.”
Cretan was telling the truth when he said "Cretans are always liars."
Paul’s slur on all Cretans is a self-contradiction in terms.
Paul's slur on all Cretans is a self-contradiction in terms.
James, of course, can see all these self-contradictions, just as we
can easily see them. He says the true wisdom from God is not
unintelligible, ambiguous, difficult to discern, or
self-contradictory. Paul’s writings cross all those boundaries.
self-contradictory. Paul's writings cross all those boundaries.

10
JWO_11_12_JamesFaultsOverbearingRebukes_0060.md

@ -3,15 +3,15 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## James Faults Overbearing Rebukes
Again, James in (Jas. 3:17) notes other problems with Paul which are
evident in Paul’s writings.
evident in Paul's writings.
For example, it is hard to ignore Paul’s overbearing non-gentle
For example, it is hard to ignore Paul's overbearing non-gentle
style. Paul is not gentle with the Galatians who want to keep the
Sabbath and festivals and circumcision. Paul responds to the issue by
calling the Galatians “foolish” (/.<?., stupid) (Gal. 3:1). To
calling the Galatians "foolish" (/.<?., stupid) (Gal. 3:1). To
intimidate opponents further, Paul calls down curses ( anathema ,
“cursed”) on those who contradict him among the Galatians. (Gal. 1:8).
"cursed") on those who contradict him among the Galatians. (Gal. 1:8).
How does James respond? He says one having the wisdom of God would be
writing “full of mercy,” not “cursing.” ((Jas. 3:10).)
writing "full of mercy," not "cursing." ((Jas. 3:10).)

48
JWO_11_13_AreJamessRemarksonBoastingAimedforPaul__0061.md

@ -14,31 +14,31 @@ A in a trial of Paul. James writes:
((Jas. 2:26-3:14)) 44
James is extolling meekness in contrast to boasting. Jesus likewise
promised salvation to the meek: “the meek...shall inherit the earth.”
(Matt. 5:3,5.) This was the quality that endeared Moses to God: “Now
promised salvation to the meek: "the meek...shall inherit the earth."
(Matt. 5:3,5.) This was the quality that endeared Moses to God: "Now
the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face
of the earth.” ((Num. 12:3).) By contrast, God does not “respect the
proud.” (Ps. 40:4). (Prov. 16:5) says: “Every one that is proud in
heart is an abomination to Jehovah.” James makes both points
simultaneously in his famous line: “God resists the proud, but gives
grace to the meek.” ((Jas. 4:6).)
of the earth." ((Num. 12:3).) By contrast, God does not "respect the
proud." (Ps. 40:4). (Prov. 16:5) says: "Every one that is proud in
heart is an abomination to Jehovah." James makes both points
simultaneously in his famous line: "God resists the proud, but gives
grace to the meek." ((Jas. 4:6).)
44.Paulunists try to save Paul from what James condemns by lifting
outof-context (Jas. 3:16). There James continues and says, “But now
outof-context (Jas. 3:16). There James continues and says, "But now
you are boasting in connection with your arrogance. ALL boasting of
this kind is evil.’’ Thus, they read James to only condemn boasting in
this kind is evil.'' Thus, they read James to only condemn boasting in
arrogance. They insist Paul does not do this. However, boasting of
your own exploits and background rather than God’s accomplishments is
likely James’ meaning. The latter is appropriate “boasting in the
Lord” ((Jer. 9:23-24).) Thus, you can boast of God’s accomplishments, not your own.
your own exploits and background rather than God's accomplishments is
likely James' meaning. The latter is appropriate "boasting in the
Lord" ((Jer. 9:23-24).) Thus, you can boast of God's accomplishments, not your own.
### Are James’s Remarks on Boasting Aimed for Paul?
### Are James's Remarks on Boasting Aimed for Paul?
Paul in numerous places boasts, but the most blatant is in Second
Corinthians. The KJV translation makes it difficult for you to
recognize this. It changes Paul’s admission that he is boasting into
an admission he is glorying. Yet, Paul’s Greek word is boast or
boasting. Paul’s admission of this behavior uses the same Greek word
recognize this. It changes Paul's admission that he is boasting into
an admission he is glorying. Yet, Paul's Greek word is boast or
boasting. Paul's admission of this behavior uses the same Greek word
as used by James when he condemns such behavior in (Jas. 4:6). What
the KJV incorrectly translates as glorying when Paul speaks, the KJV
then correctly translates as boasting when James condemns the
@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ very same context:
nothing.... ((2Cor. 11:16-12:19) (ASV).)
Throughout this litany of boasts, Paul confesses he is boasting. Paul
appears to be admitting it is foolish to do this (“I speak as a
fool”), but he does it anyway. James calls such behavior and lack of
appears to be admitting it is foolish to do this ("I speak as a
fool"), but he does it anyway. James calls such behavior and lack of
self-control a serious error:
But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
@ -74,13 +74,13 @@ self-control a serious error:
### Was James Writing His Epistle For A Trial of Paul?
If any man among you seems to be religious, and does not bridle
his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
(Jas. 1:26)
James tells you point blank, by inference, Paul’s religion is “empty”
and his boasts are “evil.” Such a person “lies” against the
James tells you point blank, by inference, Paul's religion is "empty"
and his boasts are "evil." Such a person "lies" against the
truth. ((Jas. 1:26); 3:14.) If Paul knows this is foolish but cannot
‘bridle his tongue,’ then “this man’s religion is vain.”
'bridle his tongue,' then "this man's religion is vain."
((Jas. 1:26).) This is just the kind of information the Ephesians
needed to have to try the one who “says [he is] an apostle and is not
but [is a] liar.” (Rev. 2:2.)
needed to have to try the one who "says [he is] an apostle and is not
but [is a] liar." (Rev. 2:2.)

16
JWO_11_14_Conclusion_0062.md

@ -2,24 +2,24 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
= Conclusion
James is the head of the church in Paul’s day. His epistle is intended
James is the head of the church in Paul's day. His epistle is intended
to set up rules for attendance at a judicial assembly in a
Christian-controlled synagogue. The assembly at Ephesus that pressured
Paul to leave in Acts chapter 19 was in fact a synagogue.
Then the theological issues addressed in James’ epistle all skewer
Paul. It would perfectly serve as a trial brief to examine Paul’s
Then the theological issues addressed in James' epistle all skewer
Paul. It would perfectly serve as a trial brief to examine Paul's
teachings for heresy if the synagogue at Ephesus requested it.
This is self-evident because James’ Epistle uses all Paul’s
This is self-evident because James' Epistle uses all Paul's
terminology, in particular the Biblical example of Abraham. James
reinterprets (Gen. 15:6) as having a diametrically opposite meaning
from Paul’s interpretation. On this and many other points, James’
views are at direct odds with Paul’s doctrines. It thus appears likely
that James’ epistle was intended for the confrontation between Paul
from Paul's interpretation. On this and many other points, James'
views are at direct odds with Paul's doctrines. It thus appears likely
that James' epistle was intended for the confrontation between Paul
and his detractors at the Ephesus synagogue where he had led many to
Christ previously, as reflected in Acts chapter 19. With the help of
James’ letter, this Christian synagogue apparently found Paul not to
James' letter, this Christian synagogue apparently found Paul not to
be a true apostle of Jesus Christ. They received the highest
commendation possible for doing so. A commendation from the glorious
One Himself in (Rev. 2:2).

134
JWO_12_01_TheEbioniteRecordsontheTrialofPaul_0063.md

@ -9,27 +9,27 @@ historical records of a trial of Paul? Yes, indeed there are.
According to Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) and Epiphanius (3157-403 A.D.),
there was an early Christian group known as the Ebionites. They made
findings judicial in character about Paul’s background. These findings
claimed both of Paul’s parents were Gentile. Further, they found Paul
findings judicial in character about Paul's background. These findings
claimed both of Paul's parents were Gentile. Further, they found Paul
was not circumcised until he was an adult. 1 Obviously, the
implication of these findings was that Paul lied when he made claims
to the contrary. (See (Phil. 3:5).)
When Eusebius mentioned the Ebionites’ findings, he launched attacks
When Eusebius mentioned the Ebionites' findings, he launched attacks
on the Ebionites, challenging their orthodoxy. Eusebius charged the
Ebionites were heretics. They supposedly did not believe in the virgin
birth." They also taught the Law had not been done away with. While it
is likely true that the Ebionites believed Paul erred by abolishing
the Law, the question of what they taught on the virgin birth account
in Luke’s Gospel may have been exaggerated or inaccurately
in Luke's Gospel may have been exaggerated or inaccurately
portrayed. There are no clearly recognized writings of the Ebionites
on these issues which actually have survived. Therefore, we cannot
validate Eusebius’ accusation. Nor did Eusebius quote any records of
validate Eusebius' accusation. Nor did Eusebius quote any records of
the Ebionites that could substantiate the charges. Thus, these
accusations merely serve as ad hominem which do not resolve the claims
of Paul’s truthfulness about his heritage, as we shall see.
of Paul's truthfulness about his heritage, as we shall see.
1. For the quote, see “The Ebionite Charge Against Paul” on page 306.
1. For the quote, see "The Ebionite Charge Against Paul" on page 306.
[[JWO_12_04_TheEbioniteChargeAgainstPaul_0066]]
@ -37,11 +37,11 @@ Regardless, we are obliged to re-weigh the facts. First, Eusebius in
particular appeared willing to exaggerate his attacks on the
Ebionites. The reason was precisely because the Ebionites wanted Paul
excluded from canon. Eusebius did not want Paul discredited. What was
Eusebius’ motivation in preventing Paul from being discredited? Was it
Eusebius' motivation in preventing Paul from being discredited? Was it
to protect a true prophet or for political reasons? Eusebius was
associated closely with Emperor Constantine. Eusebius was a promoter
of the new-found powers of the bishop of Rome granted by Constantine’s
decrees. How would this potentially impact Eusebius’ treatment of the
of the new-found powers of the bishop of Rome granted by Constantine's
decrees. How would this potentially impact Eusebius' treatment of the
Ebionites who attacked Paul?
2. There is never any legitimate quote offered to prove the Ebionites
@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ unorthodox view. Thus, was the omission of the virgin birth narrative
proof of heresy? No, because the same virgin-birth narrative is
missing from Mark and John. Eusebius also tried to smear the Ebionites
by claiming Symmachus, a Jewish scholar, was one of them. Symmachus
disputed apparently the accuracy of the Greek Matthew’s translation in
disputed apparently the accuracy of the Greek Matthew's translation in
Matthew chapter 1 of (Isa. 7:14) on the word virgin. Symmachus was
correct. Therefore the fact this passage in Greek with its erroneous
translation of Isaiah 7:14 is missing in the Hebrew Matthew actually
@ -70,14 +70,14 @@ evidence, pro or con, to support the Ebionites denied a virgin
birth. Even if they did, because John, Mark and probably the original
Matthew omit this story, how can it be a core doctrine of the church?
How could denying the virgin birth make one a heretic? Jesus could
still be from “everlasting” ((Mic. 5:2)) if God occupied Jesus
still be from "everlasting" ((Mic. 5:2)) if God occupied Jesus
conceived by Mary and Joseph. In fact, one could make the case that
the virgin birth account in Luke contradicts the prophecy that Jesus
had to be of the lineage of David. ((Jer. 23:6).) If there was a
virgin birth, then Jesus would be, as the Epistle of Hebrews says, of
the Order of Melchisedek, with no human father. How could an adoption
by Joseph truly satisfy the prophecy of Jeremiah 23:6? This perhaps
was the problem raised by the Ebionites with Luke’s virgin birth
was the problem raised by the Ebionites with Luke's virgin birth
account. We may never know for certain. Yet, if the Ebionites disputed
the virgin birth, it could not possibly make them real heretics.
@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ The answer is obvious. After Peter founded the church of Rome and
left, Paul arrived and appointed the first bishop of the church of
Rome (Linus), according to Constitution of the Apostles (ca. 180-200
A.D.) at 7:46. That means Paul appointed the very first pope of
Rome—although the name pope for the bishop of Rome was not yet in
Rome-although the name pope for the bishop of Rome was not yet in
use. (Peter never apparently used the label bishop to identify his
status at Rome.) Thus, the validity of the lineage of the Roman church
depended crucially upon Paul. If Paul were discredited, it would
@ -94,31 +94,31 @@ discredit the Roman Catholic church virtually from inception.
### Why No Other Ebionite Writings Survived
We do not know the Ebionites’ true views because we cannot find the
We do not know the Ebionites' true views because we cannot find the
Ebionite works preserved in any library anywhere. Imperial Rome
beginning with Theodosius’ reign (379-395) outlawed any religion but
that of the “bishops of Rome” (Codex Theod. XVI, I, 2). This was
beginning with Theodosius' reign (379-395) outlawed any religion but
that of the "bishops of Rome" (Codex Theod. XVI, I, 2). This was
enforced by the destruction of both public and private libraries in
Roman territories. If any heretical material was found, the owner
suffered the death penalty. This suppression of historical works was
interpreted broadly. For example, in 371, Emperor Valens ordered
troops to remove from private homes at Antioch (Syria) works on
liberal arts and the law, not just heretical works. “Discouraged and
liberal arts and the law, not just heretical works. "Discouraged and
terrorized people all over the eastern provinces of the Empire,
wishing to avoid any possible suspicion, began to bum their own
libraries.” This grew worse under Theodosius. Then in 435 and 438, the
libraries." This grew worse under Theodosius. Then in 435 and 438, the
emperors of Rome again commanded the public burning of unorthodox
books throughout the empire.
So effective were these decrees, that there is not one single record
written by an Ebionite that we can find preserved anywhere in any
library. We know them only through the interpretation of their
enemies. Our only records on the Ebionites’ views are what Roman
enemies. Our only records on the Ebionites' views are what Roman
government authorities allowed to escape from the fire because the
Ebionite’s writings were quoted in the approved writings of Eusebius
Ebionite's writings were quoted in the approved writings of Eusebius
and Epiphanius.
Thus, it is not fair to judge the Ebionites solely from their enemies’
Thus, it is not fair to judge the Ebionites solely from their enemies'
writings. What Eusebius says needs to be taken with a grain of salt,
particularly when bias can so easily enter and distort the analysis.
@ -128,29 +128,29 @@ Or is that all that we now have from the Ebionites? Did the world
recently discover a treasure trove of their writings from which we can
objectively measure their orthodoxy? A good argument has been recently
made by Professor Eisenman in James: The Brother of Jesus that we have
recovered some of the Ebionites’ writings among the Dead Sea
recovered some of the Ebionites' writings among the Dead Sea
Scrolls. How so?
3. Clarence A. Forbes, “Books for the Burning,” Transactions of the American Philological Society 67 (1936) 114-25, at 125.
3. Clarence A. Forbes, "Books for the Burning," Transactions of the American Philological Society 67 (1936) 114-25, at 125.
Many of the sectarian works at the Dead Sea are written by a group who
in Hebrew call themselves the Ebyonim or Ebion—The Poor. They even
describe themselves as the “Congregation of the Poor.” 4 The Poor of
the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) claimed to be followers of “The Way,” part
of “The New Covenant” who found the “Messiah” who is called the
“Prince of the Congregation” and “Teacher of Righteousness.” He is
in Hebrew call themselves the Ebyonim or Ebion-The Poor. They even
describe themselves as the "Congregation of the Poor." 4 The Poor of
the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) claimed to be followers of "The Way," part
of "The New Covenant" who found the "Messiah" who is called the
"Prince of the Congregation" and "Teacher of Righteousness." He is
gone, killed at the urging of the priests at Jerusalem. After the
departure of the Messiah (who will return), the temporal leader who
led the Poor was called the Just One, i. e ., Zaddik in Hebrew.
Furthermore, their leader—the Zaddik—is in a struggle against the
“Spouter of Lies” who seeks to seduce the New Covenant community from
Furthermore, their leader-the Zaddik-is in a struggle against the
"Spouter of Lies" who seeks to seduce the New Covenant community from
following the Law of Moses. The Poor (Ebion) reject the idea
(Hab. 2:4) means justification is by faith and insist its meaning is
“justification by faithfulness.” The DSS Ebion have two works called
“Justification by Works” which reaffirm their rejection of the
position of the “Spouter of Lies.”
"justification by faithfulness." The DSS Ebion have two works called
"Justification by Works" which reaffirm their rejection of the
position of the "Spouter of Lies."
When we compare the Ebion of the Dead Sea Scrolls to what Eusebius
describes as the Ebionites, the similarities are striking. The
@ -163,13 +163,13 @@ The Poor found at Qumram pre-date or post-date Christ.
4. The Dead Sea Scrolls identify the community as The Poor of Psalm 37
where "the congregation of the Poor ...shall possess the whole world
as an inheritance.” (Psalm 37 in Dead Sea Scrolls Pesher 3:10.) Their
as an inheritance." (Psalm 37 in Dead Sea Scrolls Pesher 3:10.) Their
self-identification is evident repeatedly in the Habakkuk Pesher. The
Wicked Priest who killed the Zaddik will be “paid back in full for his
wickedness against the ‘Poor’ (Hebrew, ebyonim).” (Norman Golb, Who
Wicked Priest who killed the Zaddik will be "paid back in full for his
wickedness against the 'Poor' (Hebrew, ebyonim)." (Norman Golb, Who
Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?) 1995) at 85.) The verbatim original was:
“The Lord will render destructive judgment [on that Wicked Priest]
just as he plotted to destroy the Poor.” (lQpHab 12.2.)
"The Lord will render destructive judgment [on that Wicked Priest]
just as he plotted to destroy the Poor." (lQpHab 12.2.)
Unfortunately, this cannot be done by carbon dating the papers found
at the Dead Sea. Such dates only tell us the date of the age of the
@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ paper. Carbon dating can not tell us the date of the writing on the
paper. Yet, we have other reliable means to identify the date of the
activity of the people whose writings were preserved at
Qumram. Fifty-seven to sixty-nine percent of all the coins in the Dead
Sea caves are from the period 44-69 A.D.—part of the Christian
Sea caves are from the period 44-69 A.D.-part of the Christian
era. Thus, the only way to know whether Christians or non-Christians
wrote these writings is to study the words on the pages of the DSS.
@ -188,8 +188,8 @@ Zaddik. Numerous ancient sources outside the DSS identify James the
Just (the brother of Jesus) as The Zaddik. Translated, this means Just
One. Jerome by the 400s will call him James the Just. In Christian
writings of that era, the name of James was rarely used. He was merely
called the Zaddik or Just One 6 As we saw previously, James — the
Zaddik — was the first bishop of Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection.
called the Zaddik or Just One 6 As we saw previously, James - the
Zaddik - was the first bishop of Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection.
So is it then mere coincidence that the head of the Ebion of the Dead
Sea Scrolls is called the Zaddik? Of course not. Professor Eisemnan
@ -198,37 +198,37 @@ appears to have stumbled upon a major discovery.
5. For example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) there is the uncanny
debate over justification by works vs. faith, centering upon a
discordant view of (Hab. 2:4). The DSS writings advocate justification
by works. Their “enemy” is one who espouses that the Law is no longer
to be followed. “A similar vocabulary of justification was used by the
[DSS]...[Paul’s] invective in 2Cor. 6:14 has close affinities with
the [[DSS]] polemic.” (Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1990) at 174.) Segal goes on to explain: “Paul reads
by works. Their "enemy" is one who espouses that the Law is no longer
to be followed. "A similar vocabulary of justification was used by the
[DSS]...[Paul's] invective in 2Cor. 6:14 has close affinities with
the [[DSS]] polemic." (Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1990) at 174.) Segal goes on to explain: "Paul reads
Habbakuk as contradicting the notion that Torah justifies. In the
[DSS] the same verse was used to prove that those who observe the
Torah...will be saved.” Id., at 180. The DSS thus mirror uncannily the
Torah...will be saved." Id., at 180. The DSS thus mirror uncannily the
Paul v. James debate.
6. “Jame’s title was ‘the Just’ or ‘the Just One, which Epiphanius
6. "Jame's title was 'the Just' or 'the Just One, which Epiphanius
tells us was so identified with this person as to replace his very
name itself.” (Eisenman, James: The Brother of Jesus, supra, at 375.)
name itself." (Eisenman, James: The Brother of Jesus, supra, at 375.)
7. See “James Is the Head Bishop of the Church” on page 242.
7. See "James Is the Head Bishop of the Church" on page 242.
If Professor Eisenman is correct, this means the Ebionites in
Eusebius’ writings are the Jerusalem Church under James. What
Eusebius' writings are the Jerusalem Church under James. What
Professor Eisenman then notes to corroborate this idea is that Paul
refers twice to sending money to the poor at Jerusalem. Eisenman says
this just as easily could be The Poor. (Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:9-10.) If
we translate back Paul’s words into Hebrew, he was saying The Ebion of
we translate back Paul's words into Hebrew, he was saying The Ebion of
Jerusalem was the name of the church under James. They were the
Congregation of the Poor , just like we might call a church The
Lighthouse Church. We do not see Paul’s intent due to case size in the
Lighthouse Church. We do not see Paul's intent due to case size in the
standard text which changes The Poor into the poor.
What heightens the probability Professor Eisenman is correct is recent
archaeology. The initial hypothesis was that the DSS were exclusively
the writings of an Essene sect from the 200 B.C. era. This idea
recently crumbled in 2004. Golb’s contrary hypothesis that the DSS
recently crumbled in 2004. Golb's contrary hypothesis that the DSS
came from the Temple at Jerusalem between 65-70 A.D. has now been
strongly confirmed by extensive archaeological digs under auspices of
Israeli universities. These digs proved there was no community site of
@ -253,13 +253,13 @@ what one would expect to find from the Temple Library at Jerusalem had
it been secreted away in advance of the Roman troops sieging Jerusalem
prior to 70 A.D. The Essenes would not be expected, by contrast, to
preserve several opposing strains of sectarian writings. One such
strain is the writings of The Poor—The Ebion. On the other hand, we
strain is the writings of The Poor-The Ebion. On the other hand, we
would expect to find Jewish Rabbis at Jerusalem wanting to keep copies
of Christian writings for infonnational purposes at the Library of the
Temple of Jerusalem. We would expect to find records of sectarian
differences maintained by such a library.
Golb’s argument has now essentially been vindicated. Golb made a
Golb's argument has now essentially been vindicated. Golb made a
scholarly case that the DSS are writings that were taken from the
Temple at Jerusalem during the years of the Roman siege that finally
prevailed in 70 A.D. Hiding them in these caves preserved them from
@ -271,26 +271,26 @@ of the documents can be potentially prepared in the Christian-era. We
no longer are forced to disregard the Christian character of certain
writings merely because of the Essene hypothesis which strangled DSS
studies until now. Among the newer writings in the DSS, we find some
in Hebrew written by a group calling itself The Poor — The Ebion. This
in Hebrew written by a group calling itself The Poor - The Ebion. This
transliterates very well as The Ebionites . 10
9. Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y.: Scribner, 1995)
at 11, 12, 30, 36. See also the archaeological report of 2004 by Magen
and Peleg that destroyed many myths about Qumram, proving it was not
an Essene settlement. See, AP 8/18/04; S.F. Chronicle (9/6/04); Ha
’aretz (Israel), July 30, 2004. Finally, this story is now being
carried in mainstream publications. See Carmichael, “Archaeology:
Question in Qumram,” Newsweek (Sept. 6, 2005), available at
'aretz (Israel), July 30, 2004. Finally, this story is now being
carried in mainstream publications. See Carmichael, "Archaeology:
Question in Qumram," Newsweek (Sept. 6, 2005), available at
http://
msnbc.msn.com/id/5842298/site/newsweek. Newsweek mentions that “Magen
and Peleg set off what can only be called an academic revolution”
which now corroborates “Norman Golb” who first argued what Magen and
Peleg now confirm. See also, “The Dead Sea Scrolls,”
msnbc.msn.com/id/5842298/site/newsweek. Newsweek mentions that "Magen
and Peleg set off what can only be called an academic revolution"
which now corroborates "Norman Golb" who first argued what Magen and
Peleg now confirm. See also, "The Dead Sea Scrolls,"
http://
virtualreligion.net/iho/dss.html (“After 10 years of excavation Magen
virtualreligion.net/iho/dss.html ("After 10 years of excavation Magen
and Peleg conclude that the settlement at Qumran could not have been a
monastery, but rather was a pottery factory which was vacated by its
few inhabitants during the Jewish-Roman war.”)
few inhabitants during the Jewish-Roman war.")
==== JWO Videos

72
JWO_12_02_DoTheDeadSeaScrollsDepictATrialofPaid__0064.md

@ -4,44 +4,44 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
What is highly intriguing is a further theory of Professor Eisenman
about Paul. He claims the Poor's writings in the DSS speak of a trial
of Paul. He says James is depicted as Paul’s key antagonist in a
heated confrontation where Paul spoke vigorously against James. Paul’s
of Paul. He says James is depicted as Paul's key antagonist in a
heated confrontation where Paul spoke vigorously against James. Paul's
effort was viewed as an attempt to split the group. Eisenman bases
this on two DSS writings. The first is the Habakkuk Pesher, a
commentary on (Hab. 2:4)—a favorite verse of Paul. The DSS author
commentary on (Hab. 2:4)-a favorite verse of Paul. The DSS author
interprets the verse, however, to require faithfulness for
salvation. The Pesher then rejects the idea that justification is
without adding works to faith.
Professor Eisenman sensibly asks us how can we credibly believe this
Pesher on (Hab. 2:4) is directed at anyone else than Paul. As we shall
see next, the DSS Poor are up in arms about “the spouter of Lies” who
see next, the DSS Poor are up in arms about "the spouter of Lies" who
opposes the Zaddik. Are we to believe it is merely coincidence again
the Ebion of the DSS just so happen to want to show Habakkuk 2:4—one
of Paul’s favorite proof texts—does not stand for an idea that Paul
the Ebion of the DSS just so happen to want to show Habakkuk 2:4-one
of Paul's favorite proof texts-does not stand for an idea that Paul
alone is known to have espoused? Eisenman concludes we are clearly
witnessing deconstruction of Paul’s doctrines in the DSS Ebionite materials.
witnessing deconstruction of Paul's doctrines in the DSS Ebionite materials.
It is the next document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which is the
key document to identify Paul as the object of a trial by the Poor
(Ebyonim ) of the DSS. This faithworks discussion of the Pkabakkuk
Pesher continues in a work by The Poor entitled the Damascus
Document. It says the contrary view on “works” justification is held
by the “Spouter of Lies” who resists the “Zaddik.” The “Spouter of
Lies” seeks to have the “Congregation of the New Covenant” depart from
Document. It says the contrary view on "works" justification is held
by the "Spouter of Lies" who resists the "Zaddik." The "Spouter of
Lies" seeks to have the "Congregation of the New Covenant" depart from
the Law. A heated public confrontation occurs between the Zaddik and
the Spouter of Lies. You can find this Damascus Documen t in any of
the many compendiums of the DSS to verily this yourself.
10.Scholars other than Eisenman are beginning to realize the Dead Sea
Scrolls which were written by the Ebion are potentially related to the
group known as the Ebionites in Eusebius’ writings. See, e.g.,the
group known as the Ebionites in Eusebius' writings. See, e.g.,the
University of Pennsylvania DSS conference of October 19, 2004 which
mentions the Pesharim document from Cave 1, stating: “Column 12 raises
mentions the Pesharim document from Cave 1, stating: "Column 12 raises
the question as to whether the DSS community referred to itself as
‘the Poor.’ This could be important for early Christian studies,
since...the Ebionites (Hebrew for ‘poor’) was a name used by Jewish
Christians later on.”
'the Poor.' This could be important for early Christian studies,
since...the Ebionites (Hebrew for 'poor') was a name used by Jewish
Christians later on."
http://ccat. sas. upenn. edu/rs/rak/courses/427/minutes04.htm (last
visited 2005).
@ -59,26 +59,26 @@ contents led pre-eminent historians to regard it as a Christian
writing. George Margoliouth of the British Museum said in 1910 and
1911 that the Damascus Document was written around the time of the
destruction of the Second Temple ( i.e ., 70 A.D.), and was the work
of the “Sadducean Christians of Damascus.”
of the "Sadducean Christians of Damascus."
11. The traditional Essene theory is that every’ writing, even copies
11. The traditional Essene theory is that every' writing, even copies
of the Bible, were all made by an Essene community living at
Qumram. The new approach, based on archaeology and textual evidence,
does not deny that some writings were Essene possibly, even if such a
claim is purely speculative. (The word Essene never once appears in
the DSS.) The real mystery is how all these writings, reflecting
divergent views, all appear at Qumram. Go lb’s theory is the one that
divergent views, all appear at Qumram. Go lb's theory is the one that
best fits all the facts. It is the only explanation for divergent
views in the DSS. The Essene all-encompassing theory needs serious
re-evaluation.
12. G. Margoliouth, “The Sadducean Christians of Damascus,” The
12. G. Margoliouth, "The Sadducean Christians of Damascus," The
Athenaeum (No. 4335) (Nov. 26, 1910) at 657-59; The Expositor Vol. 2
(1911) at 499-517.
### Do The Dead Sea Scrolls Depict A Trial of Paul?
Margoliouth’s opinion was given long before the DSS discovery at
Margoliouth's opinion was given long before the DSS discovery at
Qumran in the 1950s. It antedated by forty years the premature
fixation on Essenes of 200 B.C. as the authors of the Damascus
Document. This fact proves an objective assessment of the Damascus
@ -102,35 +102,35 @@ the Christian community from following the Law.
13.The verses which are apparently veiled criticisms of Paul in the NT
always accuse him of lying. (Rev. 2:2) says the ones who tell the
Ephesians they are apostles but are not are When Paul contradicts
Jesus on the idol meat command, 1 John 2:4 tells us: “He that saith, 1
Jesus on the idol meat command, 1 John 2:4 tells us: "He that saith, 1
know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth
is not in him.” When Paul says he is a Jew, and the Ebionites say they
found out Paul lied, Jesus says: “them that say they are Jews, and
they are not, but do lie.” (Rev. 3:9). Paul was apparently aware of
the accusation of being a liar. He defensively insists often “I lie
not.” (Rom. 9:1; 2Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20). That this accusation was
is not in him." When Paul says he is a Jew, and the Ebionites say they
found out Paul lied, Jesus says: "them that say they are Jews, and
they are not, but do lie." (Rev. 3:9). Paul was apparently aware of
the accusation of being a liar. He defensively insists often "I lie
not." (Rom. 9:1; 2Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20). That this accusation was
over his apostleship is evident in this quote from (1Tim. 2:7):
“I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not).”
"I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not)."
Professor Eisenman thus has the better case on the Christian-era
aspect of the Damascus Document. Then, if he is correct on its
meaning, the DSS depiction of the Poor — The Ebion —perfectly and
meaning, the DSS depiction of the Poor - The Ebion -perfectly and
uniquely match the Ebionites of whom Eusebius spoke.
It then follows the Ebionites must be orthodox. They are to be equated
with the Jerusalem church of The Poor under James. Eusebius must have
engaged in distortion of their beliefs to serve his agenda of the
300s. Eusebius’s purpose is self-evident. He wanted to discredit the
300s. Eusebius's purpose is self-evident. He wanted to discredit the
Ebionites because of the centrality of Paul to the validity of the
Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Many forget that after Peter’s presumed
Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Many forget that after Peter's presumed
founding of the church at Rome, it was Paul who had appointed the
first bishop of Rome—Linus—of the RCC. 14 Today we call this bishop of
first bishop of Rome-Linus-of the RCC. 14 Today we call this bishop of
Rome the pope. However, the Ebionites claimed Paul was to be ejected
from canon as inconsistent with Jesus’ position on the Law. If the
from canon as inconsistent with Jesus' position on the Law. If the
Ebionites were right, this means the RCC was corrupted by Paul shortly
after Peter founded the Roman church. Eusebius had no choice but to
attack the Ebionites regardless of their high standing in the Church’s
attack the Ebionites regardless of their high standing in the Church's
recent memory. In fact, that high standing explains why Eusebius
attacked them so vigorously.
@ -155,10 +155,10 @@ teach him directly the pure gospel of Christ , because the gospel of
the Jerusalem church was now a perverted gospel , Gal 1:11-24. 15
All Eusebius was doing is precisely what The New Birth was
doing. Eusebius was putting Paul’s view of the Law as the measure to
test the orthodoxy of James and the Jerusalem church. Under Paul’s
doing. Eusebius was putting Paul's view of the Law as the measure to
test the orthodoxy of James and the Jerusalem church. Under Paul's
criteria, the Jerusalem church (The Ebion ) became the
heretics. Paul’s words proved to Eusebius and the New Birth that the
heretics. Paul's words proved to Eusebius and the New Birth that the
apostolic church was heretical. It is thus entirely reasonable and
permissible to infer Eusebius knew he was talking about the Jerusalem
church of the twelve apostles when he labelled the Ebionites as

10
JWO_12_03_TheReliabilityofTheEbionitesDespitetheOne-SidedChargesAgainstThem_0065.md

@ -5,24 +5,24 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Nevertheless, even if the Ebionites did not believe in the virgin
birth as charged (see footnote 2 of this chapter for why this charge
appears unfounded or does not involve true heresy), they still
believed in Jesus’ divinity and His resurrection. They were Jewish
believed in Jesus' divinity and His resurrection. They were Jewish
Christians. They simply did not regard the Law as abrogated. They
still rested on the Saturday-Sabbath. For this too they were condemned
by Eusebius and Jerome later. Yet, resting on Saturday-Sabbath was
apostolic practice, as demonstrated by the Constitutions of the
Apostles dating at least to the early 200s. It was only in 363
A.D. that Constantine’s bishops in the Roman Empire made it heresy and
A.D. that Constantine's bishops in the Roman Empire made it heresy and
anathema to rest on the Saturday-Sabbath. The churches that fonn the
modern Eastern Orthodox church escaped this Roman decree. They were
largely in territories that were not under the Roman Emperor’s
largely in territories that were not under the Roman Emperor's
authority. As a result, the 250 million members of the Orthodox Church
today and their members of twenty centuries past keep the
Saturday-Sabbath while worshipping on Sunday.
15.“Firstborn Sonship of Christ,” The New’ Birth (February 2000) Vol. 25 No. 2.
15."Firstborn Sonship of Christ," The New' Birth (February 2000) Vol. 25 No. 2.
Thus, Eusebius (who was quoting Epiphanius) presented an illogical and
weak case why we should ignore the Ebionites’ investigation. Eusebius
weak case why we should ignore the Ebionites' investigation. Eusebius
clearly engaged in the fallacy of ad hominem. The correct response was
always to examine the plausibility of the Ebionite charges against
Paul from independent evidence. It may very well be that the Ebionites

54
JWO_12_05_HowPlausibleIsTheEbioniteChargeAgainstPaul__0067.md

@ -6,14 +6,14 @@ There is independent evidence to corroborate the Ebionite charge that
Paul was not a Jew in the strict Jewish sense. It appears he was an
Herodian Jew which to true Jews is not a true Jew at all :
* Herod and his family tried to tell Jews he was Jewish, but true Jews did not accept Herod’s claims. The Herodian lineage had foreign elements in it.
* Herod and his family tried to tell Jews he was Jewish, but true Jews did not accept Herod's claims. The Herodian lineage had foreign elements in it.
* Herod the Great was a Roman collaborator ruling Judea as King prior to Jesus. He was put into power by the Romans lending him troops to subjugate Judea.
* One of his sons, Herod Antipas, succeeds him in the time of Christ to rule part of his kingdom.
* Saul/Paul in (Rom. 16:11) greets “Herodion, my kinsman” [i.e., ‘my
relative’] which is a name that a member of the Herodian family would use. 16
* Saul/Paul in (Rom. 16:11) greets "Herodion, my kinsman" [i.e., 'my
relative'] which is a name that a member of the Herodian family would use. 16
* Josephus, who as far as we know was not a Christian, mentions a
Saulus in his work The Antiquities of the Jews.
@ -22,29 +22,29 @@ In book XX, chapter 9, Josephus says Saulus is a member of the family
of the successor, Herod (Antipas). Josephus says this Saulus sided
with the High Priest in resisting a tumult by lower order priests over
temple funds going to the High Priest. Josephus
records this Saulus’ activity was after Jesus’ movement had
records this Saulus' activity was after Jesus' movement had
“Costobarus...and Saulus did themselves get together a multitude
"Costobarus...and Saulus did themselves get together a multitude
of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the Royal
Family, and so they obtained favor among them because of their
kindred to Agrippa .” Josephus Antiq. XX, ch, 9. sec. 4
kindred to Agrippa ." Josephus Antiq. XX, ch, 9. sec. 4
![Picture #64](images/img_0064.png)
already begun but before we know independently that Paul joined it. (. Antiquities , XX 9.4.). This therefore puts the Saulus of Josephus in precisely the chronological position of Saul (Paul) prior to his road to Damascus experience. Further, the Saulus of Josephus and the Saul of Acts both are collaborators of the High Priest (an appointee of Herod). So when Josephus says Saulus was of the family of Herod, this is direct evidence that Saul-Paul was of the family of Herod.
* The most important fact is that Paul says he has Roman citizenship
from birth. (Acts 22:28 “I have been born a Roman citizen.”) You
from birth. (Acts 22:28 "I have been born a Roman citizen.") You
would carry around proof on a small Libellus.
Paul’s claim was accepted in Acts.
Paul's claim was accepted in Acts.
It has several implications.
* First, Roman citizenship was an honor from Rome which in the Judean
region primarily only could be enjoyed by members of Herod’s family
region primarily only could be enjoyed by members of Herod's family
or his closest allies. The list of Roman citizens was kept in
Caesar’s office in Rome. It was not a very long list. Most
Caesar's office in Rome. It was not a very long list. Most
native-born Italians did not enjoy this privilege.
In outlying provinces like Judea, it was dispensed to military
@ -54,12 +54,12 @@ It has several implications.
* Second, Roman citizenship from birth means Saul had to be given a
Roman name from birth. It turns out that Paul is a 1 8 Roman name.
“I am giving [those] of the synagogue of Satan, the ones who say
"I am giving [those] of the synagogue of Satan, the ones who say
they are Jews and are not but are lying. Listen! I will make them so
that they shall come and prostrate themselves in reverence before
your feet, and they shall know that I loved you.” Jesus, (aRev. 3:9)
your feet, and they shall know that I loved you." Jesus, (aRev. 3:9)
16.See discussion in Prof. Robert Eisenman, “Paul as Herodion,”
16.See discussion in Prof. Robert Eisenman, "Paul as Herodion,"
JHC (Spring 1996) at 110 etseq.,![Picture #65](images/img_0065.png)
* How did Paul happen to have a Roman birth name if he was truly
@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ JHC (Spring 1996) at 110 etseq.,![Picture #65](images/img_0065.png)
* Thus, in the Judea of that era, only Herodians would have a child
with both a Roman and Hebrew name (Paul Saul ) who would have Roman
citizenship from birth (Acts 22:28) and who would greet a “kinsman”
citizenship from birth (Acts 22:28) and who would greet a "kinsman"
(i.e., a relative) named Herodion. ((Rom. 16:11).) It thus is not a
coincidence that Saul in Acts is a collaborator of the High Priest
appointed by Herod. Nor is it insignificant that Saulus in Josephus
@ -82,33 +82,33 @@ JHC (Spring 1996) at 110 etseq.,![Picture #65](images/img_0065.png)
leads us to the unequivocal statement in Josephus that Saulus is a
member of the Royal family of Herod Antipas.
In fact, Paul being an Herodian ‘Jew’ would explain the presence of
Herod’s foster brother as a member of the Christian church at Antioch.
After Paul’s Damascus Road experience, he went to Arabia for
In fact, Paul being an Herodian 'Jew' would explain the presence of
Herod's foster brother as a member of the Christian church at Antioch.
After Paul's Damascus Road experience, he went to Arabia for
fourteen years. (Gal. 1:17
17. “When a foreigner received the right of citizenship, he took a new name.”
The nomen “had to be nomen of the person, always a Roman citizen , to
whom he owed his citizenship.” Harold W. Johnston, The Private Life of
17. "When a foreigner received the right of citizenship, he took a new name."
The nomen "had to be nomen of the person, always a Roman citizen , to
whom he owed his citizenship." Harold W. Johnston, The Private Life of
the Romans (Revised by Mary Johnston) (Scott, Foresman and Company:
1932) ch. 2.
18. Most Christians assume that Jesus changed Saul’s name to Paul in
the same way Jesus changed Simon’s to Peter. However, there is no
mention of this in the three accounts of Paul’s vision in (Acts 9),
18. Most Christians assume that Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul in
the same way Jesus changed Simon's to Peter. However, there is no
mention of this in the three accounts of Paul's vision in (Acts 9),
22, and 26. In the middle of Acts, Luke starts referring to Saul as
Paul, with no explanation. Nor does Paul explain in any of his letters
why he uses the name Paul. It turns out that Paul is a Roman
name. Saul is a Hebrew name. There is an apocryphal account that Paul
took his name from a Roman official Paulus whom he converted. Yet, to
be a citizen from birth, one must have a Roman name from birth. Paulus
—Herod the tetrarch’s foster-brother liar at Ephesus. It also fits the
parallel statement by Jesus about those who “lie” and “say they are
Jews but are not.” (Rev. 3:9.)
-Herod the tetrarch's foster-brother liar at Ephesus. It also fits the
parallel statement by Jesus about those who "lie" and "say they are
Jews but are not." (Rev. 3:9.)
Most important, the Ebionite charge has the characteristic of evidence
one might bring up at a trial. It has a judicial ring to it. There is
nothing polemical about it. No doctrines are involved. The charge
purports to be the result of someone trying to find out more about
Paul’s background. Thus, it appears the Ebionites were involved in
Paul's background. Thus, it appears the Ebionites were involved in
finding evidence to bring up at a trial regarding Paul.

44
JWO_12_06_EvidenceofPeter_sTestimonyAgainstPaulinaTrial_0068.md

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Evidence of Peter’s Testimony Against Paul in a Trial
## Evidence of Peter's Testimony Against Paul in a Trial
Additional evidence of a trial of Paul comes from a sermon collection
called the Clementine Homilies from 200 A.D. Scholars believe it
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ contains a smaller fragment from an earlier Ebionite writing about a
trial involving Paul with Peter as a star witness against Paul. This
fragment is stuck inside a later story written to appear as if the
opponent is someone called Simon Magus. (This was apparently done to
avoid the censor’s hand.) Instead scholars deduce the original
avoid the censor's hand.) Instead scholars deduce the original
fragment was certainly talking about Paul. This can be validated by
comparing what Peter says to how Paul responds in statements we find
in Acts chapters 22 and 26.
@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ of Jesus. These are all good questions even if the fragment were
really directed at a confrontation of Peter with Simon Magus. But was it?
To answer that we need more background. This dialogue appears as
Peter’s testimony in a trial atmosphere. It is found in Clementine
Homilies: Homily 1 7. Scholars say this fragment’s original source
Peter's testimony in a trial atmosphere. It is found in Clementine
Homilies: Homily 1 7. Scholars say this fragment's original source
must have been written by the Ebionites. Later, it was inserted into
the Clementine Homilies as if directed at someone else called Simon
Magus. Scholars concur that its original context was written to tell
@ -33,15 +33,15 @@ what transpired when Peter was testifying against Paul.
How do scholars deduce this? This fragment so clearly applies to Paul
that it is inconceivable Simon Magus could involve all the same
characteristics as Paul. As Alexander Roberts, the editor of The
Anti-Nicene Fathers, explains: “This passage has therefore been
regarded as a covert attack upon the Apostle Paul.” 19 Likewise,
Anti-Nicene Fathers, explains: "This passage has therefore been
regarded as a covert attack upon the Apostle Paul." 19 Likewise,
Robert Griffin-Jones, a pro-Pauline scholar, admits Paul is the true
adversary in this passage: “Paul is demonized...in a fictional dispute
[in the Clementine Homilies] in which Peter trounces him.” Bart Ehnnan
concurs in this Homily that “Simon Magus in fact is a cipher for none
other than Paul himself.”
adversary in this passage: "Paul is demonized...in a fictional dispute
[in the Clementine Homilies] in which Peter trounces him." Bart Ehnnan
concurs in this Homily that "Simon Magus in fact is a cipher for none
other than Paul himself."
19. The wording in Homily 17 where Peter says his opponent claims he “stands condemned” is interpreted as a clear allusion to Paul’s telling Peter he “stands condemned” in Gal. 2:11. Roberts then explains: “This passage has therefore been regarded as a covert attack upon the Apostle Paul.”
19. The wording in Homily 17 where Peter says his opponent claims he "stands condemned" is interpreted as a clear allusion to Paul's telling Peter he "stands condemned" in Gal. 2:11. Roberts then explains: "This passage has therefore been regarded as a covert attack upon the Apostle Paul."
20. Robin Griffith-Jones, The Gospel According to Paul (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2004) at 260.
@ -49,17 +49,17 @@ other than Paul himself.”
You can decide for yourself. Here is the excerpt that has convinced
scholars the target is Paul. This is Peter’s statement at this trial
of one who said “he became His apostle” but Peter refutes:
scholars the target is Paul. This is Peter's statement at this trial
of one who said "he became His apostle" but Peter refutes:
If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself
known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with
an adversary, and this is the reason why it was through visions
and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He
spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction
through apparitions ? And if you will say, ‘It is possible,’ then
I ask, ‘Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to
those who were awake?’ And how are we to believe your word, when
through apparitions ? And if you will say, 'It is possible,' then
I ask, 'Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to
those who were awake?' And how are we to believe your word, when
you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you,
when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching ? But if you
were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single
@ -79,24 +79,24 @@ of one who said “he became His apostle” but Peter refutes:
truth, become a fellow-worker with us. (Ps-Clementine Homilies
17,19.) 22
Let’s test the possibility that Peter did in fact deliver this speech,
Let's test the possibility that Peter did in fact deliver this speech,
and Paul heard it. We will find evidence in the New Testament that
Paul was aware of this charge that Peter made, as recorded in the
Clementine Homilies. Paul’s knowledge of this charge can be proven in
Clementine Homilies. Paul's knowledge of this charge can be proven in
how Paul embarrassingly changed his accounts of his vision with Jesus.
The version in Acts chapter 22 is precisely the vision that Peter is
addressing in Homily 1 7, as it lacks any positive words from Jesus
toward Paul. This must be what pressures Paul later to change the
account into what we see in Acts chapter 26. This account reverses the
Acts chapter 22 account. It puts words in Jesus’ mouth for the first
Acts chapter 22 account. It puts words in Jesus' mouth for the first
time that are positive toward Paul. However, by Paul changing the
accounts, he demonstrates a clear contradiction with the earlier
version in Acts chapter 22. Thus, the Acts chapter 26 account
eliminates the point Peter raises in the Clementine Homily 1
7. However, it does so at a great price—terrible embarrassment when
the later version of Acts chapter 26 is compared to Paul’s earlier
7. However, it does so at a great price-terrible embarrassment when
the later version of Acts chapter 26 is compared to Paul's earlier
vision account in Acts chapter 22. Only something precisely like
Peter’s speech in Homily 17 can explain such a risky reversal of the
Peter's speech in Homily 17 can explain such a risky reversal of the
vision account. We next examine the evidence for this.

140
JWO_12_07_HowActsMirrorstheClementineHomilies_0069.md

@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Point One: Jesus Only Words Are Negative in Acts Chapter 22
22. “The Clementine Apocrypha,” Anti-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander
Roberts, James Donaldson; rev’d A. Cleveland Coxe) Vol. VIII (Peabody,
22. "The Clementine Apocrypha," Anti-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander
Roberts, James Donaldson; rev'd A. Cleveland Coxe) Vol. VIII (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing Inc., 1994) at 269 et seq. This is
available online at
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf0861.htm#P5206_1525700. These
@ -18,33 +18,33 @@ as in this passage. Because they were not apparently written by
Clement, in fact, they are now labelled The Pseudo Clementine
Homilies.
The main argument in Peter’s Clementine speech was that Paul’s vision
The main argument in Peter's Clementine speech was that Paul's vision
of Jesus involved Jesus only talking negatively to Paul. In fact,
Homily 17, chapter 18 is devoted to Peter proving from Scripture that
visions of God are how God reveals himself to enemies, not allies. In
that context, Peter’s point is unmistakable. Paul’s vision only
that context, Peter's point is unmistakable. Paul's vision only
contains negative statements from Jesus, invalidating it as a proof of
Paul’s authority.
Paul's authority.
Then we will see that the account of Paul’s vision given in Acts
Then we will see that the account of Paul's vision given in Acts
chapter 22 is exactly what Peter describes in Clementine Homily
17:19. In the Acts 22:7-16 account, the only positive statements come
later from a person named Ananias. They do not come from Jesus at all,
just as Peter says in this Clementine Homily. Jesus’ only words are
just as Peter says in this Clementine Homily. Jesus' only words are
negative toward Paul, as we discuss in detail below.
### Point Two: Paul Lost A Trial Before Jewish Christians.
Consider next that Paul mentions in 2 Timothy chapter 4 having had to
give a “first” defense of himself from other Christians and no one
give a "first" defense of himself from other Christians and no one
came to his defense. This apparently relates to the fact that in
(2Tim. 1:15) Paul says all the Christians in Asia ( i.e ., modem
Western Turkey, which includes Ephesus) abandoned him. This defense
was thus put on inside a church-setting in Asia Minor. The verdict
ended up that all Christians in proconsular Asia abandoned him,
according to Paul’s own words. (2Tim. 1:15). Paul then mentions he
still regards he somehow escaped the “mouth of the lion...” at this
defense he put on. What did he mean? Paul’s words at 2 Timothy 4:14-17
according to Paul's own words. (2Tim. 1:15). Paul then mentions he
still regards he somehow escaped the "mouth of the lion..." at this
defense he put on. What did he mean? Paul's words at 2 Timothy 4:14-17
are:
(14) Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord will
@ -58,16 +58,16 @@ are:
These statements, all read together, point to Paul admitting he was
tried by fellow-Christians in Asia Minor (where Ephesus was), he lost
and was then forsaken by all those in that region. Yet, then how are
we to understand his words “escaped the lion”? Was it by making up the
we to understand his words "escaped the lion"? Was it by making up the
Acts chapter 26 vision account on the spot?
### Point Three: The Lion represents Jewish Christians
To understand how Paul “escaped” at this trial among Christians,
To understand how Paul "escaped" at this trial among Christians,
although he lost, we must identify the lion in (2Tim. 2:17). Paul most
likely meant his Jewish-Christian opponents.
While there is conjecture in Jerome’s writings that Paul meant Nero
While there is conjecture in Jerome's writings that Paul meant Nero
when he referred to the lion, Jerome was relying upon an apocryphal
account of a Paul-Nero encounter. Nero has no nickname as lion. Jerome
does not explain why Paul would have used the label lion for Nero.
@ -81,30 +81,30 @@ Tim. 1:15.)
Is lion a symbol of Judah? Yes. The lion is historically treated as a
symbol of the tribe of Judah. It comes from the Bible. In (Gen. 49:9),
Judah is specifically called “a lion’s whelp.” In (Num. 24:9), the
people of Israel are likened to a “lion.” This symbol for the Tribe of
Judah is repeated in (Rev. 5:3), 5. Thus Paul’s reference to the lion
Judah is specifically called "a lion's whelp." In (Num. 24:9), the
people of Israel are likened to a "lion." This symbol for the Tribe of
Judah is repeated in (Rev. 5:3), 5. Thus Paul's reference to the lion
in (2Tim. 4:17) is likely a reference to his Jewish-Christian
opponents within the church.
23.Jerome conjectures incorrectly that Paul means that he escaped "the
lion” Nero. Jerome says that in Paul’s first encounter with Nero he
dismissed him as harmless. Jerome says lion “clearly [is] indicating
Nero as lion on account of his cruelty.” (Jerome, Lives of Famous Men,
lion" Nero. Jerome says that in Paul's first encounter with Nero he
dismissed him as harmless. Jerome says lion "clearly [is] indicating
Nero as lion on account of his cruelty." (Jerome, Lives of Famous Men,
eh. V.) However, Jerome is alluding to the Paul-Seneca correspondence
as proof of the Paul-Nero encounter. However, most scholars find good
reason to regard those letters as illegitimate, and this encounter as
a highly improbable myth. Second, Jerome does not say Nero’s nickname
was lion, just that the label might fit him and be Paul’s intention.
a highly improbable myth. Second, Jerome does not say Nero's nickname
was lion, just that the label might fit him and be Paul's intention.
### Point Four: Escaping With Some Legitimacy In Tact is Paul’s Meaning
### Point Four: Escaping With Some Legitimacy In Tact is Paul's Meaning
How can Paul escape yet lose all support? Peter’s attack in the
Ebionite account of a trial versus Paul goes to Paul’s legitimacy. If
in Paul’s vision account, Jesus had no positive words for Paul, and we
must rely upon Ananias (who is no prophet) to confirm Paul’s
legitimacy, then Paul loses all legitimacy. Peter’s argument in the
Clementine Homilies says Paul’s authority stands on nothing positive
How can Paul escape yet lose all support? Peter's attack in the
Ebionite account of a trial versus Paul goes to Paul's legitimacy. If
in Paul's vision account, Jesus had no positive words for Paul, and we
must rely upon Ananias (who is no prophet) to confirm Paul's
legitimacy, then Paul loses all legitimacy. Peter's argument in the
Clementine Homilies says Paul's authority stands on nothing positive
from Jesus. If all we ever had was the Acts chapter 22 vision-account,
Peter says Paul stands on nothing from Jesus to confirm Jesus ever had
a positive feeling toward Paul.
@ -116,20 +116,20 @@ would be a witness (not an apostle), it would be enough for Paul to
survive as a legitimate authority among Christians. This is what the
vision account in Acts chapter 26 gives Paul, if the trial-judges
believed Paul. Thus, at this trial, what Paul apparently means by
saying he “escaped the lion” is that he was not stripped of all
saying he "escaped the lion" is that he was not stripped of all
authority to teach and preach. He only could no longer call himself an
apostle. (Rev. 2:2). He salvaged a win on the only point that mattered
to Paul up to that time. No one could disprove that Paul had seen
Jesus and there were positive words for him. At least, no one could
prove otherwise until Luke published Acts. There we see the vision
account in Acts chapter 22 undercuts whether the Acts chapter 26
vision account ever took place. Let’s next compare these two accounts
vision account ever took place. Let's next compare these two accounts
to understand how Paul changed his accounts to save his legitimacy at
a trial, but lost it for us when we critically compare the two versions.
### Point Five: The Vision Account in Acts 26 Solves The Problem Posed By The Vision Account in Acts 22
First, in Acts 22:10 Paul reports that at the time of the “vision” he
First, in Acts 22:10 Paul reports that at the time of the "vision" he
is criticized by Jesus and merely told to go into Damascus. There is
no word of approval at all from Jesus, just as Peter says in the Peter
speech above in Homily 1 7. See this for yourself by reading next Acts
@ -173,44 +173,44 @@ pure condemnation are these:
all things which are appointed for thee to do. (Acts 22:10).
This Acts chapter 22 vision account gave Peter room to challenge the
validity of Paul’s commission from Jesus.
validity of Paul's commission from Jesus.
No evidence is put forth by Luke that Ananias is a prophet somehow (
i.e ., predictive words to validate him). (Acts 9:12-17; 22:12.) Peter
says in the above passage of the Clementine Homilies to his opponent
(Paul): “If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself
(Paul): "If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself
known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an
adversary ; and this is the reason why it was through visions and
dreams....” Peter must be referring to Paul’s Acts chapter 22 version
dreams...." Peter must be referring to Paul's Acts chapter 22 version
of the vision account. It was a brief vision, nothing more. Jesus was
adversarial in tone.
In Peter’s charge, Peter has not seen or heard the next account of the
In Peter's charge, Peter has not seen or heard the next account of the
vision, which we can read in Acts chapter 26. This not only proves
Paul is the intended target from the Clementine fragment, but it also
gives the Peter speech immense authenticity and reliability. Because
if the Peter speech never really happened, there is little reason why
Paul would go out of his way to contradict and put a whole new spin on
his vision experience when we see Acts chapter 26. The purpose of
Paul’s switch in Acts chapter 26 is clear: it erases the criticism of
Paul's switch in Acts chapter 26 is clear: it erases the criticism of
Peter recorded in the Clementine Homilies. In Acts chapter 26, Jesus
appears now to have approving words during Paul’s vision experience.
appears now to have approving words during Paul's vision experience.
24. if one ignores Peter’s criticism in the Clementine Homily and
24. if one ignores Peter's criticism in the Clementine Homily and
insists this Acts chapter 22 account legitimizes Paul, one must
recognize the only positive remarks come from Ananias. Then this means
Paul’s legitimacy depends 100% on the legitimacy of Ananias. However,
Paul's legitimacy depends 100% on the legitimacy of Ananias. However,
there is no evidence from Luke in Acts or anywhere in the New
Testament that Ananias is a prophet (i.e., by means of confirmed
prophecy). As Gregg Bing unwittingly admits in “Useful for the
Master,” Timely Messenger (November 2004): “Ananias...was not an
prophecy). As Gregg Bing unwittingly admits in "Useful for the
Master," Timely Messenger (November 2004): "Ananias...was not an
apostle, a pastor, or a prophet, as far as we know, but was simply
what many would call an ordinary man.” Peter in the Homily realizes
what many would call an ordinary man." Peter in the Homily realizes
that the validity of thinking Jesus spoke positively to Paul
mistakenly ignores that Paul’s positive commission in Acts chapter 22
mistakenly ignores that Paul's positive commission in Acts chapter 22
solely comes from an uninspired non-prophet named Ananias.
To see this, we must read Paul’s next account of his vision in Acts
To see this, we must read Paul's next account of his vision in Acts
chapter 26. It is a very different account indeed. Paul, talking to
Agrippa, states in (Acts 26:14-18):
@ -237,35 +237,35 @@ Agrippa, states in (Acts 26:14-18):
Do you see that verses 16-18 are new very positive statements by
Jesus? (Also, please note, Jesus has still not once actually called
Paul an apostle .) Do you likewise see this Acts chapter 26 version
undercuts Peter’s argument in the speech from the Clementine Homilies
undercuts Peter's argument in the speech from the Clementine Homilies
? Do you further see that Peter could not possibly have known of this
Acts chapter 26 version at the time Peter confronts his opponent
(obviously Paul) in the Clementine Homilies ?
Thus, it makes the most sense that Acts chapter 22 reflects the
account Paul first gave at trial in response to Peter’s charge. This
explains why Paul believes he “escaped” the mouth of the lion even
account Paul first gave at trial in response to Peter's charge. This
explains why Paul believes he "escaped" the mouth of the lion even
though the result was that all Christians of Asia (Minor) abandoned
Paul. (2Tim. 1:15.) rNo one could disprove that Paul had some vision
and there may have been positive statements by Jesus. These two vision
accounts fell short of calling Paul an apostle. Paul lost the trial on
that score. (Rev. 2:2.) Yet, in Paul’s mind he won because he was not
that score. (Rev. 2:2.) Yet, in Paul's mind he won because he was not
totally de-legitimized.
### Point Six: Don’t The Vision Accounts of Acts 22 and 26 Conflict?
### Point Six: Don't The Vision Accounts of Acts 22 and 26 Conflict?
In reflection on Paul’s various vision accounts, ask yourself this:
In reflection on Paul's various vision accounts, ask yourself this:
how plausible is it that the version in Acts chapter 26 just happens
to allow Paul to side-step Peter’s charge? Furthermore, is it really
to allow Paul to side-step Peter's charge? Furthermore, is it really
plausible that both versions (Acts 22 and 26) are true? No, it is not.
In the later version, Acts 26:16, Paul says that Jesus tells him he is
appointed to be a witness ( martus , martyr ). However, in the earlier
version of Acts 22:13-15, Jesus is harsh and then simply says Paul
will be told “all” that he is to do when he gets into town. Then in
will be told "all" that he is to do when he gets into town. Then in
town, and only then, Paul leams he is being appointed to be a
witness. The identical words that Ananias’ used in Acts chapter 22 are
now transferred, in the next account in Acts chapter 26, into Jesus’
witness. The identical words that Ananias' used in Acts chapter 22 are
now transferred, in the next account in Acts chapter 26, into Jesus'
mouth. The implausibility of both accounts being true stems from this
verse in Acts chapter 22 where Jesus supposedly tells Paul:
@ -273,15 +273,15 @@ verse in Acts chapter 22 where Jesus supposedly tells Paul:
all things which are appointed for thee to do. (Acts 22:10).
In this version from Acts chapter 22, Jesus himself says it is in
Damascus that Paul will leam “all” of what to do. In the Acts chapter
Damascus that Paul will leam "all" of what to do. In the Acts chapter
26 version, everything that Paul was told in the Acts chapter 22
version in Damascus (which was in Ananias’ mouth) is now given by
version in Damascus (which was in Ananias' mouth) is now given by
Jesus before Paul even goes to Damascus. Both versions simply cannot
be true. This is because 100% of what Ananias said in Acts chapter 22
is given by Jesus before Jesus in the vision departs in Acts chapter
26. So how can it be true that in Damascus Paul would learn for the
first time “all things which are appointed for thee to do?” In the
later account of Acts chapter 26, this 100% precedes Paul’s trip to
first time "all things which are appointed for thee to do?" In the
later account of Acts chapter 26, this 100% precedes Paul's trip to
Damascus, making a liar out of Jesus in the Acts chapter 22
account. There Jesus said it would be given at Damascus. If you love
the Lord Jesus more than Paul, the two stories are irreconcilable.
@ -289,29 +289,29 @@ the Lord Jesus more than Paul, the two stories are irreconcilable.
### Point Seven: Why Make A Contradictory Account of the Vision Experience?
This change between Acts chapter 22 and chapter 26 is what explains
how Paul in his “first defense” was able to “escape the mouth of the
lion,” as he puts it in (2Tim. 2:17). He apparently used this clever
how Paul in his "first defense" was able to "escape the mouth of the
lion," as he puts it in (2Tim. 2:17). He apparently used this clever
side-step. Paul simply made up more words of Jesus but this time words
of approval before Jesus departs in the vision. Paul thereby made it
appear Jesus is now a friend, and not an adversary. This explains why
Paul’s “first defense” spoken about in Second Timothy succeeded to
some degree in Paul’s mind even though “all in... Asia abandoned me.”
Paul's "first defense" spoken about in Second Timothy succeeded to
some degree in Paul's mind even though "all in... Asia abandoned me."
(2Tim. 1:15). Paul felt he had success in holding onto some
legitimacy even though the verdict was so bad that all in Asia Minor
abandoned him. He must have felt his defense salvaged enough that he
could believe he escaped the Jewish-Christian opponents that he
faced. Thus, Paul apparently made up this Acts chapter 26 version of
the Christ-vision on the spot. Paul was satisfied that in doing so he
“escaped the mouth of the lion” even though he effectively lost and
“all in...Asia abandoned me.”
"escaped the mouth of the lion" even though he effectively lost and
"all in...Asia abandoned me."
### Paul’s Contradictory Vision Accounts Permit Skepticism About Paul
### Paul's Contradictory Vision Accounts Permit Skepticism About Paul
Of course, this all depends on you having a certain skepticism about
Paul. Yet, most of us evangelicals resist fervently this notion. For
those of you having trouble reconsidering Paul’s place in the New
those of you having trouble reconsidering Paul's place in the New
Testament canon, please consider the following clear-cut contradiction
between Paul’s first two versions of his vision.
between Paul's first two versions of his vision.
(Acts 9:7) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice , but seeing no man. (KJV)
@ -324,5 +324,5 @@ Square these two if you can, but the Greek is identical. The men with
him in one case heard (Gk. acoustica ) the voice, and in the other the
men with him did not hear (Gk. acoustica ) the voice. Scholars
compliment Luke for his honesty, showing us the
contradiction. (. Robertson’s Word Pictures .) However, these scholars
are not thinking how damning this is of Paul’s credibility.
contradiction. (. Robertson's Word Pictures .) However, these scholars
are not thinking how damning this is of Paul's credibility.

16
JWO_12_08_TheValidityoftheChargesofPeterinHomily17_0070.md

@ -5,24 +5,24 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
Even if the Peter charges in Homily 1 7 never took place at a real
trial, it turns out that it still makes two arguments that are
valid. This is interesting because it means in 200 A.D., people had
already seen flaws in Paul’s alleged appointment. It is not something
already seen flaws in Paul's alleged appointment. It is not something
first seen millennia later by me.
### Peter’s Charge That Paul Rejected the Apostles’ Teachings
### Peter's Charge That Paul Rejected the Apostles' Teachings
An important point leaps off the page of the Peter confrontation with
his antagonist in the Clementine Homilies. John in 1 John told us,
reminiscent of (Rev. 2:2), to test every spirit to see whether it
comes from God. There were several criteria he gave to tell the liars
from the true. He said something very reminiscent of Peter’s remarks
from the true. He said something very reminiscent of Peter's remarks
in the Clementine Homilies :
We belong to God, and everyone who knows God will listen to us
[i.e., the twelve apostles]. But the people who don’t know God
won’t listen to us. That is how we can tell the Spirit that speaks
[i.e., the twelve apostles]. But the people who don't know God
won't listen to us. That is how we can tell the Spirit that speaks
the truth from the one that tells lies. (1 John 4:6 CEV)
Now compare this to Peter’s charge against his antagonist (i.e., Paul)
Now compare this to Peter's charge against his antagonist (i.e., Paul)
previously quoted from the Clementine Homilies'.
...love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with
@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ previously quoted from the Clementine Homilies'.
Peter had the same view as John. Peter tells Paul in the Clementine
Homilies that if you were one of us, you would listen to us, rather
than make us out to be liars. John says that “the people who don’t
know God won’t listen to us.” Peter is saying, in effect, by rejecting
than make us out to be liars. John says that "the people who don't
know God won't listen to us." Peter is saying, in effect, by rejecting
the twelve apostles and their teaching, which was based on a Message
delivered personally from the Lord, Paul was rejecting Christ himself.

84
JWO_12_09_DidPaulAdmitHeRejectedtheTeachingsofPeter__0071.md

@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Did Paul Admit He Rejected the Teachings of Peter?
In Paul, we see hostility toward the twelve apostles in many ways. The
twelve “imparted nothing to me,” says Paul. (Gal. 2:6.)
twelve "imparted nothing to me," says Paul. (Gal. 2:6.)
However, let us ask whether there is anything in Paul’s writings that
However, let us ask whether there is anything in Paul's writings that
specifically corroborates this kind of hostility between Paul and
Peterl Peter is claiming in the Clementine Homilies that Paul makes up
a false charge to make Peter look like a liar. Paul makes it appear
@ -14,24 +14,24 @@ opposition to an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is a major effrontery
that cannot stand. Peter warns Paul in effect that Paul is in danger
of the Sodom and Gomorrah warning of Jesus. Did Paul ever
25.Paul sneers at the three “so-called” leaders at Jerusalem: James,
25.Paul sneers at the three "so-called" leaders at Jerusalem: James,
Cephas (i.e. Simon Peter) and John, adding pejoratively that they
“seemed to be pillars” ((Gal. 2:9)). Paul then boasts that he believes
he is at their level: “For 1 suppose I was not a whit behind the very
chiefest apostles” ((2Cor. 11:5)). And in 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul
"seemed to be pillars" ((Gal. 2:9)). Paul then boasts that he believes
he is at their level: "For 1 suppose I was not a whit behind the very
chiefest apostles" ((2Cor. 11:5)). And in 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul
claims "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be
nothing.” There is some textual and historical reasons to think Paul
nothing." There is some textual and historical reasons to think Paul
calls the twelve false apostles in 2Cor. 11:12-23, viz. verse 13
“fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ.” (Other than the
"fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ." (Other than the
twelve, who else claimed to be apostles other than Paul? No one that
we know.) Another example of derogation involves the apostles’ amazing
we know.) Another example of derogation involves the apostles' amazing
gift of tongues (Acts 1). Paul ran down that gift, which had the
effect of taking the lustre off the true apostles’ gift of
effect of taking the lustre off the true apostles' gift of
tongues. See (1Cor. 14:4-33). Finally, if the Galatians understood the
twelve contradicted Paul in any way, Paul would be cursing them in
Gal. 1:8-12. He warns the Galatians that even if an “angel from
heaven” came with a different Gospel than Paul preached, let him be
anathema {cursed). In light of Paul’s comments in chapter two of
Gal. 1:8-12. He warns the Galatians that even if an "angel from
heaven" came with a different Gospel than Paul preached, let him be
anathema {cursed). In light of Paul's comments in chapter two of
Galatians, it is fair to infer he meant to warn of even a
contradictory message from boasts about it.)
@ -55,26 +55,26 @@ In (Gal. 2:11-14), we read:
the Jews? (ASV)
Paul boasts here of being able to condemn a true apostle of Jesus
Christ. “I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.” Then
Paul says he gave Peter a dressing down “before them all.” Paul did
Christ. "I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned." Then
Paul says he gave Peter a dressing down "before them all." Paul did
this publicly, not in private.
In doing this, Paul violates his own command to us: “Do not sharply
rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a father.” (1Tim. 5:1.)
Paul also violated Jesus’ command: “if your brother sins, go and
In doing this, Paul violates his own command to us: "Do not sharply
rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a father." (1Tim. 5:1.)
Paul also violated Jesus' command: "if your brother sins, go and
reprove him in private ; if he listens to you, you have won your
brother.” ((Matt. 18:15).)
brother." ((Matt. 18:15).)
Yet, who was right in this public rebuke by Paul of Peter? There is
strong reason to believe Paul was wrong, obeying Christ. Now you as a
Christian must choose: is Peter as an apostle of Jesus Christ somehow
less authoritative than Paul who Jesus never once appointed as an
apostle in three vision accounts? While most commentators assume Paul
is in the right on the withdrawal issue, on what basis? Paul’s say-so?
is in the right on the withdrawal issue, on what basis? Paul's say-so?
Because Paul permits eating meat sacrificed to idols but the twelve
were misled in Acts chapter 15 to approve prohibiting it?
One must not be influenced by Paul’s one-sided account. We can see
One must not be influenced by Paul's one-sided account. We can see
Paul had an eating practice that made dining with Gentiles under his
influence impossible. Jewish custom was to avoid violating food laws
by simply not eating with Gentiles. This way they would not offend
@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ their host by either asking about foods presented or by refusing foods
Gentiles offered. This is all that Peter was doing: being polite as
well as conscientious.
### Peter’s Question Why Jesus Would Use Paul Aside from Apostles
### Peter's Question Why Jesus Would Use Paul Aside from Apostles
Finally, Peter in the Clementine Homilies speech (previously quoted)
asks his antagonist (Paul) a blunt question that remains valid even if
@ -94,23 +94,23 @@ Homily 17 were fictional:
Peter thinks this is a major flaw.
What Peter brings out in the Clementine Homilies again can be
corroborated by looking at Paul’s writings. Paul admits in Galatians
corroborated by looking at Paul's writings. Paul admits in Galatians
that after he was converted he then began his work for fourteen years
before he ever went back to Jerusalem to leam from the apostles who
knew Jesus. (Gal. 2:1). Paul admits that until that time, he only had
a brief two week visit to Jerusalem three years after his vision. Paul
emphasizes his lack of contact with the twelve by pointing out that in
those two weeks he only met Peter and then briefly James, the Lord’s
those two weeks he only met Peter and then briefly James, the Lord's
brother. Paul adamantly insists this is his sole prior encounter with
the apostles within “fourteen years” (Gal. 2:1):
the apostles within "fourteen years" (Gal. 2:1):
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb... To
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb... To
reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately /conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to
Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into
Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three [more]years
I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen
days. But other of the apostles I saw none, save James the Lord’s
days. But other of the apostles I saw none, save James the Lord's
brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I
lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia. ((Gal. 1:8-21))
@ -119,39 +119,39 @@ Peter in the Clementine Homily 1 7 thus asks a very good question. If
Jesus spent a year with the apostles after the resurrection teaching
them, Jesus obviously did so in order that their witness would be full
and superior to others. Then it was incumbent on Paul to leam from
them. Yet, by Paul’s own admission, Paul fails to do so for years. How
them. Yet, by Paul's own admission, Paul fails to do so for years. How
then can Paul form the greater body of New Testament Scripture my
enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive to
distort my word by interpretation of many sorts, as if I taught the
dissolution of the Law ... But that may God forbid! For to do such a
thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses
and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For He
said: ‘For heaven and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle
shall pass away from the Law.’” Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
said: 'For heaven and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle
shall pass away from the Law.'" Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
(presumed 92 A.D.) a
a. Bart D. Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Maty Magdalene (Oxford: 2006) at 79.
Other respected thinkers have been astonished by Paul’s lack of
Other respected thinkers have been astonished by Paul's lack of
mentioning any lessons of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer once said:
Where possible, he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in
fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not
know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on
the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even
the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even
where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of
the Lord. 27
“Paul created a theology of which nothing but the vaguest warrants
can be found in the words of Christ.” Wil Durant Caesar and Christ
"Paul created a theology of which nothing but the vaguest warrants
can be found in the words of Christ." Wil Durant Caesar and Christ
26. Paul in (1Cor. 11:24-25) quotes from the Last Supper at odds with
Luke’s account. See Luke 22:19-20. Luke says Jesus’ body is ‘given’
but Paul says it is ‘broken.’ This variance is significant. As John
Luke's account. See Luke 22:19-20. Luke says Jesus' body is 'given'
but Paul says it is 'broken.' This variance is significant. As John
19:36 mentions. Psalm 34:20 says not a bone of His shall be
broken. Paul’s quote is thus contradictory of Luke as well as
theologically troublesome. The aphorism is ‘better to give than
receive.’ Acts 20:35.
broken. Paul's quote is thus contradictory of Luke as well as
theologically troublesome. The aphorism is 'better to give than
receive.' Acts 20:35.
![Picture #66](images/img_0066.png)
@ -160,14 +160,14 @@ receive.’ Acts 20:35.
### The Ebionite Records on the Trial of Paul
A modern Christian scholar, Hans van Campenhausen, agrees this
deficiency in Paul’s writings is a striking and glaring problem:
deficiency in Paul's writings is a striking and glaring problem:
The most striking feature is that the words of the Lord, which
must have been collected and handed on in the primitive community
and elsewhere from the earliest days, played no, or at least no
vital, part in Paul’s basic instruction of his churches.
vital, part in Paul's basic instruction of his churches.
Peter’s point in the Clementine Homilies is likewise that Paul’s
Peter's point in the Clementine Homilies is likewise that Paul's
failure to teach what Jesus teaches is the clearest proof that Paul is
not following Jesus. It is a point well-taken.

218
JWO_13_01_DidJohnsEpistlesIdentifyPaulAsAFalseProphet__0072.md

@ -4,43 +4,43 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Introduction
John’s First and Second Epistle talk in words reminiscent of
John's First and Second Epistle talk in words reminiscent of
(Rev. 2:2). John speaks in his first epistle about testing those who
claim to have come from God. John says you can find them to be false
prophets. John writes:
Dear friends, don’t believe everyone who claims to have the Spirit
Dear friends, don't believe everyone who claims to have the Spirit
of God. Test them all to find out if they really do come from
God. Many false prophets have already gone out into the world
(1John 4:1) CEV.
In John’s epistles, John thereafter gives us several tests that his
In John's epistles, John thereafter gives us several tests that his
readers can use to know whether some alleged prophet comes from God.
His spirit [does not] say that Jesus Christ had truly human flesh
(sarx , flesh). (1John 4:2).
We belong to God, and everyone who knows God will listen to us
[i.e., the twelve apostles]. But the people who don’t know God
won’t listen to us. That is how we can tell the Spirit that speaks
[i.e., the twelve apostles]. But the people who don't know God
won't listen to us. That is how we can tell the Spirit that speaks
the truth from the one that tells lies. (1John 4:6) CEV.
These people came from our own group, yet they were not part of
us. If they had been part of us, they would have stayed with
us. But they left, transgresses [i.e., goes beyond] and doesn’t
remain in the teachings of Christ, doesn’t have God [i.e., breaks
us. But they left, transgresses [i.e., goes beyond] and doesn't
remain in the teachings of Christ, doesn't have God [i.e., breaks
fellowship with God]. He who remains in the teachings [of Jesus
Christ], the same has both the Father and the Son. (2John 1:9)
Websters.
Thus, John gives us several criteria to identify the false prophets
even if they “claim to have the Spirit” of God:
even if they "claim to have the Spirit" of God:
* They teach a heresy that Jesus did not come in truly human flesh (i.e., his flesh just appeared to be human flesh); or
* They do not listen to the twelve apostles; or
* They became a part of the apostles’ group but left the apostles’ group; or
* They became a part of the apostles' group but left the apostles' group; or
* They do not remain in the teachings by the twelve of what Jesus taught.
@ -50,42 +50,42 @@ and Second John apply to Paul.
### Did Paul Refuse to Listen to the Apostles?
First, Paul did not listen to the twelve apostles. Paul rails in
(Gal. 2:1-9) at the three “so-called” apostolic pillars of the
(Gal. 2:1-9) at the three "so-called" apostolic pillars of the
Jerusalem church (including John) (Gal. 2:9). Paul says again they
were “reputed to be something” (Gal. 2:2,6), but “whatsoever they were
it makes no difference to me; God does not accept a man’s person
[i.e., judge by their position and rank].” (Gal. 2:6). Paul then
were "reputed to be something" (Gal. 2:2,6), but "whatsoever they were
it makes no difference to me; God does not accept a man's person
[i.e., judge by their position and rank]." (Gal. 2:6). Paul then
expressly declares that he received nothing from the twelve apostles.
I say [those] who were of repute [i.e., the apostles in context]
imparted nothing to me, learning anything about Jesus from the
apostles or the reputed pillars of the church — Peter, John, and James.
apostles or the reputed pillars of the church - Peter, John, and James.
Now listen again to what John — one of the three mentioned by Paul as
“seeming pillars” — had to say about this kind of behavior. John writes:
Now listen again to what John - one of the three mentioned by Paul as
"seeming pillars" - had to say about this kind of behavior. John writes:
We belong to God, and everyone who knows God will listen to us
[i.e., the twelve apostles].
But the people who don’t know God won’t listen to us. That is how
But the people who don't know God won't listen to us. That is how
we can tell the Spirit that speaks the truth from the one that
tells lies. (1John 4:6) CEV
John clearly would regard someone such as Paul who refused to learn
from the twelve as someone who does not “know God.” The fact Paul
from the twelve as someone who does not "know God." The fact Paul
would not listen to the twelve (and was proud of it) allows us to
realize Paul is one who “tells lies,” if we accept John’s direction.
realize Paul is one who "tells lies," if we accept John's direction.
### Paul’s Admission of Parting Ways With the Apostles
### Paul's Admission of Parting Ways With the Apostles
Paul also fits (1John 2:19) because he left their group. Paul admits
this. However, Paul claims it was because the twelve apostles decided
they would alone focus on Jews and Paul alone we should go unto the
Gentiles, and they "unto the circumcision";
Does Paul’s account, any way you mull it over, make sense? Not only
Does Paul's account, any way you mull it over, make sense? Not only
are there issues of plausibility, but, if Paul is telling the truth,
it means the twelve apostles were willing to violate the Holy Spirit’s
it means the twelve apostles were willing to violate the Holy Spirit's
guidance to the twelve that Peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles, as
is clearly stated in (Acts 15:7).
@ -101,16 +101,16 @@ the Gentiles in (Acts 15:7):
Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how
that a good while ago God mode choice among us, that the Gentiles
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, [i.e., Peter and
the Jerusalem leaders] unto the circumcision [i.e., Jews].”
the Jerusalem leaders] unto the circumcision [i.e., Jews]."
What Paul claims happened makes no sense. If it happened by mutual
agreement, then you would have to conclude Peter believed God changed
his mind about Peter’s role. This would require Peter to disregard
God’s choice a “good while ago” mentioned in Acts 15:7 that he be the
his mind about Peter's role. This would require Peter to disregard
God's choice a "good while ago" mentioned in Acts 15:7 that he be the
Apostle to the Gentiles. This is completely implausible.
Thus, to believe Paul, you have to believe God would change His mind
who was to go to the Gentiles. Yet, for what purpose? Wouldn’t two be
who was to go to the Gentiles. Yet, for what purpose? Wouldn't two be
better than one? Why would God cut out Peter entirely ?
Furthermore, why would Peter diminish this Gentile ministry among the
@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ The answer to all these paradoxes is quite obvious. Paul is putting a
good spin on a division between himself and the home church. By
claiming in a letter to Gentiles that he was still authorized to
evangelize to them, they would believe him. They could not phone
Jerusalem to find out the truth. Now listen to John’s evaluation of
Jerusalem to find out the truth. Now listen to John's evaluation of
what this really meant:
These people came from our own group, yet they were not part of
@ -132,36 +132,36 @@ what this really meant:
would not concede as possible is that Paul also taught Jesus did
not have truly human flesh.
Before we address this point, let’s distinguish this next point from
what has preceded. This ‘human flesh’ issue is a completely
Before we address this point, let's distinguish this next point from
what has preceded. This 'human flesh' issue is a completely
independent ground to evaluate Paul. John could be talking about Paul
on the issue of leaving their group (1 John 2:19) and not listening to
the twelve (1John 4:6), but not be addressing Paul on the ‘human flesh
issue’ in (1 John 4:2). One point does not necessarily have anything
the twelve (1John 4:6), but not be addressing Paul on the 'human flesh
issue' in (1 John 4:2). One point does not necessarily have anything
to do with the other.
That said, let’s investigate whether this issue of ‘human flesh’ in 1
That said, let's investigate whether this issue of 'human flesh' in 1
John 4:2 applies to Paul as well.
To understand what teaching John is opposing when he faults as
deceivers those who say “Jesus did not have human flesh,” one must
deceivers those who say "Jesus did not have human flesh," one must
have a little schooling in church history. We today assume John is
talking about people who say Jesus came in an imaginary way. This is
not John’s meaning.
not John's meaning.
The heresy that John is referring to is the claim Jesus did not have
truly human flesh. Marcion’s doctrine is an example of this
truly human flesh. Marcion's doctrine is an example of this
viewpoint. Marcion came on the scene of history in approximately 144
A.D. John’s epistle is written earlier, and thus is not actually
A.D. John's epistle is written earlier, and thus is not actually
directed at Marcion. Marcion helps us, however, to identify the
precursor heresy that John is attacking. Marcion’s doctrines are
precursor heresy that John is attacking. Marcion's doctrines are
well-known. Marcion taught salvation by faith alone, the Law of Moses
was abrogated, and he insisted Paul alone had the true Gospel, to the
exclusion of the twelve apostles. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was
Formed 3.8 [[JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112]].)
Marcion was not denying Jesus came and looked like a man. Rather,
Marcion was claiming that Jesus’ flesh could not be human in our
Marcion was claiming that Jesus' flesh could not be human in our
sense. Why? What did Marcion mean?
Marcion was a devout Paulunist, as mentioned before. Paul taught the
@ -169,14 +169,14 @@ doctrine that all human flesh inherits the original sin of Adam.
(Rom. 5:0). If Jesus truly had human flesh, Marcion must have been
concerned that Jesus would have come in a human flesh which Paul
taught was inherently sinful due to the taint of original
sin. Incidentally, Paul’s ideas on human flesh being inherently sinful
sin. Incidentally, Paul's ideas on human flesh being inherently sinful
was contrary to Hebrew Scriptures which taught all flesh was clean
unless some practice or conduct made it unclean. (See, e.g.. (Lev. 15:2)
et seq .) In light of Paul’s new doctrine, Marcion wanted to protect
et seq .) In light of Paul's new doctrine, Marcion wanted to protect
Jesus from being regarded as inherently sinful. Thus, Marcion was
denying Jesus had truly human flesh.
Marcion’s teaching on Jesus’ flesh is known by scholars as
Marcion's teaching on Jesus' flesh is known by scholars as
docetism. The word docetism comes from a Greek work that means
appear. Docetism says Jesus only appeared to come in human
flesh. Docetism also became popular later among Gnostics who taught
@ -189,25 +189,25 @@ competing Paul-oriented Christian church system in most major cities
that rivaled the churches founded by the twelve apostles. The
Marcionites had church buildings, clergy, regular services, etc.
It was in this context that John’s letter from the 90s A.D., in
It was in this context that John's letter from the 90s A.D., in
particular (1John 4:2), must be understood as condemning docetism. ?
Yes. Heretical docetism is found expressly in Paul. For Paul writes
Jesus only appeared to be a man and to come in sinful human
flesh. (Rom. 8:3) “likeness” or “appearance” of “sinful human flesh;”
1 see also (Phil. 2:7) “appeared to be a man”.)
flesh. (Rom. 8:3) "likeness" or "appearance" of "sinful human flesh;"
1 see also (Phil. 2:7) "appeared to be a man".)
Specialists in ancient Greek who are Christian struggle to find no
heresy in Paul’s words in both passages. Vincent is one of the leading
heresy in Paul's words in both passages. Vincent is one of the leading
Christian scholars who has done a Greek language commentary on the
entire New Testament. Here is how Vincent’s Word Studies tries to
entire New Testament. Here is how Vincent's Word Studies tries to
fashion an escape from Paul uttering heresy. First, Vincent explains
Paul liter
“God sending His own Son in the likeness (homomati) of sinful
flesh condemned sin in the flesh.” (Rom. 8:3)
"God sending His own Son in the likeness (homomati) of sinful
flesh condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom. 8:3)
1. In (Rom. 8:3), Paul writes: “For what the law could not do, in that
1. In (Rom. 8:3), Paul writes: "For what the law could not do, in that
it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the
likeness [i.e., appearance] of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin
in the flesh." (ASV)
@ -216,100 +216,100 @@ in the flesh." (ASV)
![Picture #68](images/img_0068.png)
2. Of course, like Marcion, Paul does not dispute that Jesus was the
Godhead who appeared in a “body” ( somatikos ). (Col. 2:9). A body
Godhead who appeared in a "body" ( somatikos ). (Col. 2:9). A body
does not imply human flesh. Yet, Robertson believes that Col. 2:9
disposes with the docetic theory. Yet, Robertson describes this theory
as “Jesus had no human body.” This is not a precise description, at
least of Marcion’s docetism. Rather, docetism says the body in which
as "Jesus had no human body." This is not a precise description, at
least of Marcion's docetism. Rather, docetism says the body in which
Jesus lived lacked human flesh. It just appeared to be human
flesh. Robertson’s analysis thus lacks precise focus on what is ally
flesh. Robertson's analysis thus lacks precise focus on what is ally
says in (Rom. 8:3) that Jesus came in the likeness of the flesh of
sin. Vincent then says had Paul not used the word likeness, Paul would
be saying Jesus had come in “the sin of flesh f which “would [then]
have represented Him as partaking of sin.” Thus, Vincent says Paul
does not deny Jesus came in the flesh ( i.e Paul is not denying Jesus’
be saying Jesus had come in "the sin of flesh f which "would [then]
have represented Him as partaking of sin." Thus, Vincent says Paul
does not deny Jesus came in the flesh ( i.e Paul is not denying Jesus'
humanity), but rather Paul insists that Jesus came only in the
likeness of sinful flesh.
My answer to Vincent is simple: you have proved my case. Vincent is
conceding the Greek word homomati (which translates as likeness) means
Jesus did not truly come in the flesh of sin. Vincent is intentionally
ignoring what this means in Paul’s theology. To Paul, all flesh is
sinful. There is no such thing as flesh that is holy in Paul’s
ignoring what this means in Paul's theology. To Paul, all flesh is
sinful. There is no such thing as flesh that is holy in Paul's
outlook. For Paul, you are either in the Spirit or in the flesh. The
latter he equates with sin. (Gal. 5:5,16-20.) So Paul is saying Jesus
only appeared to come in sinful human flesh. In Paul’s theology of
only appeared to come in sinful human flesh. In Paul's theology of
original sin (Rom. eh. 5), this is the same thing as saying Jesus did
not come in truly human flesh. It only appeared to be human (sinful)
flesh. Paul was completely docetic. That is how Marcion formed his
doctrine: straight from Paul.
Furthermore, when you compare (Rom. 8:3) to (Phil. 2:7), there is no
mistaking Paul’s viewpoint. In Philippians 2:7, Paul this time says
Jesus came in the “likeness (homomati) of men,” not flesh of
sin. Following Vincent’s previous agreement on homomatf s meaning,
mistaking Paul's viewpoint. In Philippians 2:7, Paul this time says
Jesus came in the "likeness (homomati) of men," not flesh of
sin. Following Vincent's previous agreement on homomatf s meaning,
this verse says Jesus did not truly come as a man. He just appeared as
if he was a man. Vincent again struggles desperately to offer an
interpretation of Philippians 2:7 that avoids Paul being a
heretic. Vincent ends up conceding “ likeness of men expresses the
fact that His Mode of manifestation resembled what men are.” When you
strip away Vincent’s vague words, Vincent concedes Paul teaches Jesus
heretic. Vincent ends up conceding " likeness of men expresses the
fact that His Mode of manifestation resembled what men are." When you
strip away Vincent's vague words, Vincent concedes Paul teaches Jesus
only appeared to be a man. Thus, he was not truly a man. This means
Paul was 100% flesh). (1John 4:2.)
Was Marcion really that far from Paul? As Tertullian summarized
Marcion’s view, we hear the clear echo of Paul. Marcion taught Jesus
“was not what he appeared to be...[saying He was] flesh and yet not
flesh, man and not yet man....” (Tertullian, On Marcion, 3.8.)
Marcion's view, we hear the clear echo of Paul. Marcion taught Jesus
"was not what he appeared to be...[saying He was] flesh and yet not
flesh, man and not yet man...." (Tertullian, On Marcion, 3.8.)
### John s Epistles Are Aimed At A False Teacher Once at Ephesus
The likelihood that John’s epistles are veiled ways of talking about
The likelihood that John's epistles are veiled ways of talking about
Paul gets stronger when we look at other characteristics of the
heretic John is identifying in his first two epistles. Historians
acknowledge that John’s epistles are written of events “almost
certainly in Asia Minor in or near Ephesus. John’s concern, Ivor
acknowledge that John's epistles are written of events "almost
certainly in Asia Minor in or near Ephesus. John's concern, Ivor
Davidson continues, was about someone in that region who said Jesus
was “not truly a flesh-and-blood human being.” To counter him, John
also later wrote in his Gospel that the Word “became flesh” (John 1:14.)
was "not truly a flesh-and-blood human being." To counter him, John
also later wrote in his Gospel that the Word "became flesh" (John 1:14.)
Who could John be concerned about who taught docetism in that region
of Ephesus? Again the answer is obviously Paul. For it was Paul who
wrote in (Rom. 8:3) and (Phil. 2:7) that Jesus only appeared to come
as a man and in sinful human flesh. Paul must have carried the same
message with himself to Ephesus. John’s focus in his epistles is
obviously on the same person of whom (Rev. 2:2) is identifying was “a
liar” to the Ephesians. John has the same person in mind in the same
city of Ephesus. John’s intended object must be Paul.
message with himself to Ephesus. John's focus in his epistles is
obviously on the same person of whom (Rev. 2:2) is identifying was "a
liar" to the Ephesians. John has the same person in mind in the same
city of Ephesus. John's intended object must be Paul.
3. Ivor J. Davidson, The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to
Constantine A.D. 30-312
4. This and other evidence led Christian scholar Charles M. Nielsen to
argue that Papias was writing “against a growing ‘Paulinis’
argue that Papias was writing "against a growing 'Paulinis'
[i.e. Paulinism] in Asia Minor circa 125-135 A.D., just prior to full
blown Marcionism [i. e ., Paul-onlyism].”
blown Marcionism [i. e ., Paul-onlyism]."
5 Nielsen contends Papias’ opponent was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
5 Nielsen contends Papias' opponent was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
who favored Paul. (We have more to say on Polycarp in a moment.)
Thus, in Papias—a bishop of the early church and close associate of
Apostle John—we find a figure who already is fighting a growing
Thus, in Papias-a bishop of the early church and close associate of
Apostle John-we find a figure who already is fighting a growing
Paulinism in pre-Marcion times. This allows an inference that Apostle
John shared the same concern about Paul that we identify in John’s
John shared the same concern about Paul that we identify in John's
letters. Apostle John then passed on his concern to Papias. This led
Papias to fight the “growing Paulinis” (i.e., Paulinism) in Asia
Minor — the region to which Ephesus belonged.
Papias to fight the "growing Paulinis" (i.e., Paulinism) in Asia
Minor - the region to which Ephesus belonged.
4. “Papias,” The Catholic Encyclopedia.
4. "Papias," The Catholic Encyclopedia.
5. Rev. (Lutheran) D. Richard Stuckwisch “Saint Polycarp of Smyrna:
Johannine or Pauline Figure?” Concordia Theological Quarterly
5. Rev. (Lutheran) D. Richard Stuckwisch "Saint Polycarp of Smyrna:
Johannine or Pauline Figure?" Concordia Theological Quarterly
(January-April 1997)Vol. 61 at 113, 118, citing Charles M. Nielsen,
“Papias: Polemicist Against Whom?” Theological Studies 35 (September
1974): 529-535; Charles Nielsen “Polycarp and Marcion: A Note,”
"Papias: Polemicist Against Whom?" Theological Studies 35 (September
1974): 529-535; Charles Nielsen "Polycarp and Marcion: A Note,"
Theological Studies 47 (June 1986): 297-399; Charles Nielsen,
“Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures,” Anglican Theological Review
"Polycarp, Paul and the Scriptures," Anglican Theological Review
negatively about Paul, as I contend above, then why does Polycarp have
such high praise for Paul?
@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ rests on a faulty assumption that Polycarp knew Apostle John.
How did we arrive at the commonly heard notion that Polycarp was
associated with Apostle John? It comes solely from Ireneaus and those
quoting Ireneaus such as Tertullian. However, there is strong reason
to doubt Irenaeus’ claim.
to doubt Irenaeus' claim.
Irenaeus wrote of a childhood memory listening to Polycarp tell of his
familiarity with Apostle John. However, none of the surviving writings
@ -328,56 +328,56 @@ of Polycarp make any mention of his association with Apostle John. Nor
is such an association mentioned in the two biographical earlier
accounts of Polycarp contained in Life of Polycarp and The
Constitution of the Apostles. Yet, these biographies predate Irenaeus
and thus were closer in time to Polycarp’s life. Likewise, Polycarp’s
own writings show no knowledge of John’s Gospel. This seems
and thus were closer in time to Polycarp's life. Likewise, Polycarp's
own writings show no knowledge of John's Gospel. This seems
extraordinarily unlikely had John been his associate late in life. As
a result of the cumulative weight of evidence, most Christian scholars
(including conservative ones) agree that Ireneaus’ childhood memory
(including conservative ones) agree that Ireneaus' childhood memory
misunderstood something Polycarp said. Perhaps Polycarp was talking of
a familiarity with John the Elder rather than Apostle John. or after
John’s epistles. Thus, even if there were some association between
John and Polycarp, we cannot be sure whether Polycarp’s positive view
John's epistles. Thus, even if there were some association between
John and Polycarp, we cannot be sure whether Polycarp's positive view
of Paul continued after that association began.
Accordingly, there is no clear case that someone associated with John
after he wrote his epistles had a positive opinion of Paul. To the
contrary, the only person whom we confidently can conclude knew John
in this time period— Papias—was engaged in resistance to rising
in this time period- Papias-was engaged in resistance to rising
Paulinism, according to Christian scholars.
Thus, John’s letters appear to reveal even more clearly who was being
spoken about in (Rev. 2:2). John’s true friends (i.e., Papias) had the
Thus, John's letters appear to reveal even more clearly who was being
spoken about in (Rev. 2:2). John's true friends (i.e., Papias) had the
same negative outlook on Paulinism at that time.
### Chapter 13 Conclusion
Accordingly, when John’s epistles tell us the four characteristics of
Accordingly, when John's epistles tell us the four characteristics of
a false prophet and teacher who left associating with the twelve
apostles, they fit Paul like a glove. Scholars agree that John is
identifying a false teacher who once had been at Ephesus who taught
Jesus did not come in truly human flesh. This too fits Paul like a
glove. Paul expressly taught Jesus did not come in human flesh—it only
glove. Paul expressly taught Jesus did not come in human flesh-it only
appeared that way. John in his epistle is thus pointing precisely at
Paul without using Paul’s name.
Paul without using Paul's name.
John, in effect, tells us in (1John 4:2-3) to regard Paul as uninspired and a liar,
no matter how appealing Paul’s theological arguments may sound.
no matter how appealing Paul's theological arguments may sound.
6. Rev. (Lutheran) D. Richard Stuckwisch "Saint Polycarp of Smyrna:
Johannine or Pauline Figure?” Concordia Theological Quarterly
Johannine or Pauline Figure?" Concordia Theological Quarterly
(January-April 1997) Vol. 61 at 113 et secy exclusive Against Marcion
“I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with
"I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with
uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in
the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace.... [[Let’s]]
the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace.... [[Let's]]
put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He
[i.e., Paul] himself says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and
that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ.
Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his
claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person
claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person
writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the
signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for
himself both claimant and witness.” (See Tertullian, Against
himself both claimant and witness." (See Tertullian, Against
Marcion (207 A.D.) quoted at 418-19
![Picture #69](images/img_0069.png)

100
JWO_14_01_WhoistheBenjamiteWolfinProphecy__0073.md

@ -2,14 +2,14 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Who is the Benjamite Wolf in Prophecy
### Jesus ’ Words on the Ravening Wolf
### Jesus ' Words on the Ravening Wolf
Jesus several times mentions a wolf or wolves. He says the false
prophets will be wolves dressed like sheep. This means they will claim
to be followers of Christ, but “inwardly [they] are ravening wolves.”
to be followers of Christ, but "inwardly [they] are ravening wolves."
The full quote is:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly are ravening wolves. (Matt. 7:15.)
Jesus warns true Christians that they are at risk from these so-called
@ -30,13 +30,13 @@ Christian at the mercy of these ravening wolves. Jesus explains:
s this imagery of the ravening wolf as the false prophet ever spoken
about elsewhere in Scripture? Yes, in fact there is a prophecy in the
book of Genesis that the tribe of Benjamin would later produce just
such a “ravening wolf.”
such a "ravening wolf."
### Genesis Prophecies of Messiah and His Enemy from the Tribe of Benjamin
Paul tells us in (Rom. 11:1), “For I also am an Israelite, of the seed
of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin .” Paul repeats this in
(Phil. 3:5), saying he is “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin ." 1
Paul tells us in (Rom. 11:1), "For I also am an Israelite, of the seed
of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin ." Paul repeats this in
(Phil. 3:5), saying he is "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin ." 1
Keeping this in mind, Genesis has a very interesting Messianic
prophecy. Modern Christians are sadly generally unaware of this
@ -56,18 +56,18 @@ each son and his tribe. The passage begins:
1. We discussed elsewhere the Ebionite charge that Paul was not a true Jew.
Then could he still be a Benjamite? Yes, Paul could be a descendant of
a tribe without being a true Jew. For example, if one of Paul’s
a tribe without being a true Jew. For example, if one of Paul's
grandparents were a Benjamite, then he can be of the tribe but not a true Jew.
Then Jacob delivers a prophecy about his son Judah and the tribe of
Judah for the latter days. It is a clear Messianic prophecy.
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah [i.e., the right to rule
belongs to this tribe], Nor the ruler’s staff from between his
belongs to this tribe], Nor the ruler's staff from between his
feet, Until Shiloh come: And unto him shall the obedience of the
peoples be. (Gen. 49:10)
Binding his foal unto the vine, And his ass’s colt unto the choice vine;
Binding his foal unto the vine, And his ass's colt unto the choice vine;
He hath washed his garments in wine, And his vesture in the
blood of grapes. (Gen. 49:11]
@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ This passage therefore clearly depicts Messiah, the Prince of Peace,
with his gannents bathed in the blood of grapes. All obedience will be
owed him. The Genesis-Shiloh Messiah is then presented in similar
imagery as the Lamb of God in the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 19:13)
“garment sprinkled with blood”.
"garment sprinkled with blood".
Ancient Jewish scholars also read this Genesis passage to be a
Messianic prophecy. In all three Rabbinic Targums, the Hebrew scholars
@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ taught Shiloh was the name for Messiah. This was also repeated by many
ancient Jewish writers. (Gill, Gen. 49:10.)
So why is this Messianic passage so unfamiliar to Christians? Perhaps
because in close proximity we find Jacob’s prophecy about the tribe of
because in close proximity we find Jacob's prophecy about the tribe of
Benjamin. This Benjamite prophecy follows many positive predictions
for all the other eleven tribes.
@ -108,32 +108,32 @@ consider the possibility this verse is talking about Paul. In fact,
the early Christian church, as demonstrated below, did think this was
a prophecy about Paul. Somehow we lost memory of this teaching.
Let’s turn now to Jacob’s last prophecy about the Benjamites in the
“latter days ” when Shiloh comes. Here we read of the imagery of a
Let's turn now to Jacob's last prophecy about the Benjamites in the
"latter days " when Shiloh comes. Here we read of the imagery of a
ravening wolf that identifies the tribe of Benjamin.
Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth: In the morning she shall devour
the prey, And at evening] he shall divide the spoil. (Gen. 49:27) ASV
Let’s analyze this verse — for there is a time-sequence to the
ravening wolf’s activity. In the morning, he devours the prey. This
Let's analyze this verse - for there is a time-sequence to the
ravening wolf's activity. In the morning, he devours the prey. This
means he kills his prey. In the evening, he takes the spoils left over
after killing the prey. There are many metaphorical similarities to
Paul. He starts as a killer of Christians or as one who approves the
killing of Christians. (Acts 7:58; 8:1-3, 9:1.) However, later Paul
claims a right of division among his earlier prey —he exclusively will
claims a right of division among his earlier prey -he exclusively will
recruit Gentiles as Christians while the twelve apostles supposedly
would exclusively recruit Jews. ((Gal. 2:9).)
2. The unlikelihood that this was consensual from the twelve is
discussed in “Paul’s Admission of Parting Ways With the Apostles” on page 334.
discussed in "Paul's Admission of Parting Ways With the Apostles" on page 334.
In fact, in the early Christian church, this entire verse of
(Gen. 49:27) was read to be a prophecy about Paul. However, the second
part was then spun favorably to Paul. An early church writer,
Hippolytus (200s A.D.), said Paul fulfilled Genesis 49:27 because Paul
started as a murderer of Christians, fulfilling the first part of
Genesis 49:27. The second part about ‘dividing the spoil’ was
Genesis 49:27. The second part about 'dividing the spoil' was
interpreted by Hippolytus to mean Paul made Christian followers
predominantly among Gentiles. However, this was read
positively. Hippolytus believed Paul divided the spoil in a manner God
@ -145,21 +145,21 @@ prophecy of the evil that would be done by this Benjamite, not the good.
Here is the quote from the early church writer Hippolytus (estimated
to be 205 A.D.) wherein he saw God prophesying of Paul in (Gen. 49:27:)
‘Benjamin is a devouring wolf. In the morning, he will devour the
prey, and at night he will apportion the food.’ This thoroughly
'Benjamin is a devouring wolf. In the morning, he will devour the
prey, and at night he will apportion the food.' This thoroughly
fits Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin. For when he was
young, he was a ravaging wolf. However, when he believed, he
‘apportioned the food.’ (Hippolytus, W 5.168.) 3
'apportioned the food.' (Hippolytus, W 5.168.) 3
These writings from the early church demonstrates two things: (a)
early Christians were more familiar than ourselves with the Shiloh
Messianic prophecy in (Gen. 49:1012); and (b) if one knew the Shiloh
prophecy, one could not avoid seeing in close proximity the prophecy
of a Benjamite wolf ((Gen. 49:27)) whereupon one would realize it is
unmistakably talking about Paul. As Hippolytus says, “this thoroughly fits Paul.”
unmistakably talking about Paul. As Hippolytus says, "this thoroughly fits Paul."
3. Notice incidentally that the positive spin was manufactured by
Hippolytus changing the verse’s meaning from divide the spoils to
Hippolytus changing the verse's meaning from divide the spoils to
apportion the food.
@ -168,19 +168,19 @@ wolf prophecy? While some admit (Gen. 49:27) is about Paul, and spin
the divide the spoils aspect of the prophecy favorably toward Paul as
a good deed, 4 the leading commentators take an entirely different
approach. Gill, for example, adopts the ancient Jewish explanation of
this prophecy of the latter days. Because Benjamin’s territory was
this prophecy of the latter days. Because Benjamin's territory was
where the Temple was located, it was said the offering of the morning
and evening sacrifice fell to his lot, i.e ., territory. 5 Thus, this
verse was supposedly intended to be talking about Benjamin’s indirect
verse was supposedly intended to be talking about Benjamin's indirect
role in the killing the sacrifice in the morning and evening. The
performance of the sacrifices, of course, are positive God-serving
actions if attributable to Benjamin’s actions. Thus, rather than a
actions if attributable to Benjamin's actions. Thus, rather than a
ravening wolf being an evil beast who attacks innocent sheep, modern
Christian commentators say Benjamin was being complimented for
possessing wolf-like “fortitude, courage, and valour.” (Gill.)
possessing wolf-like "fortitude, courage, and valour." (Gill.)
Gill ignores many key flaws in this application. First, the role of
Benjamin’s tribe in the killing was entirely passive, i.e., its
Benjamin's tribe in the killing was entirely passive, i.e., its
territory was ceded to help locate the temple where sacrifices later
took place. This passive role cannot evince any kind of courage or
valour. It is a poor solution.
@ -189,10 +189,10 @@ valour. It is a poor solution.
http://cgg.org/index.cfm/page/literature.showResource/CT/ARTB/k/1007 (last accessed 8/19/05).
5. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (1909) Vol.2 Part VIII;
Gill ("the temple which stood in the lot of Benjamin”). This rationale
Gill ("the temple which stood in the lot of Benjamin"). This rationale
to apply the prophecy to a role for the tribe of Benjamin in the
sacrifices is extremely weak. Just because the Temple apparently
occupied part of Benjamin’s territory does not mean that the morning
occupied part of Benjamin's territory does not mean that the morning
and evening sacrifice was this tribe s responsibility. The duty of
performing the sacrifice belonged to the Levites. It is a stretch of
the wildest proportions to say a Benjamite in latter days would kill
@ -205,16 +205,16 @@ More important, Gill ignores the context of the passage itself. The
word prey, raveneth, wolf, spoils, etc., all are forebodings of evil
acts, not courageous valor in good deeds. A ravening wolf is a wolf
that is prowling and eating voraciously. Furthermore, the sacrificed
animals in the temple are hardly prey. Also, technically, Benjamin’s
animals in the temple are hardly prey. Also, technically, Benjamin's
land-lot was used to kill the sacrifice in both the morning and
evening. However, if prey means sacrifice, this prophecy was about
killing prey only in the morning. Thus, it is incongruous to read this
prophecy to be about Benjamin’s land-lot being used in the evening and
prophecy to be about Benjamin's land-lot being used in the evening and
morning sacrifice.
Furthermore, Gill also overlooked the motivation behind these Targum
explanations. The other tribes were probably mystified why their
father Jacob warned them about Benjamin’s tribe in the latter
father Jacob warned them about Benjamin's tribe in the latter
days. Gill fails to realize the Hebrew scholars who wrote the ancient
Targums were engaged in good politics. The other eleven tribes were
reassuring Benjamin that he was trusted. What else could they say to
@ -222,20 +222,20 @@ keep peace?
As a result, we are not beholden to that ancient polite resolution of this latter days prophecy. We now can see the clear fulfillment of this prophecy in the deeds of Paul.
Gill Also Overlooks the Bible’s Portrayal Later of the Tribe of Benjamin
Gill Also Overlooks the Bible's Portrayal Later of the Tribe of Benjamin
The Bible also gives us later an adequate depiction of the tribe of Benjamin and its members so that it is impossible to believe (Gen. 49:27) was meant at all positively. It was a portent of gloomy evil by the Benjamites. The Bible has utterly unflattering stories about the Benjamites.
First, at the same time the tribe of Benjamin’s territory served its
First, at the same time the tribe of Benjamin's territory served its
supposedly noble role in the morning/evening sacrifice, the Benjamites
were fighting a war against the other eleven tribes. In two days, the
Benjamites killed 40,000 members of the other tribes. However, the
Benjamites were later lured into leaving their city, and lost their
war. The tribe of Benjamin was virtually annihilated. (Judges
chs. 19-21). In this episode, there is a particularly distasteful
event. The men of Gibeah were Benjamites who the Bible describes as “a
perverse lot.” They cruelly tried to abuse a visitor and then they
raped an old man’s concubine. ((Judg. 19:14), 22, 25.)
event. The men of Gibeah were Benjamites who the Bible describes as "a
perverse lot." They cruelly tried to abuse a visitor and then they
raped an old man's concubine. ((Judg. 19:14), 22, 25.)
Certainly, to this point in the Bible, the Benjamites are depicted as
quite evil and even as anti-Israelites.
@ -245,44 +245,44 @@ negative portrayal of Benjamites. This story also has uncanny
parallels to Saul-Paul.
The Bible tells us King Saul was a Benjamite. (1 Sam. 9:21). He is at
one point an inspired true prophet, given a “new heart”—you could even
one point an inspired true prophet, given a "new heart"-you could even
say born again. (1 Sam. 10:910). Yet, later King Saul pursued the man
named David to kill him. Saul did so despite knowing God decided David
would replace Saul as King. (1 Sam. 18:8-10; 19:10.) Saul became so
depraved that he wanted to kill his own son Jonathan because of his
loyalty to David. (1 Sam. 20: 30-34.) Thus, Saul is an example of a
true prophet from the tribe of Benjamin who later turned false by
virtue of defying God’s anointed ( messhiach ). 6 Unfortunately, Saul
virtue of defying God's anointed ( messhiach ). 6 Unfortunately, Saul
also would not be the last Saul from the tribe of Benjamin to begin
apparently as a true prophet but who later defied the messhiach.
Incidentally, it is reassuring to remember that Saul, the Benjamite,
did not triumph over the house of David. Eventually David took the
throne from Saul. Initially, King Saul would not yield the throne to
the House of David despite Saul prophetically knowing God’s will to
the House of David despite Saul prophetically knowing God's will to
choose David. Saul made a desperate stand to hold onto raw power even
after he realized he lacked God’s true blessing. Nevertheless, the
after he realized he lacked God's true blessing. Nevertheless, the
House of David eventually triumphed anyway over the Benjamite
Saul. ((1Sam. 9:1-2); 10:1; 15:10, 30, 16:1.)
6. Kings in those days were anointed with oil. The word anointed was
messhiach. Thus, King David sometimes refers to himself as
messhiach—anointed one. In Daniel, this title took on the
messhiach-anointed one. In Daniel, this title took on the
characteristic of a future world ruler.
Thus, if Pauline Christians are the modern followers of the Benjamite
wolf, then we know they are resisting following Jesus’ words just like
wolf, then we know they are resisting following Jesus' words just like
King Saul resisted letting David have the throne. Despite all their
efforts to kill off Jesus’ words by means of strained interpretations
of various dispensations, God’s anointed from the House of David will
efforts to kill off Jesus' words by means of strained interpretations
of various dispensations, God's anointed from the House of David will
eventually triumph.
Regardless whether King Saul’s story was intended to serve as such a
Regardless whether King Saul's story was intended to serve as such a
parable, we can see in King Saul another Benjamite whose actions were
evil in the last analysis. Prior to Paul’s arrival, the Bible never
evil in the last analysis. Prior to Paul's arrival, the Bible never
depicts the Benjamite tribe as doing any good. Instead, the Bible
portrays this tribe and its members as fighting the rest of Israel and
God’s anointed from the House of David. Thus, Gill’s notion that
God's anointed from the House of David. Thus, Gill's notion that
(Gen. 49:27) was intended to compliment the valor of the Benjamites is
completely baseless. It is solely a verse portending gloomy evil by
members of this tribe, of which the Bible documents every step of the

88
JWO_14_02_EzekielsWarningAbouttheRaveningWolves_0074.md

@ -3,15 +3,15 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Ezekiel s Warning About the Ravening Wolves
Jesus said we would know the false prophets who are ravening wolves in
sheep’s clothing by their “deeds.” (Matt. 7:16.)
sheep's clothing by their "deeds." (Matt. 7:16.)
How could we know who the wolf is by their deeds ? Does this mean
their deeds are merely wicked? Or does it mean their deeds are
precisely described elsewhere in Scripture so you could not possibly
mistake who are the wolves in sheep s clothing ? In light of Ezekiel’s
mistake who are the wolves in sheep s clothing ? In light of Ezekiel's
description of the ravening wolves, it is likely the latter. God made
a highly specific description of the deeds of the ravening wolves so
we would “know them by their deeds.” (Matt. 7:16.)
we would "know them by their deeds." (Matt. 7:16.)
The picture in Ezekiel chapter 22 of the time of the ravening wolves
is startling in its parallel to Paul and Pauline Christianity. This
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ description tells us what God thinks about the descent of Christianity
into church-going that disregards the true Sabbath and the Law,
dismisses the teachings of Jesus as belonging to a by-gone
dispensation, and instead follows Paul because he claims a vision and
boldly claimed to speak in the Lord’s name. Ezekiel described the time
boldly claimed to speak in the Lord's name. Ezekiel described the time
of the ravening wolves in an uncanny parallel to Paulinism:
Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my
@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ of the ravening wolves in an uncanny parallel to Paulinism:
destroy it; but I found none . (Ezek. 22:30)(ASV)
Thus, those leading the people are ravening wolves. They are called
the princes (leaders) in the people’s eyes. They are buttressed by
the princes (leaders) in the people's eyes. They are buttressed by
those having false visions and claims to have the right to speak in
the name of the Lord. Their leaders seduce the people from following
the Law. They teach them they are free to ignore the true Saturday
@ -62,33 +62,33 @@ speaking directly from the Lord. ( E.g ., 1Cor. 14:37; 1Tim. 2:11; 1
Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess.4:1-2,8; 1 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 4:17. cf. 1Cor. 7:25,
40.)
Second, Paul’s view that the Law is entirely abrogated is
Second, Paul's view that the Law is entirely abrogated is
well-established. (2Cor. 2:14; Gal. 5:1; Rom. 10:4; 2Cor. 3:7;
Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 3:27; Rom. 4:15; 2Cor. 3:9; Gal. 2:16;
Gal. 3:21; Col. 2:14). 8
7. This point in 22:30 destroys the Paulunists’ claim that the
7. This point in 22:30 destroys the Paulunists' claim that the
sovereignty of God would prevent such apostasy. Paulunists cannot
imagine apostasy by nearly everyone would be tolerated by God. Thus,
they reason that our last four-hundred years of emphasis on Paul is
proof that God predestines such an emphasis. This assumption, however,
is fed by a circular deduction from Paul’s false teaching about
is fed by a circular deduction from Paul's false teaching about
predestination. (On proof of its falsity, see page 432 and page 504.)
God repeatedly shows, however, that wholesale apostasy is possible. He
does nothing to stop it short of warnings in Scripture that He expects
us to read!
8. “Did Paul Negate the Law’s Further Applicability?” on page 73.
8. "Did Paul Negate the Law's Further Applicability?" on page 73.
Third, Paul’s view that we are free to ignore the Saturday Sabbath or
Third, Paul's view that we are free to ignore the Saturday Sabbath or
any Sabbath-principle is undeniable. (Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:14-16.) 9
(Paul’s followers typically behave like Jeroboam who offended God by
moving God’s set day to a “day he invented in his heart.”
(Paul's followers typically behave like Jeroboam who offended God by
moving God's set day to a "day he invented in his heart."
((1Kgs. 12:33) RV.)) 10
Fourth, Paul’s view that we are free to eat any food we like,
Fourth, Paul's view that we are free to eat any food we like,
including eat meat sacrificed to idols, is likewise plain. (1
Tim. 4:4, ‘all food is clean’; (Rom. 4:2).) n Paul taught we only
Tim. 4:4, 'all food is clean'; (Rom. 4:2).) n Paul taught we only
refrain from eating idol meat when others are encouraged to do what
they believe is wrong even though we know such food is clean. (Romans
14:21; (1Cor. 8:4) 13, and (1Cor. 10:19-29).) 12
@ -105,20 +105,20 @@ because they are unemployed and they do not pass a Pauline-inspired
interview about their willingness to work for it? This work
requirement sometimes will stall the urgent help that a poor person
has for food. Nowhere in Hebrew Scripture is there any such barrier to
God’s command that you are to feed the poor. In fact, Scripture
God's command that you are to feed the poor. In fact, Scripture
specifically intends for us to generously provide food for the poor to
eat even if we have no idea whether they are willing to work. Thus,
Paul’s principle that if any will not work, neither let him eat has
Paul's principle that if any will not work, neither let him eat has
served as a punitive vexation on poor people by Christians who follow
Paul’s dictum. (Many Christians, of course, do not follow Paul’s
dictum, and follow instead the Bible’s rule of open-handed provision
Paul's dictum. (Many Christians, of course, do not follow Paul's
dictum, and follow instead the Bible's rule of open-handed provision
of food to the poor.)
9. See page 75 etseq.
10. For further discussion on this passage, see page xxvi of Appendix C.
11. Some claim Jesus taught all kosher food laws in the Law of Moses are abrogated. They base this on the account in (Mark 7:2) et seq. However, it is a misreading to say Jesus abrogated the laws of kosher foods. First, Jesus is discussing the Rabbinic tradition that food was unclean if you did not ritually wash your hands first. (Mark 7:2,4, 5.) Jesus’ disciples ate without ritual washing of their hands. Jesus’ point then is to show the Pharisees that they make up rules that (a) are not in the Bible and (b) which make of none effect what the Bible does teach. (Mark 7:713). Jesus so far is tightening the reigns of the Law, not loosening them. Then Jesus says “nothing without the man that going into him can defile him.” (Mark 7:15; cf. Matt. 15:11). If it defiles you, Jesus means it makes you a sinner. This does appear to reach as far as the question of non-kosher foods. What Jesus is saying, however, is that food laws, even the valid kosher laws, are health rules of what is “clean” and “unclean.” They are not rules if violated make you a sinner. Jesus was trying to give the rationale of God behind the food laws so we would know how to interpret them. The food laws are good for your health. Thus, if you violate these rules, you are not thereby a sinner. God does not want to hear prayers of repentance over violating food laws. (The idol-meat rule, however, implicates moral wrong; it was not part of the clean-unclean food laws.) Thus, a Rabbinic rule on handwashing, even if valid, could not taint you morally if you happen to violate it. What corroborates Jesus did not intend to abrogate kosher is that while Jesus’ disciples ignored the hand-washing rule for clean foods created by Rabbis, his disciples always ate kosher. In Acts 10:14, when Peter in a dream is presented non-kosher foods to eat, “Peter said. Not so, Lord; for 1 have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.” This tells us indirectly that Jesus ate kosher. The dream story incidentally was simply God’s message to Peter to regard Gentiles as clean and disregard the Rabbinic teaching that Gentiles were unclean. There is not the slightest hint the food laws were abrogated. If either Jesus or Peter teach against the food laws, then they are implicated as apostates under Deut. 13:1-5. One must tread carefully when they try to prove Jesus or his true apostles abrogated any portion of the Law given Moses — a Law “eternal for all generations.” (Ex. 27:21.)
11. Some claim Jesus taught all kosher food laws in the Law of Moses are abrogated. They base this on the account in (Mark 7:2) et seq. However, it is a misreading to say Jesus abrogated the laws of kosher foods. First, Jesus is discussing the Rabbinic tradition that food was unclean if you did not ritually wash your hands first. (Mark 7:2,4, 5.) Jesus' disciples ate without ritual washing of their hands. Jesus' point then is to show the Pharisees that they make up rules that (a) are not in the Bible and (b) which make of none effect what the Bible does teach. (Mark 7:713). Jesus so far is tightening the reigns of the Law, not loosening them. Then Jesus says "nothing without the man that going into him can defile him." (Mark 7:15; cf. Matt. 15:11). If it defiles you, Jesus means it makes you a sinner. This does appear to reach as far as the question of non-kosher foods. What Jesus is saying, however, is that food laws, even the valid kosher laws, are health rules of what is "clean" and "unclean." They are not rules if violated make you a sinner. Jesus was trying to give the rationale of God behind the food laws so we would know how to interpret them. The food laws are good for your health. Thus, if you violate these rules, you are not thereby a sinner. God does not want to hear prayers of repentance over violating food laws. (The idol-meat rule, however, implicates moral wrong; it was not part of the clean-unclean food laws.) Thus, a Rabbinic rule on handwashing, even if valid, could not taint you morally if you happen to violate it. What corroborates Jesus did not intend to abrogate kosher is that while Jesus' disciples ignored the hand-washing rule for clean foods created by Rabbis, his disciples always ate kosher. In Acts 10:14, when Peter in a dream is presented non-kosher foods to eat, "Peter said. Not so, Lord; for 1 have never eaten anything that is common and unclean." This tells us indirectly that Jesus ate kosher. The dream story incidentally was simply God's message to Peter to regard Gentiles as clean and disregard the Rabbinic teaching that Gentiles were unclean. There is not the slightest hint the food laws were abrogated. If either Jesus or Peter teach against the food laws, then they are implicated as apostates under Deut. 13:1-5. One must tread carefully when they try to prove Jesus or his true apostles abrogated any portion of the Law given Moses - a Law "eternal for all generations." (Ex. 27:21.)
Alternatively, we also now realize the early church at Jerusalem was
known as the Poor which would be, as an Hebraism, the name
@ -132,33 +132,33 @@ in Crete are liars, he forever slurred a whole nation of people. To be
born a Cretan became synonymous with being bom a liar, thanks to
Paul. This is what Paul wrote:
One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, “Cretans are
always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true
One of themselves, a prophet of their own said, "Cretans are
always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true
(Titus 1:12).
Besides slandering all Cretans, Paul in another passage also slandered
all Jews. He first labelled them as foreigners and then said they are
enemies of all mankind. Let’s review this with care.
enemies of all mankind. Let's review this with care.
One might at first think Jews cannot be viewed as foreigners in
Judea. However, Paul in Galatians chapter 4 redefines Jews as
foreigners in Judea. How did he do this? In our prior discussion, we
saw how Paul said the Jews of Jerusalem no longer correspond to the
sons of Abraham and Sarah. Instead they are now seen as Ishmael—the
son of Abraham and Hagar. (Gal. 4:22-31). Paul then says “cast out the
handmaiden.” This means Hagar and her children. In effect, Paul is
sons of Abraham and Sarah. Instead they are now seen as Ishmael-the
son of Abraham and Hagar. (Gal. 4:22-31). Paul then says "cast out the
handmaiden." This means Hagar and her children. In effect, Paul is
saying the Jews in Jerusalem no longer hold the rightful position as
owners of the land of Israel. They are Ishmaelites and foreigners to
the covenant promise that gives them the right to the Land of Israel.
12.See “Paul Contradicts Jesus About tdol Meat” on page 117.
12.See "Paul Contradicts Jesus About tdol Meat" on page 117.
13.(Exod. 23:11) says “but the seventh year thou shalt let it [your land] rest and lie fallow; that the poor of thy people may eat. and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat.” The field owner was also not supposed to glean the field in ordinary harvests but leave the “fallen fruit” for the “poor and sojourner.” (Lev. 19:10). Thus, Scripture always depicts food being provided to the poor without Minutemen standing at the border of the farm to be sure the poor are willing to work for the food they picked up from the orchard. The proof that Paul has affected the poor negatively is there is no custom among Christians for the last 2,000 years to comply with Exodus 23:11 or (Lev. 19:10).
13.(Exod. 23:11) says "but the seventh year thou shalt let it [your land] rest and lie fallow; that the poor of thy people may eat. and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat." The field owner was also not supposed to glean the field in ordinary harvests but leave the "fallen fruit" for the "poor and sojourner." (Lev. 19:10). Thus, Scripture always depicts food being provided to the poor without Minutemen standing at the border of the farm to be sure the poor are willing to work for the food they picked up from the orchard. The proof that Paul has affected the poor negatively is there is no custom among Christians for the last 2,000 years to comply with Exodus 23:11 or (Lev. 19:10).
Second, after labelling Jews, in effect, as foreigners in Israel, Paul
denigrates their entire race. Paul wrote “the Jews...both killed the
denigrates their entire race. Paul wrote "the Jews...both killed the
Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God
and are the enemies of the whole human race.” ((1Thess. 2:14-16).)
and are the enemies of the whole human race." ((1Thess. 2:14-16).)
The Greek in this verse means Jews oppose face-toface every human
being on earth. The various versions hold the essential meaning in
@ -173,13 +173,13 @@ tact:
all men: (ITh 2:14-15)(KJV)
According to James, a different group is responsible for the death of
Jesus: “Go now, ye rich men, weep and howl for the miseries that shall
Jesus: "Go now, ye rich men, weep and howl for the miseries that shall
come upon you.... Ye have condemned and killed the just [one]; and he
doth not resist you.” ((Jas. 5:5-6).)
doth not resist you." ((Jas. 5:5-6).)
Regardless of Paul’s accuracy on who killed Jesus, Paul redefines Jews
Regardless of Paul's accuracy on who killed Jesus, Paul redefines Jews
to be foreigners in Judea, equivalent to Ishmaelite sons of Hagar. He
then denigrates Jews as the enemies of the entire human race. Paul’s
then denigrates Jews as the enemies of the entire human race. Paul's
words of denigration aimed at Jews later inspired Martin Luther in
Gennany to promulgate a doctrine of harassment of the Jewish people
who were by then foreigners in Germany.
@ -191,29 +191,29 @@ Martin Luther did. Shirer writes:
It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German
Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two
things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. [At this
point, Shirer writes in a footnote “To avoid any misunderstanding,
point, Shirer writes in a footnote "To avoid any misunderstanding,
it might be well to point out here that the author is a
Protestant.”] The great founder of Protestantism was both a
Protestant."] The great founder of Protestantism was both a
passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute
obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the
Jews and when they were sent away he advised that they be deprived
of ‘All their cash and jewels and silver and gold” and
furthermore, “that their synagogues or schools be set on fire,
of 'All their cash and jewels and silver and gold" and
furthermore, "that their synagogues or schools be set on fire,
that their houses be broken up and destroyed... and that they be
put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies... in misery and
captivity as they incessantly lament and complain to God about
us”—advice that was literally followed four centuries later by
us"-advice that was literally followed four centuries later by
Hitler, Goering, and Himmler.
Paul’s words about Jews, when taken literally by his pupil Martin
Paul's words about Jews, when taken literally by his pupil Martin
Luther, bore their inevitable fruit: the oppression of the foreigner
including God’s special people—the Jews.
including God's special people-the Jews.
### How Ezekiel’s Depiction of the Deeds of Wolves Identifies Paul
### How Ezekiel's Depiction of the Deeds of Wolves Identifies Paul
Thus, we can see how the Ezekiel description of ravening wolves fits
precisely Paul and his followers. They did violence to the Law by
attributing it to angels who ‘are no gods.’ They taught we are free to
attributing it to angels who 'are no gods.' They taught we are free to
disregard the Sabbath Law entirely. They tore away all food laws,
including the laws on eating meat sacrificed to idols. They vexed the
poor with the necessity that they must be willing to work for
@ -225,10 +225,10 @@ as well as enemies of all mankind. Centuries later Martin Luther of
Germany, inspired directly by Paul, outlined a plan of denigration of
Jews. By that time, Jews were in fact foreigners in Germany. Pauline
Christianity thereby inspired wicked men in our recent memory to
follow Luther’s plan to utterly oppress the Jews as foreigners.
follow Luther's plan to utterly oppress the Jews as foreigners.
Hence, Paul and Pauline Christianity satisfies every criteria for
Ezekiel’s depiction of the ravening wolves. So when Jesus tells us
Ezekiel's depiction of the ravening wolves. So when Jesus tells us
about wolves in sheep s clothing in (Matt. 7:15) and then says we will
know them by their deeds in Matthew 7:16, Ezekiel chapter 22 tells us
precisely what deeds mark the time of the ravening wolves. Those deeds

4
JWO_14_03_Conclusion_0075.md

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Conclusion
Let’s now pull all these Biblical references together, and see if the
Let's now pull all these Biblical references together, and see if the
Bible identifies Paul as the Benjamite wolf.
Table captionTABLE 8. Who is the Benjamite Wolf?
@ -13,4 +13,4 @@ Table captionTABLE 8. Who is the Benjamite Wolf?
| Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:14-16 |
| 2Cor. 2:14; Gal. 5:1; Rom. 7:1 et seq.;
![Picture #77}}\\{{images/img_0078.png|Picture #78}}\\{{images/img_0079.png|Picture #79}}\\{{images/img_0080.png|Picture #80}}\\Conclusion\\do violence to the Law, teaching it was pennissible to disregard Sabbath and to disregard the food laws on unclean food—all of which we find precise fulfillment in the postconversion letters of Paul.\\When this mass of evidence is assembled as clearly as it is above, Paul must be the target of these prophecies. What we have done in the name of Christ to the teachings of Jesus in reliance on the Benjamite wolf warrant our expulsion from the kingdom. (Pray for mercy.) It is not merely that we have followed a false prophet from the tribe of Benjamin. (We should have known better because he first killed us and then divided us Gentiles from the mother-church.) Rather, what is so deplorable is we even followed the wolf’s teachings when they contradicted the words of Jesus whom we claim is our Lord. It is astonishing, frankly, how we ever rationalized this behavior: claiming the name Christian but refusing to follow teachings of Jesus when we realize Jesus is incompatible with Paul such as:\\Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments [of the Law of Moses], and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:19]\\All we can do now is repent and obey.\\“The world is filled with millions of people who think they are headed for heaven—but they are deadly wrong. Probably most people think heaven awaits them, but it doesn’t. But what is especially sad, is that many of those people sit in evangelical churches misinformed.”\\John MacArthur, Hard to Believe{{images/img_0081.png|Picture #81](images/img_0077.png)\\Who is the Benjamite Wolf in Prophecy? |
![Picture #77}}\\{{images/img_0078.png|Picture #78}}\\{{images/img_0079.png|Picture #79}}\\{{images/img_0080.png|Picture #80}}\\Conclusion\\do violence to the Law, teaching it was pennissible to disregard Sabbath and to disregard the food laws on unclean food-all of which we find precise fulfillment in the postconversion letters of Paul.\\When this mass of evidence is assembled as clearly as it is above, Paul must be the target of these prophecies. What we have done in the name of Christ to the teachings of Jesus in reliance on the Benjamite wolf warrant our expulsion from the kingdom. (Pray for mercy.) It is not merely that we have followed a false prophet from the tribe of Benjamin. (We should have known better because he first killed us and then divided us Gentiles from the mother-church.) Rather, what is so deplorable is we even followed the wolf's teachings when they contradicted the words of Jesus whom we claim is our Lord. It is astonishing, frankly, how we ever rationalized this behavior: claiming the name Christian but refusing to follow teachings of Jesus when we realize Jesus is incompatible with Paul such as:\\Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments [of the Law of Moses], and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:19]\\All we can do now is repent and obey.\\"The world is filled with millions of people who think they are headed for heaven-but they are deadly wrong. Probably most people think heaven awaits them, but it doesn't. But what is especially sad, is that many of those people sit in evangelical churches misinformed."\\John MacArthur, Hard to Believe{{images/img_0081.png|Picture #81](images/img_0077.png)\\Who is the Benjamite Wolf in Prophecy? |

12
JWO_14_04_AnotherProphecyAimedAtPaul__0076.md

@ -6,21 +6,21 @@ TABLE 9. Do Not Follow The One Who Says The Time Is At Hand
Luke 21:8 Rom.l3:12
“Take heed that you are not led “the night is far gone, the day is at
"Take heed that you are not led "the night is far gone, the day is at
astray; for many will come in my hand [hemera eggiken ]”
astray; for many will come in my hand [hemera eggiken ]"
name, saying,... ‘ The time is at hand\ ’ [ho kairos eggiken ] Do not go after them.”
name, saying,... ' The time is at hand\ ' [ho kairos eggiken ] Do not go after them."
In addition to the Benjamite prophecy, it seems likely Jesus in Luke 21:8 additionally prophesied about Paul. Jesus warned us to beware of the one who would lead us astray. This deceiver would be a Christian preacher (“[he] will come in my name”) who would tell you the “time is at hand.” Those very words are in Paul’s mouth in (Rom. 13:12), warning us “the day is at hand.” The prophecy of a “time” is inclusive of the word day. Thus, Paul’s phrase matches Jesus’ prophecy exactly. This allows us to deduce that Paul (and Paul alone) is the Christian preacher who fits Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21:8.
In addition to the Benjamite prophecy, it seems likely Jesus in Luke 21:8 additionally prophesied about Paul. Jesus warned us to beware of the one who would lead us astray. This deceiver would be a Christian preacher ("[he] will come in my name") who would tell you the "time is at hand." Those very words are in Paul's mouth in (Rom. 13:12), warning us "the day is at hand." The prophecy of a "time" is inclusive of the word day. Thus, Paul's phrase matches Jesus' prophecy exactly. This allows us to deduce that Paul (and Paul alone) is the Christian preacher who fits Jesus' prophecy in Luke 21:8.
To repeat, what Jesus said would be the identifying mark of the deceiver was he will say “the time is at hand.” Paul precisely matches this, saying “the day is at hand,” in exactly identical Greek. Thereby, Jesus tells us Paul is one who comes in Jesus’ name to “lead [you] astray.” Jesus’ warning was “do not go after them.”
To repeat, what Jesus said would be the identifying mark of the deceiver was he will say "the time is at hand." Paul precisely matches this, saying "the day is at hand," in exactly identical Greek. Thereby, Jesus tells us Paul is one who comes in Jesus' name to "lead [you] astray." Jesus' warning was "do not go after them."
Will we obey Jesus?
One Big Surprise
“In (Matt. 7:21-23), the Lord described the selfdeception that comes from a mere verbal profession of faith.. ..Jesus made strong demands of those who desired to enter the kingdom that can be summed up in one word: righteousness. [Matt. 5:20, your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.]...This is an important issue, because I am convinced that the visible church today is literally jammed full of people who aren’t Christians but don’t know it.... [[Judgment is going to be one big surprise.”
"In (Matt. 7:21-23), the Lord described the selfdeception that comes from a mere verbal profession of faith.. ..Jesus made strong demands of those who desired to enter the kingdom that can be summed up in one word: righteousness. [Matt. 5:20, your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.]...This is an important issue, because I am convinced that the visible church today is literally jammed full of people who aren't Christians but don't know it.... [[Judgment is going to be one big surprise."
John MacArthur, Hard to Believe

132
JWO_15_01_DoesJesusEndupMarginalizedToMakeRoomForPaul__0077.md

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ In 144 A.D., Marcion, a defrocked bishop, claimed that only Paul had
the true gospel. Marcion insisted the twelve apostles, including
Matthew and John, were legalistic. Marcion claimed they did not have
the true gospel of grace of Paul. Marcion adopted as the sole correct
narrative of Jesus’ life an account similar to Luke’s gospel. However,
narrative of Jesus' life an account similar to Luke's gospel. However,
it omitted the first three chapters and had several other
omissions. (Appendix B: How the Gospel Was Formed at page ix et seq .)
@ -16,22 +16,22 @@ As Marcionism spread throughout the Roman Empire, and had its own
churches and liturgy, the apostolic church rose up to fight Marcionism
as heresy. The key spokesperson of the early church was Tertullian of
Carthage, North Africa. In about 207 A.D., Tertullian wrote Against
Marcion. He reminded everyone that Paul’s authority was subordinate to
Marcion. He reminded everyone that Paul's authority was subordinate to
the twelve apostles. Tertullian insisted Paul could not be valid if he
contradicted the twelve or Jesus. Tertullian even noted that if we
were being scrupulous, we must note that there is no evidence except
from Paul’s own mouth that Jesus made him an apostle. I know it today
from Paul's own mouth that Jesus made him an apostle. I know it today
did not take hold until after 325 A.D.)
Where did Marcion go wrong? Rather than re-evaluate Paul because of
the contradictions with the gospel accounts, Marcion assumed Paul had
the greater insight. As E.H. Broadbent in The Pilgrim Church concludes:
Marcion’s errors were the inevitable result of his accepting only
Marcion's errors were the inevitable result of his accepting only
what pleased him and rejecting the rest. 2
Marcionism once more has crept into the church. It has done so with
stealth and cunning. We must go back to Tertullian’s sage advice from
stealth and cunning. We must go back to Tertullian's sage advice from
207 A.D. It is Paul who must fit into the words of Christ in the
Gospels. It is not the Gospel accounts which must be truncated to fit
the words of Paul.
@ -39,56 +39,56 @@ the words of Paul.
2. E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke)
did not contain the pure gospel. Paul and the Gospel of John instead
were all that you needed to know about the true gospel. Luther wrote
in 1522 that Paul and John’s Gospel ‘ far surpass the other three
Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. ” Paul and John’s Gospel are 'all
in 1522 that Paul and John's Gospel ' far surpass the other three
Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. " Paul and John's Gospel are 'all
that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you never see
or hear any other book or doctrine.’’ Luther also wrote even more
or hear any other book or doctrine.'' Luther also wrote even more
bluntly elsewhere that Paul had the truer gospel than what is
presented in the Synoptics:
Those Apostles who treat oftenest and highest of how faith alone
justifies, are the best Evangelists. Therefore St. Paul’s Epistles are
justifies, are the best Evangelists. Therefore St. Paul's Epistles are
more a Gospel than Matthew, Mark and Luke. For these [Matthew, Mark
and Luke] do not set down much more than the works and miracles of
Christ; but the grace which we receive through Christ no one so boldly
extols as Paul, especially in his letter to the Romans. 4
Thus, Luther like Marcion knew there was something different in the
Synoptics. He did not acknowledge Jesus contradicted Paul’s
doctrine. Yet, if Paul’s doctrine were true, then why would the
Synoptics. He did not acknowledge Jesus contradicted Paul's
doctrine. Yet, if Paul's doctrine were true, then why would the
Synoptics omit it? If Paul and the Synoptic-Jesus taught the same
thing, then why do Luther and Marcion insist the truer gospel is in
Paul’s writings?
Paul's writings?
3. Martin Luther, “Preface to the New Testament [1522],” Works of
3. Martin Luther, "Preface to the New Testament [1522]," Works of
Martin Luther:The Philadelphia Edition (trans. C.M. Jacobs) (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982) Vol. 6 at 439-444.
4. Martin Luther, quoted in G.F. Moore, History’ of Religion
(Scribners: 1920) at 320. As Bainton says: “That this doctrine [i.e.,
4. Martin Luther, quoted in G.F. Moore, History' of Religion
(Scribners: 1920) at 320. As Bainton says: "That this doctrine [i.e.,
faith alone] is not enunciated with equal emphasis throughout the New
Testament and appears denied in the Book of James did not escape
Luther.” (R. Bainton, Here I Stand, supra, 5 Yet, in Revelation Jesus
Luther." (R. Bainton, Here I Stand, supra, 5 Yet, in Revelation Jesus
is talking much of the time.
Also, Apostle John is certainly the human hand involved. 6
Luther’s reason for rejecting the Book of Revelation is easy to
Luther's reason for rejecting the Book of Revelation is easy to
deduce. Numerous Pauline thinkers have recognized the anti-Pauline
emphasis on salvation by faith and works in Revelation. This is highly
dangerous to their Pauline doctrine because Jesus’ message was freshly
dangerous to their Pauline doctrine because Jesus' message was freshly
delivered after Paul died. For that reason, modern Paulunists urge the
rejection of Revelation as inspired canon. (See page 182 et seq .) It
thus takes little to realize what caused Luther to reject the Book of
Revelation. Christ was present in Revelation, but it is not the Christ
of Paul.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book.”
and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book."
(Rev. 22:19), KJV
5. Martin Luther, “Preface to the New Testament [1522],” Works of
5. Martin Luther, "Preface to the New Testament [1522]," Works of
Martin Luther: The Philadelphia Edition (trans. C.M. Jacobs) (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982) Vol. 6 at 439-444 (or 1932 edition at
488-89.) See The Canonicity of the Book of Revelation (2005),
@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ available online at www.jesuswordsalone.com.
6. Papias (ca. 100 A.D.), Bishop of Hieropolis, is the one witness who
unquestionably was an associate of Apostle John. In an ancient text,
Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, which Eusebius frequently
cites, we learn in section VIII: “With regard to the inspiration of
cites, we learn in section VIII: "With regard to the inspiration of
the book (Revelation), we deem it superfluous to add another word; for
the blessed Gregory Theologus and Cyril, and even men of still older
date, Papias
@ -106,124 +106,124 @@ date, Papias
### Luther Marginalizes The Synoptic Gospels In Preference for Paul
This is corroborated by the fact Luther also concluded James’ Epistle
was uninspired. Luther freely admitted James’ Epistle contradicted
This is corroborated by the fact Luther also concluded James' Epistle
was uninspired. Luther freely admitted James' Epistle contradicted
Paul on the same point that Jesus in Revelation contradicts Paul:
James and Jesus in Revelation reject faith alone as the appropriate
salvation formula.
As a result of Luther’s view, the Synoptics ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark,
As a result of Luther's view, the Synoptics ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark,
and Luke), Revelation, and James were effectively put on the shelf by
the Refonnation’s founder. These New Testament writings were too far
the Refonnation's founder. These New Testament writings were too far
afield of Paul to be given 100% validity on par with Paul.
Thus, we can see the banner of Sola Scriptura had quickly degraded
into Only the Scripture that Fits Paul. Daniel Fuller correctly faults
Luther’s approach:
Luther's approach:
But when he set up his understanding of justification by faith as
the basis for suppressing such books us the Synoptic Gospels,
Hebrews, and James, he then made it impossible for these books to
deepen or improve his understanding of this doctrine. 8
Because Luther was blatantly marginalizing Jesus’ words in the New
Because Luther was blatantly marginalizing Jesus' words in the New
Testament, the Sola Scriptura banner was quickly being taken down. In
its place the reformed congregations re-established the banner of
‘approved’ church doctrine. This meant de facto that Paul’s doctrines
must triumph. Even though Jesus’ words conflicted with Paul, Paul’s
words trumped Jesus’ words every time.
'approved' church doctrine. This meant de facto that Paul's doctrines
must triumph. Even though Jesus' words conflicted with Paul, Paul's
words trumped Jesus' words every time.
This approach led eventually to an explicit abandonment of Sola
Scriptura. The reformers quickly turned to Catechisms to give the
right spin to things. Matthaeus Flacius (a Lutheran) said in his Key
to the Scriptures (1567)— the first hermeneutics book to emerge from
the Reformation—that:
to the Scriptures (1567)- the first hermeneutics book to emerge from
the Reformation-that:
7. See “Luther’s Admission of James’ Direct Conflict with Paul” on page 247.
7. See "Luther's Admission of James' Direct Conflict with Paul" on page 247.
8. Daniel Fuller, “Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith, ” Unity
8. Daniel Fuller, "Biblical Theology and the Analogy of Faith, " Unity
and Diversity in N. T. Theology. Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd
must be in agreement with all that the catechism declares or that is
taught by the articles of faith. 9
Fuller aptly criticizes this view. Flacius was urging Christians “to
Fuller aptly criticizes this view. Flacius was urging Christians "to
conform their language and thinking about a passage of scripture to an
a priori [/'. e ., a presupposed] understanding of what God’s Word
must be like.”
a priori [/'. e ., a presupposed] understanding of what God's Word
must be like."
By such illogic and violation of reformed principles of Sola
Scriptura, marginalization of Jesus became encrusted in official
refonned confessions. These writings were quickly put above Scripture.
They were put above challenge even if someone were quoting Jesus’ words.
They were put above challenge even if someone were quoting Jesus' words.
The effort by Luther, Calvin and certain Protestant catechisms to
marginalize Jesus’ words, giving preference to Paul, have now reaped
marginalize Jesus' words, giving preference to Paul, have now reaped
their logical conclusion. Some put it bluntly: we cannot any longer
view the four gospels as truly part of the New Testament—they reflect
all ‘Old Testament’ principles. As one sincere Paulunist, Dr. Russ
view the four gospels as truly part of the New Testament-they reflect
all 'Old Testament' principles. As one sincere Paulunist, Dr. Russ
Kelly, put it:
Even though uninspired persons designated the four Gospels as ‘New
Testament’ books, most thinking Christians realize that, in
Even though uninspired persons designated the four Gospels as 'New
Testament' books, most thinking Christians realize that, in
reality, the New Covenant did not begin until the very moment
Christ died on Calvary. The blood of Christ, the blood of the New
Covenant, or testament, sealed and ratified the New Covenant and
ended the Old Covenant, or Mosaic Law once for all time.
9. Kemmel, History of Investigation, supra, i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not convey a gospel of salvation by faith alone. It is a very different gospel. See “What About Faith in the Synoptics?” on page 161.
9. Kemmel, History of Investigation, supra, i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not convey a gospel of salvation by faith alone. It is a very different gospel. See "What About Faith in the Synoptics?" on page 161.
However, Luther viewed John’s gospel as consistent with Paul. If the
verb tense for believes in John’s Gospel is translated to convey a
one-time faith for salvation, then John’s salvation message can sound
consistent with Paul. However, John’s true meaning was that one who
However, Luther viewed John's gospel as consistent with Paul. If the
verb tense for believes in John's Gospel is translated to convey a
one-time faith for salvation, then John's salvation message can sound
consistent with Paul. However, John's true meaning was that one who
continues to believe/trust should have eternal life. It was not a
one-time step of faith that should save, as we will soon
discuss. However, Luther’s conception of salvation could not easily
discuss. However, Luther's conception of salvation could not easily
incorporate the Greek progressive continuous tense which is in John
3:16. Why?
Because in the Gennan language, Luther could not express the Greek
continuous meaning. There is no Gennan verb form equivalent to the
Greek progressive tense, i.e., the Greek Present Active tense. The
Gennan language “has no progressive mood.” 10 Thus, due to a weakness
Gennan language "has no progressive mood." 10 Thus, due to a weakness
of the German language, Luther could not even unequivocally express a
progressive meaning —continues to believe. (The King James translators
progressive meaning -continues to believe. (The King James translators
in 1611 did a similar slight of hand to believing in
John 3:16). 11
However, the flaw in Luther’s translation is self-evident to anyone
who knows classical Greek. If John’s meaning had been a one-time
However, the flaw in Luther's translation is self-evident to anyone
who knows classical Greek. If John's meaning had been a one-time
belief saves you, the corresponding Greek tense should have been the
aorist for believes. was in the Greek form of the present participle
active. The meaning was a faith/trust that “continues” should save,
active. The meaning was a faith/trust that "continues" should save,
not that a one-time expression of faith saves. (For a discussion of
the Greek involved, see Appendix A: Greek Issues .)
Yet, Luther wanted John’s Gospel to fit Paul. Otherwise, there would
Yet, Luther wanted John's Gospel to fit Paul. Otherwise, there would
have been no consistency whatsoever between Paul and any of the four
gospel accounts. It may have been a subconscious bias. It may have
been simple error. Regardless, the Greek issues involved in
translating believe in John’s Gospel are rudimentary and beyond any
translating believe in John's Gospel are rudimentary and beyond any
dispute. The Greek present participle active in John 3:16 is
continuous in meaning. Had it meant a one-time faith (which fits
Pauline doctrine), an aorist tense in Greek would have been used to
convey such meaning. Paul used the aorist tense in (Rom. 10:9) to
identify a faith that saves is a single step. By contrast, John’s
identify a faith that saves is a single step. By contrast, John's
Gospel never chose to use the aorist tense to identify any
faith-condition for salvation. Rather, John’s Gospel always used the
continuous tense of the present participle active for believes. John’s
Gospel is not Pauline; it is antiPauline. (See “What About Faith in
John’s Gospel?” on page 164.) Luther’s translation of John 3:16 was
faith-condition for salvation. Rather, John's Gospel always used the
continuous tense of the present participle active for believes. John's
Gospel is not Pauline; it is antiPauline. (See "What About Faith in
John's Gospel?" on page 164.) Luther's translation of John 3:16 was
misleading.
10.“German does not have the...progressive mood” (i.e., ‘is believing’). (
10."German does not have the...progressive mood" (i.e., 'is believing'). (
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~oberle/courses/review.html#The Present Tens.) See also, Simple present or present continuous? at
http://www.Ungualearn.co.uk/Jearners/ge/tenses.htm (“As German does not have continuous tenses, you just use the simple present for general statements, habits and future actions as well as present occurrences.”) See also German Language Course which explains English has the “Present Progressive,” e.g., “are believing” but German “is able to do without the progressive forms.” (See,
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/1238/intro.html (accessed 2005). The author explains thus “I go and am going would translate the same into German.” (Id.) Thus, in German, there is no ending that makes a verb correspond to the Greek present continuous/progressive tense. Instead, in German, the present tense can mean action in the present that continues or does not continue. Thus, unlike Greek, the German present verb tense has no endings to specify one way or the other whether action is one-time or continuous. This may have been a primary reason why Luther could convince others that John’s Gospel sounded Pauline. Until Young’s Literal, Foreword to the Book of John :
http://www.Ungualearn.co.uk/Jearners/ge/tenses.htm ("As German does not have continuous tenses, you just use the simple present for general statements, habits and future actions as well as present occurrences.") See also German Language Course which explains English has the "Present Progressive," e.g., "are believing" but German "is able to do without the progressive forms." (See,
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/1238/intro.html (accessed 2005). The author explains thus "I go and am going would translate the same into German." (Id.) Thus, in German, there is no ending that makes a verb correspond to the Greek present continuous/progressive tense. Instead, in German, the present tense can mean action in the present that continues or does not continue. Thus, unlike Greek, the German present verb tense has no endings to specify one way or the other whether action is one-time or continuous. This may have been a primary reason why Luther could convince others that John's Gospel sounded Pauline. Until Young's Literal, Foreword to the Book of John :
The doctrine which points out to us the power and the benefit of the
coming Christ, is far more clearly exhibited by John than by the
[synoptists] . The three former [synoptic Gospels] exhibit [[Christ’s]]
[synoptists] . The three former [synoptic Gospels] exhibit [[Christ's]]
body...but John exhibits his soul. On this account I am accustomed to
say that this Gospel is a key to open the door for understanding the
rest. . .In reading [the four Gospels] a different order would be

70
JWO_15_02_EliminationofSynopticsinModernGospelMessage_0078.md

@ -2,19 +2,19 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Elimination of Synoptics in Modern Gospel Message
This perverse down-playing of Jesus’ actual words in the Synoptics
continues today. Even someone of Billy Graham’s stature tells us that
Jesus’ gospel was not in the words spoken in His ministry. It was in
This perverse down-playing of Jesus' actual words in the Synoptics
continues today. Even someone of Billy Graham's stature tells us that
Jesus' gospel was not in the words spoken in His ministry. It was in
nothing Jesus said. It was all in His death and resurrection, which is
what Paul taught. If you believe these two facts about Jesus
((Rom. 10:9)), Paul taught you are saved. Here is what Billy Graham’s
((Rom. 10:9)), Paul taught you are saved. Here is what Billy Graham's
Evangelistic Association said in 1980 in a tract entitled "The Gospel".
It says Jesus “came to do three days work, to die, be buried and
raised” and that “He came not primarily to preach the Gospel... but He
came rather that there might be a Gospel to preach.”
It says Jesus "came to do three days work, to die, be buried and
raised" and that "He came not primarily to preach the Gospel... but He
came rather that there might be a Gospel to preach."
11. The 1611 translators could have used the English Continuous
Present (“is believing”). Instead, they arrived at a translation that
Present ("is believing"). Instead, they arrived at a translation that
effaced the original meaning by rendering the Greek for is believing
in John 3:16 as believes. In English, this is the Simple Present
tense. In this context, it implies a one-time faith saves. This would
@ -27,64 +27,64 @@ important to believe the two simple facts about Jesus being Lord and
was resurrected. ((Rom. 10:9).) Paul said you will be instantly saved
forever if you merely acknowledge these two facts. (Romans 10:9.)
What about the validity of the Billy Graham Association’s claim that
What about the validity of the Billy Graham Association's claim that
Jesus did not primarily come to preach a gospel? Of course, it is
impossible to reconcile these statements with Jesus’ declaration “I
impossible to reconcile these statements with Jesus' declaration "I
came to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom; that is the reason why I was
commissioned.” (Luke 4:43). Roy Gustafson of the Billy Graham
Association explains the reasoning behind the crusade tract’s opposing
commissioned." (Luke 4:43). Roy Gustafson of the Billy Graham
Association explains the reasoning behind the crusade tract's opposing
view:
The word Gospel occurs over one hundred times in the New
Testament.. .What then is the Gospel of the grace of God? Let us
ask Paul. He would point us to I Cor. 15:1-4: ‘I declare to you
ask Paul. He would point us to I Cor. 15:1-4: 'I declare to you
the gospel which I preached to you.. .that Christ died for our
sins, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third
day’.. .Paul never discussed the earthly life of our Lord.. .The
day'.. .Paul never discussed the earthly life of our Lord.. .The
fact that the Lord Jesus died to save is one half of the Gospel!
The fact that he rose from the dead...is the other half of the
Gospel.
As Gustafson defines the Gospel of Jesus, it is all contained in
Paul’s simple message about the death and resurrection of Jesus. (1
Paul's simple message about the death and resurrection of Jesus. (1
Cor. 15:1-4.). The Gospel is not found in anything Jesus said. You
won’t find it in His sermons or His parables. Jesus could not be
won't find it in His sermons or His parables. Jesus could not be
proclaiming the Gospel because had Jesus been doing so, Gustafson
asks: ‘why then didn’t Paul ever mention anything Jesus said in that
regard?’
asks: 'why then didn't Paul ever mention anything Jesus said in that
regard?'
Indeed! That is precisely the question I am posing! Gustafson cannot
see the issue right in front of his nose. How could Paul be preaching
the Gospel of Jesus if he never quotes Jesus? Furthermore, Gustafson’s
reasoning ignores Jesus’ own statement that “I came to preach the
Gospel of the Kingdom; that is the reason why I was commissioned.”
the Gospel of Jesus if he never quotes Jesus? Furthermore, Gustafson's
reasoning ignores Jesus' own statement that "I came to preach the
Gospel of the Kingdom; that is the reason why I was commissioned."
(Luke 4:43). Jesus and Gustafson cannot both be correct.
Gustafson’s view that Jesus’ words do not matter and are unimportant
Gustafson's view that Jesus' words do not matter and are unimportant
to comprehend how to be saved is not new. It is what Luther was
saying. Calvin too.
The purpose in defining the Gospel in this way is to focus only on
Paul. Its aim is to exclude Jesus’ Gospel in the Synoptics. Why?
Because Luther, Calvin and everyone else knows Jesus ’ Gospel in the
Paul. Its aim is to exclude Jesus' Gospel in the Synoptics. Why?
Because Luther, Calvin and everyone else knows Jesus ' Gospel in the
Synoptics is a message of faith plus works, not faith alone. As Jesus
most bluntly put it: “every tree therefore that bringeth not forth
[/'. e ., “does not keep on producing”] good fruit is hewn down, and
most bluntly put it: "every tree therefore that bringeth not forth
[/'. e ., "does not keep on producing"] good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire (Matt. 7:19). The Gospel of the Synoptics is a
message of the necessity of adding good fruit and repentance from sin
to your faith. Jesus’ Gospel is not about just belief in facts about
to your faith. Jesus' Gospel is not about just belief in facts about
Himself. As Jesus likewise states, His Gospel message promises
“eternal life” for denying oneself, taking up one’s cross and
following Jesus. ((Matt. 19:27-29) (“shall inherit eternal life”.) See
"eternal life" for denying oneself, taking up one's cross and
following Jesus. ((Matt. 19:27-29) ("shall inherit eternal life".) See
also, (Matt. 10:37-39).) The Gospel in the Synoptics contains the message of James.
What a dilemma! If Jesus’ Gospel in the Synoptics is the Gospel, we
would have to re-write all these gospel tracts. For Jesus’ Gospel in
the Synoptics is the antithesis to Paul’s Gospel.
What a dilemma! If Jesus' Gospel in the Synoptics is the Gospel, we
would have to re-write all these gospel tracts. For Jesus' Gospel in
the Synoptics is the antithesis to Paul's Gospel.
So what are these theologians like Gustafson doing? As Bonhoeffer
states, “theologians...simulate concern” for Jesus but try to “avoid
the encounter” with Him, and thereby “Christ is still betrayed by the
kiss.” (Christ the Center (1933 lectures) at 35.) Thus, those who deny
states, "theologians...simulate concern" for Jesus but try to "avoid
the encounter" with Him, and thereby "Christ is still betrayed by the
kiss." (Christ the Center (1933 lectures) at 35.) Thus, those who deny
Jesus even had a Gospel of His own so they can hold onto Paul have
turned their backs on the only one who matters: Jesus.

44
JWO_15_03_EliminationofJesus_MessageoftheSermonontheMount_0079.md

@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Elimination of Jesus ’ Message of the Sermon on the Mount
## Elimination of Jesus ' Message of the Sermon on the Mount
The consequence of putting emphasis on Paul’s Gospel over Jesus’
Gospel is dramatic. Christians are blatantly told to dismiss Jesus’
words in the Synoptics as “unimportant.” For example, Jesus’ Sennon on
The consequence of putting emphasis on Paul's Gospel over Jesus'
Gospel is dramatic. Christians are blatantly told to dismiss Jesus'
words in the Synoptics as "unimportant." For example, Jesus' Sennon on
the Mount promises the kingdom to people with various
characteristics. Without Paul weighing on us, Jesus would promise in
the Serron on the Mount salvation for those who are humble, meek,
@ -34,31 +34,31 @@ is about the kingdom being given to persons who do not necessarily
have these behaviors. Why? Obviously because Paul tells us the kingdom
is for those who simply believe. Because Walvoord does not want us to
see the incongruity, Walvoord must direct us promptly away from the
Sennon. It is “unimportant truth.”
Sennon. It is "unimportant truth."
Walvoord actually leaves us puzzled. Jesus is promising the kingdom
but then ties the promise to behaviors, making us doubt Paul’s
canonicity. Yet, that is unthinkable. So how do we cope? Walvoord’s
answer is that we are to abandon Jesus’ words as ‘unimportant’ and
but then ties the promise to behaviors, making us doubt Paul's
canonicity. Yet, that is unthinkable. So how do we cope? Walvoord's
answer is that we are to abandon Jesus' words as 'unimportant' and
stay on the path of following Paul. To me, it just doesn V make sense
that we can be a Christian, treat Jesus ’ words as “unimportant” and
that we can be a Christian, treat Jesus ' words as "unimportant" and
prefer Paul over Jesus. A sickening feeling should overcome any true
Christian. You are being told to ignore Jesus and listen only to
Paul. This is the emerging mainstream Christianity of today.
Yet, Walvoord is in line with Calvin, Luther and Billy Graham’s
Evangelical Association. They insist we must see Jesus’ words in
Matthew are secondary to Paul’s words in his epistles. They claim we
need to put Jesus’ Gospel aside as “unimportant truth” when compared
to Paul’s Gospel.
Yet, Walvoord is in line with Calvin, Luther and Billy Graham's
Evangelical Association. They insist we must see Jesus' words in
Matthew are secondary to Paul's words in his epistles. They claim we
need to put Jesus' Gospel aside as "unimportant truth" when compared
to Paul's Gospel.
### The True Meaning of the Sermon: Reading Paul through Jesus’ Words
### The True Meaning of the Sermon: Reading Paul through Jesus' Words
The lesson of the Sennon on the Mount is clear but is lost on our
modem ears. The best description appears from the pastor who runs Believe :
Jesus concludes the sermon by setting up certain requirements that
relate directly to one’s being saved or lost. He divides mankind
relate directly to one's being saved or lost. He divides mankind
into three classes: those who (1) follow him (7:1314, 17, 21,
24-25), (2) do not follow him (vss.13-44, 26-27), and (3) pretend
to follow him (vss. 15-20, 21-23). To be saved one must actually
@ -66,20 +66,20 @@ modem ears. The best description appears from the pastor who runs Believe :
must be performed perfectly. The saved are those who accept and
actually attempt to direct their lives by the sermon; the lost are
those who pretend to follow or who reject these teachings....Mere
profession of belief, without the following, will secure Jesus’
condemnation, ‘I never knew you. You evildoers, depart from me’
profession of belief, without the following, will secure Jesus'
condemnation, 'I never knew you. You evildoers, depart from me'
(vs. 23). 13
What about Paul’s contrary teaching? This pastor accepts Paul, but he
What about Paul's contrary teaching? This pastor accepts Paul, but he
shares my outlook. He insists we must read Paul through the lense of
Jesus’ words and not the other way around. He explains:
Jesus' words and not the other way around. He explains:
An unfortunate feature of much post-Reformation Christianity has
been the interpretation of Jesus in light of Paul rather than the
converse. One of the contributions of Bonhoeffer’s treatment of
converse. One of the contributions of Bonhoeffer's treatment of
this sermon is his insistence on reading Paul in light of Jesus
and, hence, his stressing the necessity of doing the
sermon. Perfection is not demanded and aid is provided, but still
the true disciple is ‘the who does the will of the Father’
the true disciple is 'the who does the will of the Father'
(vs. 21).

72
JWO_15_04_TheMisleadingSuggestionbyEmphasizingJohnsGospelAccount_0080.md

@ -2,41 +2,41 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## The Misleading Suggestion by Emphasizing John s Gospel Account
Also, the elevation of John’s Gospel by Luther and Calvin feeds an
erroneous assumption. Those unfamiliar with John’s Gospel are misled
to assume there is no trouble for Paul anywhere in John’s Gospel. Yet,
John’s Gospel is filled with problems for Paul.
Also, the elevation of John's Gospel by Luther and Calvin feeds an
erroneous assumption. Those unfamiliar with John's Gospel are misled
to assume there is no trouble for Paul anywhere in John's Gospel. Yet,
John's Gospel is filled with problems for Paul.
13.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/sermonmt.htm (last accessed 5-24-05).
For example, John quotes Jesus saying that those who are following Him
and losing one’s life in this world to serve Him do so for “life
eternal.” (John 12:25-26.) Not for rewards, but for eternal life.
and losing one's life in this world to serve Him do so for "life
eternal." (John 12:25-26.) Not for rewards, but for eternal life.
Another example is Jesus saying: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is
Another example is Jesus saying: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is
coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection
of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation.” (John 5:28-29 KJV) Jesus focuses the difference between
damnation." (John 5:28-29 KJV) Jesus focuses the difference between
the saved and lost on who did good and who did evil. It is not a
contrast between those who believe versus those who do not believe.
In fact, (John 3:16) becomes another example when we reveal the
subjunctive tense in the verse. It reads: “whosoever keeps on
believing in Him should not perish but should have eternal life.”
There are two subjunctives in the verse—the subjunctive tense in Greek
subjunctive tense in the verse. It reads: "whosoever keeps on
believing in Him should not perish but should have eternal life."
There are two subjunctives in the verse-the subjunctive tense in Greek
being used to show uncertainty and conditionality. (The NIV, without
support in a textual variant, has it “shall have eternal life.”) 14
support in a textual variant, has it "shall have eternal life.") 14
14.The Greek have is echei. It is in the subjunctive. However, the
NIV’s translation is defended because it conforms better to salvation
NIV's translation is defended because it conforms better to salvation
supposedly purposed by God based on faith alone. See. Daniel
B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan: 1997) at 461,
473. Wallace claims we may vary the translation where the Divine will
is involved, claiming that in such cases, “ ina [so that] is used to
express both the divine purpose and result.” {Id. at 473.) Wallace
explains: “The fact that the subjunctive is all hut required after ina
is involved, claiming that in such cases, " ina [so that] is used to
express both the divine purpose and result." {Id. at 473.) Wallace
explains: "The fact that the subjunctive is all hut required after ina
does not, of course, argue for uncertainty as to the fate of the
believer. This fact is obvious, not from this text , but from the use
of ou mh in John 10:28 and 11:26, as well as the general theological
@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ conjunction of hina would justify changing should into shall. In
Greek, the contingency has actually a purpose of explaining the
continuous tense that precedes it. Also, Wallace even concedes that
there are over a dozen future indicatives after hina in the New
Testament. (His footnote 71.) Thus, Jesus’ use of the subjunctive must
Testament. (His footnote 71.) Thus, Jesus' use of the subjunctive must
be deliberate in John 3:16, designed to differentiate the result from
a future guaranteed result. Why is Wallace’s proof circular? Because
a future guaranteed result. Why is Wallace's proof circular? Because
for support of the NIV translation, he cites two examples which are
more of the same use of subjunctives conditioned on continuous
verbs. (John 10:28 and 11:26.) Thus, to cite these two passages to
@ -60,24 +60,24 @@ the other verses as proof. That is the essence of circular proof!
Faith alone, Jesus implies in John, is not the sole criterion for
judgment. You should be saved, but it is not necessarily going to be
the case. Example in chief: the “believing” rulers who were too
the case. Example in chief: the "believing" rulers who were too
cowardly to confess Jesus. (John 12:42). As cowards, their fate is in
hell despite their believing. (Rev. 21:8, “cowards, unbelievers” are
hell despite their believing. (Rev. 21:8, "cowards, unbelievers" are
in hell.)(For further discussion of them, see page 450.)
Another example, assuming the NIV translation as correct, is we find
in John’s Gospel a competing formula for eternal life that depends on
obedience. Jesus says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If one keeps
my word, he shall never see death.” (John 8:51, NIV) A better
translation of keep my word is “obeys my teaching....” (GNB.) (On page
in John's Gospel a competing formula for eternal life that depends on
obedience. Jesus says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If one keeps
my word, he shall never see death." (John 8:51, NIV) A better
translation of keep my word is "obeys my teaching...." (GNB.) (On page
501, we will see 3:16 and 8:15 provide a synergistic path to
salvation.)
Next, John 3:36 is another very significant problem passage in John’s
Next, John 3:36 is another very significant problem passage in John's
Gospel for the Paulunist. John the Baptist (whom Jesus calls the
greatest prophet) is quite clearly amplifying John 3:16 to say that a
faith that should save is destroyed by disobedience to Jesus’
commands. Thus, John 3:16 does not have Paul’s meaning. John 3:16 has
faith that should save is destroyed by disobedience to Jesus'
commands. Thus, John 3:16 does not have Paul's meaning. John 3:16 has
been quoted insufferably countless times out-of-context (besides being
grossly mistranslated to fit Paul.) The Prophet John clearly is
amplifying 3:16 in 3:36 by evoking the salvation formula of John 3:16
@ -93,27 +93,27 @@ what John 3:36 says literally in a correct translation:
This means a faith that should save is destroyed by disobedience. As
John MacArthur says in The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan:
1994), John 3:36 teaches that salvation depends on a lasting obedience
to Christ’s authority, not on a one-time obedience to believe. (Id. at
39 fn.) A saving faith is one that “produces obedience.” (Id. at 53.)
to Christ's authority, not on a one-time obedience to believe. (Id. at
39 fn.) A saving faith is one that "produces obedience." (Id. at 53.)
Hence, disobedience to Jesus’ commands means God’s wrath rests on you
Hence, disobedience to Jesus' commands means God's wrath rests on you
regardless of your subjective experience of a one-time
belief. (Paulunists deflect this verse by the simple step of
mistranslation.) 15
A final example, although not the last, is Jesus in John says a branch
“in me” that does not produce fruit will be cut off, and is thrown
"in me" that does not produce fruit will be cut off, and is thrown
outside the vineyard. It is as a branch that is withered (died). It
will be burned. (John 15:1-6). Faith without works is dead. The branch
is the Christian, not the fruit on the branch. The burning is of you,
not some poor fruit (i.e., defective works) as Paulunists try to spin
this passage. Thus, in John 15:1-6, Jesus is explaining that works are
crucial to add to one’s connection to Christ, even though the
crucial to add to one's connection to Christ, even though the
connection is how one produces fruit. Otherwise, faith (connection)
without fruit (works) makes you withered (dead), to be thrown
“outside” to be “burned.” Jesus agrees with (Jas. 2:14)!
"outside" to be "burned." Jesus agrees with (Jas. 2:14)!
Thus, Paulunists ignore the many passages in John’s Gospel that
Thus, Paulunists ignore the many passages in John's Gospel that
contradict Paul. They emphasize John 3:16 as if it is saying the same
thing as Paul’s Gospel. However, it does not. John’s Gospel, correctly
translated, is the antithesis to Paul’s gospel.
thing as Paul's Gospel. However, it does not. John's Gospel, correctly
translated, is the antithesis to Paul's gospel.

36
JWO_15_05_EvenC.S.LewisIsInThePrimarily-PaulCamp_0081.md

@ -7,45 +7,45 @@ author. Yet, even C.S. Lewis revealed himself to be a Paulunist who
marginalized Jesus. Listen to his reasoning:
15. Apeitheo only has one Greek meaning: disobey. (Lidell-Scott.) This
is followed in ASV, RSV, NASV, WEB and GNB. Cfr. KJV and Luther’s
Bible (“not believe”). Why the difference in the KJV and Luther?
Because Pauline dictionaries of ancient Greek, while admitting “not
believe” is a meaning “not found outside our literature,” claim the
is followed in ASV, RSV, NASV, WEB and GNB. Cfr. KJV and Luther's
Bible ("not believe"). Why the difference in the KJV and Luther?
Because Pauline dictionaries of ancient Greek, while admitting "not
believe" is a meaning "not found outside our literature," claim the
word apeitheo must mean disbelieve when used in Christian
literature. (Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (eds. Bauer, Arndt,
Gingrich, and Danker) at 82.) But why? Because unless we adopt a
Pauline and idiosyncratic meaning ‘just for us Christians,’ then John
Pauline and idiosyncratic meaning 'just for us Christians,' then John
3:36 undermines our favorite notions about salvation by faith alone,
and our favorite verse to prove it: (John 3:16).
383
The epistles are for the most part the earliest Christian
documents we possess. The Gospels came later. They are not ‘the
Gospel,’ the statement of the Christian belief. ..In that sense
documents we possess. The Gospels came later. They are not 'the
Gospel,' the statement of the Christian belief. ..In that sense
the epistles [of Paul] are more primitive and more central than
the Gospels — though not of course than the great events which the
Gospels recount. God’s Act (the Incarnation, the crucifixion, and
the Gospels - though not of course than the great events which the
Gospels recount. God's Act (the Incarnation, the crucifixion, and
the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis
of it comes in the epistles [of Paul]: then when the generation
which had heard the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed
to provide the believers a record of the great Act and of some of
the Lord’s sayings. (C.S. Lewis, “Introduction” to J. B. Phillips’
the Lord's sayings. (C.S. Lewis, "Introduction" to J. B. Phillips'
Letters to Young Churches (Fontana Books n.d.) at 9, 10.)
Thus, Lewis is saying that Paul’s epistles are more primary than the
Thus, Lewis is saying that Paul's epistles are more primary than the
Gospel accounts. The key facts are the death and resurrection of
Jesus. If we believe these two facts, we are saved. ((Rom. 10:9).)
Beyond that, Lewis acknowledges we can find “some sayings” of Jesus in
Beyond that, Lewis acknowledges we can find "some sayings" of Jesus in
the gospel accounts. However, they are not the gospel message. Then
what of Jesus’ contrary claim? Jesus said: “I came to preach the
Gospel of the Kingdom; that is the reason why I was commissioned.”
what of Jesus' contrary claim? Jesus said: "I came to preach the
Gospel of the Kingdom; that is the reason why I was commissioned."
(Luke 4:43). Lewis is confident that, to the contrary, the Gospel
Jesus preached is not the Gospel we must obey. Instead, Lewis believed
Paul had the Gospel we must follow.
Again, Lewis is saying nothing new. It was Luther’s view. It was
Calvin’s view. It was or is the Billy Graham Association’s view. It
was Marcion’s view two millennia ago. (See Appendix B: How the Canon
Again, Lewis is saying nothing new. It was Luther's view. It was
Calvin's view. It was or is the Billy Graham Association's view. It
was Marcion's view two millennia ago. (See Appendix B: How the Canon
Was Formed at page ix.) Yet, how can a Christ-centered life be based
on de-emphasizing Jesus to accept Paul? It just doesn’t make any sense.
on de-emphasizing Jesus to accept Paul? It just doesn't make any sense.

30
JWO_15_06_ABetterExplanationWhytheGospelAccountsCameSecond_0082.md

@ -2,32 +2,32 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## A Better Explanation Why the Gospel Accounts Came Second
May I suggest an alternative to Lewis’ view which better explains why
Paul’s epistles came first and then the gospels? God did not make
Paul’s writings come first to prove the primacy of Paul over Jesus’
words. Nor did God make Paul silent on Jesus’ preaching to prove how
irrelevant Jesus’ words were on salvation doctrine. Rather, the gospel
May I suggest an alternative to Lewis' view which better explains why
Paul's epistles came first and then the gospels? God did not make
Paul's writings come first to prove the primacy of Paul over Jesus'
words. Nor did God make Paul silent on Jesus' preaching to prove how
irrelevant Jesus' words were on salvation doctrine. Rather, the gospel
accounts were recorded after Paul to address partly the problem of
Paul’s written letters. The gospel accounts were to correct Paul’s
views and give us Jesus ’ words lacking in Paul’s writings. Jesus thus
Paul's written letters. The gospel accounts were to correct Paul's
views and give us Jesus ' words lacking in Paul's writings. Jesus thus
was able to set forth the correct nature of salvation. That is why
Jesus’ views conflict so directly with Paul. Jesus says you can go to
Jesus' views conflict so directly with Paul. Jesus says you can go to
heaven maimed or hell whole in (Mark 9:42-47). Repentance from sin is
crucial; belief is just one step. Jesus in the Parable of the Sheep
and the Goats, (Matt. 25:32) et seq., also said you can do works of
charity for Jesus’ brethren and thus go to Heaven. Alternatively, you
charity for Jesus' brethren and thus go to Heaven. Alternatively, you
can fail to do so and go to Hell. There is no third option of pleading
a covering of Christ and skating the personal obligation. Jesus had
clearly a faith-plus-works formula as the correct teaching on
salvation.
Accordingly, the Gospel accounts come after Paul precisely to remind
Christians of Jesus’ warnings about the coming false prophets after
Jesus ’ crucifixion. Jesus’ warning covers the period of Paul’s
Christians of Jesus' warnings about the coming false prophets after
Jesus ' crucifixion. Jesus' warning covers the period of Paul's
preaching. Jesus warned prophets would come to teach in His name but
be false. (Matt. 7:15 et seq.) They would preach a-nomia, which
literally means “negation of the (Mosaic) Law.” Jesus says ‘I will
tell them on Judgment Day that I never knew you.’ Jesus warns also
literally means "negation of the (Mosaic) Law." Jesus says 'I will
tell them on Judgment Day that I never knew you.' Jesus warns also
these same preachers will do signs and wonders, and will have prophecy
to deceive you into falsely trusting them. Jesus says their signs and
wonders prove nothing. All that matters is that they are workers of
@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ from them, Jesus warned.
(For a full discussion on this passage, see the chapter
[[JWO_04_01_DidJesusWarnofFalseProphetsWhoWouldNegatetheLaw__0009]])
Thus, the sequence that Lewis is citing as proof of Paul’s primacy is
Thus, the sequence that Lewis is citing as proof of Paul's primacy is
actually proof of the opposite. It is more likely explained by the
problem of Paul. The gospel accounts were intended to correct
Paul. Without their documentary existence, no one could expose Paul as
@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ have come with another gospel. Otherwise, why all this effort and spin
to dismiss the Synoptics? If the gospel in them were the same as Paul
taught, why would one have to say Paul has primacy at all over them?
The truth is one cannot make Jesus’ words serve Paul’s doctrines. The
The truth is one cannot make Jesus' words serve Paul's doctrines. The
effect of this primacy given to Paul over the Synoptics has destroyed
the integrity of commentators. As discussed next, when confronted by a
contradiction of Paul by Jesus, they presuppose Jesus must fit

26
JWO_15_07_CircularLogictoObscureJesus_Words_0083.md

@ -1,37 +1,37 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Circular Logic to Obscure Jesus ’ Words
## Circular Logic to Obscure Jesus ' Words
The following are examples of circular logic made to force Jesus’
The following are examples of circular logic made to force Jesus'
words in the Synoptics fit Pauline interpretation. The authors insist
boldly, openly but illogically that Jesus must be interpreted to fit
Paul’s theology. Never once does the fact of contradiction draw the
commentators to question Paul’s validity in canon.
Paul's theology. Never once does the fact of contradiction draw the
commentators to question Paul's validity in canon.
“The interpretation of the parable [of the Prodigal by Jesus]
requires deduction compatible with known doctrine [i.e., Paul].”
"The interpretation of the parable [of the Prodigal by Jesus]
requires deduction compatible with known doctrine [i.e., Paul]."
(R.B. Thieme Jr., The Prodigal Son [1974] at 1.)
“In other words, once [eternal] security [primarily deduced from
Paul] is established, there really are ‘no problem passages.’
"In other words, once [eternal] security [primarily deduced from
Paul] is established, there really are 'no problem passages.'
There are only Scriptures [i.e., statements by Jesus apparently to
the contrary] to properly interpret in light of an already
established doctrine [i.e., Paul’s teaching.]” [Ankerberg
established doctrine [i.e., Paul's teaching.]" [Ankerberg
Theological Research Institute News Magazine [Vol. 4 No. 7] (July
1997] at 16.]
“In Mt. 25:34, we find that inheriting the kingdom is conditioned
"In Mt. 25:34, we find that inheriting the kingdom is conditioned
[by Jesus] on obedience and service to the King, a condition far
removed from the New Testament [i.e., Pauline] teaching of
justification by faith alone for entrance into heaven. [Thus, it
must mean something other than what it appears to mean.]” (Dillow,
must mean something other than what it appears to mean.]" (Dillow,
Reign of the Servant Kings [1992] at 72.]
These statements all share blatant illogic. The commentator interprets
what Jesus is saying from the theological system of Paul. Thus, the
very point of whether Paul is valid or not is avoided by rewriting
Jesus’ words to fit Paul. It is known as the bootstrap
Jesus' words to fit Paul. It is known as the bootstrap
fallacy. Instead, the very issue raised by the contradiction is
whether Paul belongs among inspired canon. Rather than face the
unthinkable, bootstrap illogic is used to demand the reader accept any
spin of Jesus that erases Jesus’ contradiction of Paul.
spin of Jesus that erases Jesus' contradiction of Paul.

36
JWO_15_08_DispensationalStrategyToAvoidJesus_0084.md

@ -11,44 +11,44 @@ canon. One or the other must go.
What some Christians have done, trying to be faithful to both Jesus
and Paul, is take all the tension away by a theological crutch. They
deem Jesus’ conflicting statements as addressing the era of Law. All
Paul’s contrary teachings were addressed to the present era of
deem Jesus' conflicting statements as addressing the era of Law. All
Paul's contrary teachings were addressed to the present era of
Grace. The conflict is resolved elegantly because Paul and Jesus
conflict for good reason: they are talking to different people who are
subject to different covenants. These different covenants are
described as different dispensations.
As a result, Jesus’ words are deprived of any ongoing relevance. As
As a result, Jesus' words are deprived of any ongoing relevance. As
John MacArthur says in The Gospel According to Jesus:
This lamentable hermeneutic [i.e., Jesus’ words were for a
This lamentable hermeneutic [i.e., Jesus' words were for a
different dispensation] is widely applied in varying degrees to
much of our Lord’s earthly teaching, emasculating the message of
much of our Lord's earthly teaching, emasculating the message of
the Gospels. 16
Any doctrine that tells us to ignore Jesus’ words should raise an
Any doctrine that tells us to ignore Jesus' words should raise an
immediate red flag. If we take this route, we have a legitimized
barrier, however well-intentioned, against listening any longer to
Jesus on salvation issues. Jesus’ words on how to be saved and have
Jesus on salvation issues. Jesus' words on how to be saved and have
eternal life no longer interest us (unless, of course, we think they
agree with Paul). Jesus’ statements lose their ongoing validity after
agree with Paul). Jesus' statements lose their ongoing validity after
His death on the cross. Only Paul thereafter is left to address us on
how to be saved. With this kind of reasoning, Paul trumps Jesus every
time.
16.John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan 1994) at 33-34.
Yet, to the contrary, Jesus said “heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35). Jesus was saying His
Yet, to the contrary, Jesus said "heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). Jesus was saying His
words were not only valid now, but remain continuously valid in the
kingdom up through the passing away of the heaven and
earth. (Rev. 20:7-10). Dispensationalism ignores this. Instead, it
gives Jesus’ words only a brief continuing validity on the doctrine of
gives Jesus' words only a brief continuing validity on the doctrine of
salvation. Once the Law was abolished at the crucifixion, as they
interpret Paul’s Gospel, Jesus’ words on salvation became all
moot. Jesus’ words were meant for those under the Law. Because Jesus
interpret Paul's Gospel, Jesus' words on salvation became all
moot. Jesus' words were meant for those under the Law. Because Jesus
nailed the Law to a tree in His crucifixion, Jesus did away with the
Law. Thus, all Jesus’ statements no longer have any bearing on how God
Law. Thus, all Jesus' statements no longer have any bearing on how God
will deal with us who live under Grace, and who no longer are under
the Law.
@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ flaw when used as a harmonization instrument? Essentially, this
argument depends on the presupposition that Paul is inspired and he
could define a covenant of Grace that excludes relevance of the Law (
i.e ., repentance from sin, obedience, works, etc.) Yet, the very
issue that Jesus’ words raise is the legitimacy of this point of
issue that Jesus' words raise is the legitimacy of this point of
view. Only a presupposition that Paul is correct would force you to
marginalize Jesus by claiming His words cannot possibly apply to those
under a new covenant of Grace. Absent this bootstrapping, this
@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ is inspired to declare a covenant of grace that excludes repentance,
obedience, and works. (Deut. 6:25). Instead, that is the very issue at
stake. This is discussed in more detail below at page 394.
### Paul’s Flawed Covenant Theology
### Paul's Flawed Covenant Theology
Of course, there is also a Biblical flaw in Paul’s presentation of a
Of course, there is also a Biblical flaw in Paul's presentation of a
New Covenant of Grace that excludes the Law (Torah). It contradicts
the Bible prophecy of a New Covenant. This prophecy appears in
(Jer. 31:31) et seq. This prediction about the New Covenant expressly
@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ says the New Covenant continues the Torah and continues God s special
relationship with the seed of Israel. The New Covenant of Grace is
specifically mentioned in that passage too, saying it
is based on God “forgiving sins.’ Thus, despite a New Covenant of Grace, God told us already some things will never change: the Torah and God’s covenant partner is Israel.
is based on God "forgiving sins.' Thus, despite a New Covenant of Grace, God told us already some things will never change: the Torah and God's covenant partner is Israel.
Please read (Jer. 31:31) et seq. right now if you have any doubt. For
a fuller discussion, see page 397.

92
JWO_15_09_HistoricalBackgroundofDispensationalism_0085.md

@ -9,29 +9,29 @@ appeared in any mainstream Christian writings, including those of
Luther and Calvin.
Gradually covenant theology gave way a hundred years ago to a method
of analyzing Jesus’ words called Dispensationalism. It is a doctrine
of analyzing Jesus' words called Dispensationalism. It is a doctrine
whose most significant purpose is to resolve conflicts between Paul
and Jesus.
This doctrine is quite forthright: once a verse from Jesus is deemed
too difficult to reconcile with Paul, the explanation is Jesus was
talking to a different dispensation. We are safe to ignore Jesus’
words for we are in the dispensation of grace. Jesus’ words were meant
talking to a different dispensation. We are safe to ignore Jesus'
words for we are in the dispensation of grace. Jesus' words were meant
in that instance for those under the dispensation of Law ( i.e ., the
Jews). The Law after the cross supposedly had now become a curse and
was abrogated. Therefore, Dispensationalists reason that Jesus’ words
was abrogated. Therefore, Dispensationalists reason that Jesus' words
at issue no longer involve any important truth for us.
17.See “The Biblical Basis to these Charges Against Paul” on page 233 \ff.
17.See "The Biblical Basis to these Charges Against Paul" on page 233 \ff.
18.Dr. Ryrie points out: “It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism....Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon... There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647....” It should be noted that Agricola was a follower of Luther who taught dispensationalism.
18.Dr. Ryrie points out: "It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism....Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon... There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647...." It should be noted that Agricola was a follower of Luther who taught dispensationalism.
For example, Dispensationalists do not ignore the inconsistencies
between Jesus and Paul in the Sennon on the Mount. Jesus emphasizes
works to enter the kingdom. Jesus called us to have a “righteousness
that exceeds that of the Pharisees,” absent which “you shall in no
case enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:20). Jesus is making
works to enter the kingdom. Jesus called us to have a "righteousness
that exceeds that of the Pharisees," absent which "you shall in no
case enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:20). Jesus is making
obedience a condition of entrance into heaven. This is clear from the
verses that follow in the Sermon. Jesus explains what it means to have
a righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees.
@ -41,93 +41,93 @@ after a married woman (5:27-30); you must not divorce your wife absent
certain circumstances (5:31-32); you must not make false vows
(5:33-37); 19 and you must not return evil for evil (5:38-48). The
Pharisees obviously committed all these sins. Jesus was promising
“entry...into the kingdom of heaven” (5:20) for obedience to His
"entry...into the kingdom of heaven" (5:20) for obedience to His
principles.
The Dispensationalists began their modern movement by insisting there
is nothing to worry about in the Sermon on the Mount. Their leading
text, still cited today, is by Clarence Larkin , Dispensational Truth
(Philadelphia: Larkin, 1918). Based on dispensational logic, Parkin
explains Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount “have no
explains Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount "have no
application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law,
and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this.” (Id., at 87.)
and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this." (Id., at 87.)
19.The Greek text against any oath-taking is a corruption of the
original Matthew. George Howard published the Hebrew Matthew which,
when differences exist, often show the underlying original text. Here,
the Hebrew Matthew reveals a single but crucial word was missing in
the Greek translation: the word falsely. A Jewish scholar, Nehemiah
Gordon, admires Jesus and shows Jesus’ command against any oath would
Gordon, admires Jesus and shows Jesus' command against any oath would
have Jesus contradict Scripture, but the command against falsely
taking an oath would be consistent with it. He notes the significant
variance in the original Hebrew Matthew that has the word falsely. He
then explains how this makes perfect sense in what Jesus says in
context about various oaths. Jesus was saying ‘do not ever testify
falsely in an oath, whether taken in Yahweh’s name or otherwise.’ The
Pharisees’ doctrine was that a false oath was permissible as long as
not in God’s name, such as if ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ See
context about various oaths. Jesus was saying 'do not ever testify
falsely in an oath, whether taken in Yahweh's name or otherwise.' The
Pharisees' doctrine was that a false oath was permissible as long as
not in God's name, such as if 'by the gold in the Temple.' See
Nehemiah Gordon, Hebrew Yeshua v. the Greek Jesus (Jerusalem: 2006).
Thus, beginning in 1918, dispensationlists demonstrated how easily one
could eliminate the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was talking to Jews
under the Law. Paul is talking to everyone else who exists in the ‘era
of grace.’ The era of the Law died at the cross. Thus, this Sermon on
the Mount’s message died there too. Dispensationalists proclaim
victory for Paul’s words over Christ’s words. They are not troubled in
under the Law. Paul is talking to everyone else who exists in the 'era
of grace.' The era of the Law died at the cross. Thus, this Sermon on
the Mount's message died there too. Dispensationalists proclaim
victory for Paul's words over Christ's words. They are not troubled in
the slightest. To them, it is simply grace triumphing over Law.
As a result, for the modem Dispensationalist, the following principles
of Jesus are inapplicable to us:
* Jesus’ mention of the Law’s ongoing validity and how crucial it is to teach every command, small and large. (Matt. 5:18-19.)
* Jesus' mention of the Law's ongoing validity and how crucial it is to teach every command, small and large. (Matt. 5:18-19.)
* Jesus’ promise of justification for repentance from sin. (Luke 18:10#)
* Jesus' promise of justification for repentance from sin. (Luke 18:10#)
* Jesus’ salvation principles in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5:1)
* Jesus' salvation principles in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5:1)
* Jesus’ hell-whole or heaven-maimed statement. ((Mark 9:42)#)
* Jesus' hell-whole or heaven-maimed statement. ((Mark 9:42)#)
* Jesus’ emphasis on works for salvation in the Parable of the Sheep and The Goats without which one will go to hell. (Matt. 25:32#)
* Jesus' emphasis on works for salvation in the Parable of the Sheep and The Goats without which one will go to hell. (Matt. 25:32#)
* Jesus’ emphasis on works in Revelation without which Jesus will spew you out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16#)
* Jesus' emphasis on works in Revelation without which Jesus will spew you out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16#)
All such principles have been carved out of the essential values
necessary for New Testament Christians. They are no longer applicable
in the “Era of Grace” as defined by Paul. They are wholly irrelevant.
in the "Era of Grace" as defined by Paul. They are wholly irrelevant.
Thus, even though Jesus said His words would remain valid even though
“heaven and earth pass away” (Matt. 24:35), dispensationalism harmoni
z es away Jesus’ teachings as invalid. They were only valid for
"heaven and earth pass away" (Matt. 24:35), dispensationalism harmoni
z es away Jesus' teachings as invalid. They were only valid for
another two years after Jesus spoke them, i.e., they expired at the
crucifixion. “It is finished” for Paulunist-dispensationlists means
all of Jesus ’ lessons are cancelled unless they fit Paul’s doctrines.
crucifixion. "It is finished" for Paulunist-dispensationlists means
all of Jesus ' lessons are cancelled unless they fit Paul's doctrines.
This conclusion was driven by the necessity to harmonize Jesus with Paul. The founders of dispensationalism such as Dr. Chafer were fully aware of the tension between Jesus and Paul. Miles J. Stanford became a renown proponent from Dr. Chafer’s university. He expressly recognized contradictions between Jesus and Paul.
This conclusion was driven by the necessity to harmonize Jesus with Paul. The founders of dispensationalism such as Dr. Chafer were fully aware of the tension between Jesus and Paul. Miles J. Stanford became a renown proponent from Dr. Chafer's university. He expressly recognized contradictions between Jesus and Paul.
However, this was not a problem, he claimed. Stanford insisted Paul
had a different gospel from the other apostles. Thus, Stanford taught
that when they do not line up, we must realize Jesus and the twelve
were directed at a different dispensation—Jews under the Law. Paul was
directed at humanity in the “era of grace.” There is nothing therefore
were directed at a different dispensation-Jews under the Law. Paul was
directed at humanity in the "era of grace." There is nothing therefore
to reconcile when we find conflict. God just has different covenants
with Jews than with the world after Jesus’ ascension.
with Jews than with the world after Jesus' ascension.
20.Sometimes this is explained as an Israel vs. Christian
dispensation. For example, Lewis Spencer Chafer (who founded Dallas
Theological Seminary) in He That is Spiritual (rev. ed.((Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1967) claimed that the dispensation to Israel is distinct
from the Christian church. He then contended the era of “pure law” is
exclusive of our current era of “pure grace.” Thus, before Christ died
from the Christian church. He then contended the era of "pure law" is
exclusive of our current era of "pure grace." Thus, before Christ died
was the law. Now we are in grace. In the Millennial kingdom, the Law
will be restored. In this manner, only Paul’s teachings have current
will be restored. In this manner, only Paul's teachings have current
validity. The Book of Revelation, with its emphasis on repentance, has
no applicability in salvation doctrine until the Millennium. Chafer is
wrong on all points. First, as MacArthur says, “both law and grace are
part of the program of God in every dispensation.” (J. MacArthur, The
wrong on all points. First, as MacArthur says, "both law and grace are
part of the program of God in every dispensation." (J. MacArthur, The
Gospel According to Jesus, supra, at 31-32.) Furthermore, it is a
false dichotomy to separate the church from Israel in
dispensations. The New Covenant is with the “House of Judah and
Israel.” (Jer. 31:31). We are the Gentiles who, if righteous
dispensations. The New Covenant is with the "House of Judah and
Israel." (Jer. 31:31). We are the Gentiles who, if righteous
sojourners, share in that covenant, but we are not the main target of
(Jer. 31:31).
@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ sojourners, share in that covenant, but we are not the main target of
\Novk Pauline Dispensationalism reprinted at
http://withchrist.org/MJS/index.htm.
That such a theology would ever arise reflects how impossible it is to reconcile Jesus with Paul on too many points. How can Paul fit in with a ‘hell-whole or heavenmaimed warning’ of Jesus? In Mark chapter 9, Jesus gives no quarter to Paul: you can go to hell whole (unrepentant) or heaven-maimed (after severe repentance from sin). There is no third option of refusing to repent from sin and enjoy a covering of Christ based on mere belief. Cfr. 1Cor. 5:5. In line with Jesus, John tells us the covering applies to a Christian only after confessing and repenting from sin. (1 John 1:7-9.)
That such a theology would ever arise reflects how impossible it is to reconcile Jesus with Paul on too many points. How can Paul fit in with a 'hell-whole or heavenmaimed warning' of Jesus? In Mark chapter 9, Jesus gives no quarter to Paul: you can go to hell whole (unrepentant) or heaven-maimed (after severe repentance from sin). There is no third option of refusing to repent from sin and enjoy a covering of Christ based on mere belief. Cfr. 1Cor. 5:5. In line with Jesus, John tells us the covering applies to a Christian only after confessing and repenting from sin. (1 John 1:7-9.)
Jesus and Paul are certainly at odds. Paul and Apostle John are also
at odds. John thinks the covering of Christ only applies upon
@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ dead. ((Rom. 10:9). See also, Romans 8:1.)
Thus, this dispensational doctrine is necessary to cope with the
conflict within Christianity between Paul and Jesus. Also, it is used
to cope with the conflict between Paul and the other apostles’
to cope with the conflict between Paul and the other apostles'
teachings. Dispensationalism is an old solution, going back to
Marcion. The early church defeated Marcion’s attempt to marginalize
Marcion. The early church defeated Marcion's attempt to marginalize
Jesus in preference for Paul. Will we?

14
JWO_15_10_TheCircularReasoningInvolvedinDispensationalism_0086.md

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ precisely the challenge involved that they are hoping to resolve. The
illogic involved is not evident to its proponents apparently because
they never have done a logic diagram of their argument.
First, let’s review some basic logic about what a conflict between
First, let's review some basic logic about what a conflict between
Jesus and Paul should mean. This will help unlock rather easily the
illogic of how dispensationalism and covenant theology reconcile Jesus
and Paul.
@ -35,18 +35,18 @@ covenant-of-grace which excludes repentance from sin for salvation
comes exclusively from Paul.
Thus, the solution proposed to reconcile the conflict between Jesus
and Paul is to assume the validity of Paul’s teaching of the covenant
of grace. Paul’s doctrines (a) exclude repentance from sin as
and Paul is to assume the validity of Paul's teaching of the covenant
of grace. Paul's doctrines (a) exclude repentance from sin as
necessary for salvation and (b) exclude Jews as the principal
partner. Yet, the validity of Paul as an inspired teacher to teach
these two ideas is the very question at issue. To derive the
dispensational solution that Jesus was talking to those under the
covenant of Law and not grace, one has to assume Paul’s validity. This
covenant of Law and not grace, one has to assume Paul's validity. This
assumption is the same thing as your conclusion. Paul alone teaches a
break between the seed of Israel and God in forming a New Covenant
people. (See (Gal. 4:22) ff.) The Dispensational theory at issue
overcomes the question of Paul’s inspiration by assuming Paul is
inspired despite the contradictions. The conclusion of Paul’s
overcomes the question of Paul's inspiration by assuming Paul is
inspired despite the contradictions. The conclusion of Paul's
inspiration is hidden in the discussion as a premise. Hence,
dispensationalism as a tool to reconcile Jesus and Paul is based on
circular logic.
@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ You can diagram the fallacy rather easily:
* Premise #4: Paul is inspired in expounding on a new covenant of grace to one audience.
* Premise #5: Jesus was inspired in expounding to a different audience who are under the covenant of Law but not under Paul’s covenant of grace.
* Premise #5: Jesus was inspired in expounding to a different audience who are under the covenant of Law but not under Paul's covenant of grace.
* Conclusion: Therefore both Jesus and Paul are inspired.

30
JWO_15_11_IrreconcilableDifferencesinPaulsNewCovenantTheology_0087.md

@ -12,36 +12,36 @@ until heaven and earth pass away, Jesus says, will one little letter
of the Law cease until all things are accomplished. (Matt. 5:18). If
Jesus intended that the Law would be accomplished in toto six months
later when He died on the cross, He made an incongruous statement that
the Law would continue until “heaven and earth pass away....” And
the Law would continue until "heaven and earth pass away...." And
Jesus would have made the further incongruous remark that a New
Testament kingdom member must keep “the least command in the Law.”
Testament kingdom member must keep "the least command in the Law."
Obviously, Jesus sees the New Covenant precisely as (Jer. 31:31)
explained. The New Covenant continued the Torah (Law). And as Isaiah
said, Servant-Messiah “will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it
honorable.” ((Isa. 42:21).) (For more discussion, see page 233 et seq
said, Servant-Messiah "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it
honorable." ((Isa. 42:21).) (For more discussion, see page 233 et seq
.) The New Covenant in Jeremiah and Isaiah is thus just as Jesus sees
it: the Law continues forward in the New Covenant, reinforced but
never done away with until the heavens and earth pass away.
Paul clearly contradicts Jesus in this respect. Paul says the Law is
nailed to a tree, abolished, etc., by Christ’s death on the
cross. (See chapter entitled, “Did Paul Negate the Law’s Further
Applicability?” on page 73.)
nailed to a tree, abolished, etc., by Christ's death on the
cross. (See chapter entitled, "Did Paul Negate the Law's Further
Applicability?" on page 73.)
Also, Paul sees Israel is displaced as covenant partner. Paul says
Israel now corresponds to the cursed child of Hagar, in bondage to
keep the Law which cannot save. Paul insists Israel can reap no
blessing from obeying the Law given Moses. Paul continues and says we
under the New Covenant are free to live without the Law. We are
analogized to be Isaac’s children. We live instead under a covenant of
analogized to be Isaac's children. We live instead under a covenant of
grace. (Gal. 4:28 ff.) However, this means Jesus and Paul contradict
on one of the core premises upon which hangs the validity of the
Dispensational Jesus-Paul solution.
Remember Premise #5? It said:
* Premise #5: Jesus was inspired in expounding to a different audience who are under the covenant of Law but not under Paul’s covenant of grace.
* Premise #5: Jesus was inspired in expounding to a different audience who are under the covenant of Law but not under Paul's covenant of grace.
Jesus would not agree that persons of the New Covenant are free to
disregard the Law. Remember Jesus said the one who teaches against the
@ -51,14 +51,14 @@ Law of Moses until heaven and earth pass away. (Matt. 5:18). Jesus is
obviously warning a member of His New Covenant community to follow the
Law. For Jesus, there is no such thing as a Covenant of Grace that
throws out the Law two years later. (Jer. 31:31) et seq. expressly
promises a New Covenant of “forgiveness and mercy” in which the Law
continues and the covenant relationship with Israel’s seed
promises a New Covenant of "forgiveness and mercy" in which the Law
continues and the covenant relationship with Israel's seed
continues. That is why there is no such thing as a dual audience of
different covenant partners—one under law and one under grace—as
covenant theology adopts to protect Paul’s validity.
different covenant partners-one under law and one under grace-as
covenant theology adopts to protect Paul's validity.
As Pastor John MacArthur says, “both law and grace are part of the
program of God in every dispensation.” (J. MacArthur, The Gospel
As Pastor John MacArthur says, "both law and grace are part of the
program of God in every dispensation." (J. MacArthur, The Gospel
According to Jesus, supra, at 31-32.)
Thus, dispensationalism/covenant theology, in its explanation of how

16
JWO_15_12_TheConsequencesofDispensationalIdeas_0088.md

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ with Luke, but was much shorter. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was
Formed [[JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112]].)
It has taken almost nineteen-hundred years, but everything has come
full circle back to Marcion’s doctrine and his truncated gospel
full circle back to Marcion's doctrine and his truncated gospel
account. The early church branded him a heretic. Marcion was
forgotten. The four gospels were later joined to canon. They appeared
safely ensconced as valid until the rise of covenant theology and
@ -25,21 +25,21 @@ Arthur correctly states about this aspect of Dispensationalism:
It is no wonder that the evangelistic message growing out of such
a system differs sharply from the gospel according to Jesus. If we
begin with the presupposition that much of Christ’s message was
begin with the presupposition that much of Christ's message was
intended for another age, why should our gospel be the same as He
preached? 23
23. John Mac Arthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan: 1994)
at 33. MacArthur does not share my view of Paul. Instead, he tries
valiantly to claim his view of Jesus’ gospel is consistent with
Paul. To do this, MacArthur argues that “repentance” (which Jesus
valiantly to claim his view of Jesus' gospel is consistent with
Paul. To do this, MacArthur argues that "repentance" (which Jesus
preached) is no more a work than faith. However, because MacArthur
defines repentance as “active submission” to Jesus {id., at 34, 113),
defines repentance as "active submission" to Jesus {id., at 34, 113),
it just cannot wash with Paul. I tried that path myself. 1 found Paul
is just too plainspeaking. For example, in (Rom. 4:4), Paul says if
salvation is by works then it would be by a “debt.” Paul then clearly
says in Romans 4:5: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.”
salvation is by works then it would be by a "debt." Paul then clearly
says in Romans 4:5: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."
Clearly Paul is excluding all kinds of effort , including active
submission. Paul thus eschews repentance from sin as part of
salvation. By doing so, Paul clearly contradicts Jesus.

90
JWO_15_13_DispensationalistAdmitsJesus_WordsAreNoLongerRelevantBecauseofPaul_0089.md

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Dispensationalist Admits Jesus ’ Words Are No Longer Relevant Because of Paul
## Dispensationalist Admits Jesus ' Words Are No Longer Relevant Because of Paul
Some Christians are unfamiliar with the streak of Dispensationalism
invading the churches. You have never heard this viewpoint boldly
@ -18,102 +18,102 @@ anything that Jesus taught; we should instead only teach what Paul
taught. Dispensational truth justifies this conclusion.
To avoid any claim that I am misleadingly taking his words out of
context, I include almost all of Pastor Paulson’s points. He says:
context, I include almost all of Pastor Paulson's points. He says:
In regards to that heretical piece of jewelry and money-making
modern Christian symbol based on the mentality of modern
Christianity, What Would Jesus Do, we should know that it really
doesn’t matter what Jesus would do in any specific situations
doesn't matter what Jesus would do in any specific situations
these days. In fact, the question is not even what Peter would do,
or Mary either! The question should be, What Would Paul Do!....
When most people start to read their ‘bible,’ they usually don't get
When most people start to read their 'bible,' they usually don't get
very far; in fact, most just read up to the Gospels and ignore the
rest claiming they don’t understand it all.
rest claiming they don't understand it all.
***[T]hen [they] put their itching ears to their ‘modern scholarly educated Greek/
***[T]hen [they] put their itching ears to their 'modern scholarly educated Greek/
Hebrew trained’ pastor and let him.. .teach the teachings of Jesus making them ‘feel’ like they are a good Christian following Jesus’ teachings!
Hebrew trained' pastor and let him.. .teach the teachings of Jesus making them 'feel' like they are a good Christian following Jesus' teachings!
Well, what’s wrong with that, you ask? It goes against the Scriptures!!!!
Well, what's wrong with that, you ask? It goes against the Scriptures!!!!
Keep in mind as you read this sermon, Acts is a transitional book. We
go from Jew to Gentile; Jerusalem to Rome; Law to Grace; and Peter to Paul!
Let’s remind ourselves about the proper place of Peter in today’s
Let's remind ourselves about the proper place of Peter in today's
Christianity:
According to (Matt. 10:5-7), Peter, as were the rest of the twelve,
was an apostle to Jews only.... In fact, Jesus is not even our
spokesman for today! His ‘target’ was the lost sheep of Israel. Matthew 10:5,6.
spokesman for today! His 'target' was the lost sheep of Israel. Matthew 10:5,6.
Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels were geared to the Jews—if they had
accepted Him as their Messiah. They killed Him instead—thus the
teachings in the Gospels will become the ‘constitution’ when He is on
the earth again—however, this time He will enforce those teachings!
That is what the Millennium is all about. Unfortunately, most ‘modern’
Christians follow those teachings today—I call them Beatitudinal
Jesus' teachings in the Gospels were geared to the Jews-if they had
accepted Him as their Messiah. They killed Him instead-thus the
teachings in the Gospels will become the 'constitution' when He is on
the earth again-however, this time He will enforce those teachings!
That is what the Millennium is all about. Unfortunately, most 'modern'
Christians follow those teachings today-I call them Beatitudinal
Christians and a simple reading of the Sermon on the Mount should
[show] them that they can NOT live that sermon completely today— no
way, not at all—not even close! The stuff in the Sermon on the Mount
actually contradicts Paul’s teachings in everything from salvation to
doctrinal belief! You would think folks would see this—but like Jesus
[show] them that they can NOT live that sermon completely today- no
way, not at all-not even close! The stuff in the Sermon on the Mount
actually contradicts Paul's teachings in everything from salvation to
doctrinal belief! You would think folks would see this-but like Jesus
said of them, ye err not knowing the Scriptures...
So now, let’s consider the proper place of Paul in today’s New Testament Christianity:
So now, let's consider the proper place of Paul in today's New Testament Christianity:
He is our one and only apostle. ‘contradictions’), then we must
consider what Paul says— any instructions contradicting his
writings apply to a group other than the Church —other than the
He is our one and only apostle. 'contradictions'), then we must
consider what Paul says- any instructions contradicting his
writings apply to a group other than the Church -other than the
Christian today.
We shouldn’t follow Peter...
We shouldn't follow Peter...
We really shouldn’t even follow Jesus’ Millennialistic-Gospelic teachings...
We really shouldn't even follow Jesus' Millennialistic-Gospelic teachings...
We are to follow Paul!
We shouldn’t care what Peter would do!
We shouldn't care what Peter would do!
We shouldn’t care what Jesus would do!....
We shouldn't care what Jesus would do!....
We should only care WWPD [i.e., What Would Paul Do?]! 24
What Paulson, a Baptist Pastor, admits is that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount contradicts Paul on general doctrines as well as salvation doctrine. Rather than this being proof that Paul is a false apostle, Pastor Paulson sees this as proof that
What Paulson, a Baptist Pastor, admits is that Jesus' Sermon on the Mount contradicts Paul on general doctrines as well as salvation doctrine. Rather than this being proof that Paul is a false apostle, Pastor Paulson sees this as proof that
“Whoever is ashamed of me and my words... of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38)
"Whoever is ashamed of me and my words... of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)
24.The sermon quoted is entitled WWJD v. WWPD
![Picture #84](images/img_0084.png)
Dispensationalist Admits Jesus’ Words Are No Longer Relevant Because
of Paul alone is valid for our times. He insists all Jesus’ words are
Dispensationalist Admits Jesus' Words Are No Longer Relevant Because
of Paul alone is valid for our times. He insists all Jesus' words are
invalid until the Millennium. Pastor Paulson says that it is heretical
to ask ‘what would Jesus do’ in the era of grace. The only commands to
search out are those in Paul’s writings. We not only can ignore Jesus’
words. We must ignore Jesus’ directions and salvation theology. If we
follow Jesus’ words, Paulson insists we are the heretic! Oh My!
to ask 'what would Jesus do' in the era of grace. The only commands to
search out are those in Paul's writings. We not only can ignore Jesus'
words. We must ignore Jesus' directions and salvation theology. If we
follow Jesus' words, Paulson insists we are the heretic! Oh My!
Pastor Paulson is a symptom of a much larger problem. Paulinism is
taking over the churches. Jesus’ words are being diminished and
marginalized. The question of Paul’s canonicity thus is becoming more
taking over the churches. Jesus' words are being diminished and
marginalized. The question of Paul's canonicity thus is becoming more
and more urgent to resolve. If we wait too long, it may soon be
regarded as heretical to teach anything Jesus taught about salvation
or morality.
People’s salvation is at risk. People will lose the promise that Jesus
gives them that if you “kept guard” of His word you “should never
taste death.” (John 8:51.)
People's salvation is at risk. People will lose the promise that Jesus
gives them that if you "kept guard" of His word you "should never
taste death." (John 8:51.)
If we wait too long to re-examine Paul, John tells us that if anyone accepts any writing that transgresses a teaching of Jesus Christ, that Christian loses God (“doesn’t have God”). John writes in 2 John 1:8-11 (Websters’ Bible):
If we wait too long to re-examine Paul, John tells us that if anyone accepts any writing that transgresses a teaching of Jesus Christ, that Christian loses God ("doesn't have God"). John writes in 2 John 1:8-11 (Websters' Bible):
(8) Watch yourselves, that we [i.e., the twelve apostles] don’t
(8) Watch yourselves, that we [i.e., the twelve apostles] don't
lose the things which we have accomplished, but that we receive a
full reward.
(9) Whoever transgresses [i.e., goes beyond] and doesn’t remain in
the teaching of Christ, doesn’t have God [i.e., breaks fellowship
(9) Whoever transgresses [i.e., goes beyond] and doesn't remain in
the teaching of Christ, doesn't have God [i.e., breaks fellowship
with God], He who remains in the teaching [of Jesus Christ], the
same has both the Father and the Son.

10
JWO_15_14_Conclusion_0090.md

@ -2,20 +2,20 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Chapter 15 Conclusion
Jesus’ words were marginalized by Marcion in 144 A.D. The early church
Jesus' words were marginalized by Marcion in 144 A.D. The early church
recognized this as heresy. History has repeated itself. Will we
recognize Marcionism of today as heresy?
We have to go back to the same solution as used in early
Christianity. We could simply republish Against Marcion by Tertullian,
and find all the lessons we need. Tertullian re-examined in what sense
Paul’s words could be read. Tertullian said Paul was not an inspired
Paul's words could be read. Tertullian said Paul was not an inspired
person, and we have no adequate proof he was even an apostle of Jesus
Christ. Tertullian respected Paul and regarded him as edifying. But
for Tertullian, his respect for Paul neither proved inspiration nor
true apostleship. Can we make this leap and adopt Tertullian’s 207
true apostleship. Can we make this leap and adopt Tertullian's 207
A.D. view of Paul is the true basis upon which Paul was placed in the
New Testament? Can we dispense with our comfortable paradigms and
return to the early church’s view of Paul? Can we finally accept
Jesus’ Words Only as the true inspired NT canon?
return to the early church's view of Paul? Can we finally accept
Jesus' Words Only as the true inspired NT canon?

188
JWO_16_01_LongTraditionofJWOandMinimizationofPaul_0091.md

@ -4,35 +4,35 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Introduction
The oldest tradition in the church relied upon Jesus’ Words Only (JWO)
The oldest tradition in the church relied upon Jesus' Words Only (JWO)
as the test of orthodoxy. In the period of 125 A.D. to 325 A.D., after
the twelve apostles were gone, the church faced the crisis of Marcion
(144 A.D.). He claimed only Paul had the true gospel. Marcion insisted
the teachings of the twelve, particularly in the gospel of Matthew and
John, did not reflect the true gospel. Marcion thus forced the early
church to speak out on the issue of Paul’s authority compared to the
words of Christ from the twelve. Tertullian was the early church’s
church to speak out on the issue of Paul's authority compared to the
words of Christ from the twelve. Tertullian was the early church's
spokesperson on Marcion. The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
(1995): “Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were
considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures.” 1
(1995): "Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were
considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures." 1
Lieuwen gives several proof texts. For example, Hegessipus in the
first half of the second century said canon was only “the Law, the
Prophets, and the Lord”; to this alone “a right faith must conform.”
first half of the second century said canon was only "the Law, the
Prophets, and the Lord"; to this alone "a right faith must conform."
The early church leaders ( e.g Tertullian) simultaneously were saying
that Paul’s message was deemed inferior to those Gospel accounts of
Jesus’ life and teachings. Thus, orthodoxy focused on the words of
Jesus from the Gospels. Jesus’ words were the test of orthodoxy. The
early church, through Tertullian in 207 A.D., said Paul’s teachings
were below these gospel accounts. In particular, Paul’s words were
that Paul's message was deemed inferior to those Gospel accounts of
Jesus' life and teachings. Thus, orthodoxy focused on the words of
Jesus from the Gospels. Jesus' words were the test of orthodoxy. The
early church, through Tertullian in 207 A.D., said Paul's teachings
were below these gospel accounts. In particular, Paul's words were
inferior to the gospels of Matthew and John. If there was any conflict
between these gospel accounts and Paul’s teachings, Tertullian said we
between these gospel accounts and Paul's teachings, Tertullian said we
were to prefer Matthew and John over Paul. Thus, JWO has the longest
support in Christendom. It also is the most common-sense position to
take on determining what is orthodox. If Paul cannot be reconciled to
the words of Christ, we do not bend Jesus’ words to fit Paul. Rather,
all of Jesus’ teachings must be given precedence regardless of the
the words of Christ, we do not bend Jesus' words to fit Paul. Rather,
all of Jesus' teachings must be given precedence regardless of the
impact on Pauline doctrine. Jesus must not be marginalized to fit
Paul.
@ -48,13 +48,13 @@ Was Formed at page ix et seq .)
As explained in Appendix B, sometime around 64 A.D., the Ebionites
developed a canon that only included Matthew in its Hebrew
original. They specifically excluded Paul’s writings. As to Paul, the
Ebionites made a blatant claim that Paul’s words were heretically
original. They specifically excluded Paul's writings. As to Paul, the
Ebionites made a blatant claim that Paul's words were heretically
contrary to those of the Lord Jesus. Thus, Paul must be excluded, they
said. We can infer their simple canon list was created around 64
A.D. because (a) Paul’s writings existed and were circulating at that
A.D. because (a) Paul's writings existed and were circulating at that
point and (b) the Ebionites do not comment positively or negatively on
the inclusion of Mark, Luke or John’s Gospel (or any other epistle,
the inclusion of Mark, Luke or John's Gospel (or any other epistle,
for that matter). These works date from 65 A.D. onward. Presumably
these writings did not exist when the Ebionites declared the Hebrew
Matthew was canon, and Paul was to be excluded.
@ -69,15 +69,15 @@ into Greek, and it is this translation which ended up in our New
Testament. 3
In sum, the Ebionites insisted that this Hebrew Matthew was the canon
at that time. All of Paul’s writings had to be excluded as uninspired,
at that time. All of Paul's writings had to be excluded as uninspired,
the Ebionites claimed. (For more details, see Appendix B: How the
Canon Was Formed. For more on the Ebionites’ view of Paul, see page 306.)
Canon Was Formed. For more on the Ebionites' view of Paul, see page 306.)
Thus, the Ebionites were the first to insist Jesus’ words alone were
Thus, the Ebionites were the first to insist Jesus' words alone were
canon. They excluded Paul. In fact, the Ebionites were the first to
propose a say Paul is a prophet. They never say Paul has specific
prophecies that would put him on par with Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel or
Jesus. Nor do they ever teach Paul’s faithalone (/.<?., without works)
Jesus. Nor do they ever teach Paul's faithalone (/.<?., without works)
doctrine is the valid test for salvation. The early church (125-325
A.D.) always found a way to fit Paul into what Jesus says, as recorded
by the twelve.
@ -86,11 +86,11 @@ In fact, Tertullian, a well-respected Christian lawyer and apologist
for the faith, wrote in 207 A.D. Against Marcion. This work was to
attack the rising influence of Marcion. The Marcionites, beginning
about 144 A.D., claimed that only Paul had the true gospel. Marcion
claimed the books of Matthew, Mark, and John contradicted Paul’s
gospel. Marcion only accepted a shortened version of Luke’s gospel as
valid. As a result of Marcionism, the issue of Paul’s level of
claimed the books of Matthew, Mark, and John contradicted Paul's
gospel. Marcion only accepted a shortened version of Luke's gospel as
valid. As a result of Marcionism, the issue of Paul's level of
authority had to be resolved by the apostolic churches. The apostolic
church had to answer whether Marcion’s emphasis on Paul was
church had to answer whether Marcion's emphasis on Paul was
valid. (See Appendix B: How the Canon Was Formed at page ix et seq.)
3. Professor George Howard recently re-published a medieval text that
@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ has the earmarks of this Hebrew original Matthew. It was preserved
ironically by a Jewish critic of Christianity as an appendix to his
rebuttal work to Christianity. It reads virtually identical to our
current version. Yet, its variances repair some textual errors in our
Greek New Testament ( e.g Jesus’ ascribes the 30 pieces of silver in
Greek New Testament ( e.g Jesus' ascribes the 30 pieces of silver in
the Hebrew Matthew to Zechariah, but our Greek NT version ascribes
this erroneously to the prophet Jeremiah). Thus, this Hebrew Matthew
must be closer to the original Matthew. For more information, see the
@ -109,20 +109,20 @@ reduce Paul to a completely marginal figure.
First, as discussed below, Tertullian proves that Paul is inferior to
the twelve apostles. Paul had to submit to their authority in Acts
chapter 15. Second, Tertullian said there is no evidence other than
Paul’s own word that Jesus made Paul an apostle. Luke’s account in
Paul's own word that Jesus made Paul an apostle. Luke's account in
Acts omits any evidence for this key claim of Paul that he was an
apostle of Jesus Christ.
Lastly, one by one, Tertullian tears apart Marcion’s doctrines of
Lastly, one by one, Tertullian tears apart Marcion's doctrines of
total depravity, predestination, salvation by faith alone, and eternal
security. On this second cluster of issues, Tertullian never
identifies what verses in Paul that Marcion is citing. However, we all
know what they were. We can hear in Tertullian’s paraphrase of
Marcion’s ideas the ring of Paul’s doctrines. Tertullian is silent on
know what they were. We can hear in Tertullian's paraphrase of
Marcion's ideas the ring of Paul's doctrines. Tertullian is silent on
where these specific ideas of Marcion derive, but they are all too
familiar to us.
But first, let’s provide a little more background on Marcion and the
But first, let's provide a little more background on Marcion and the
rival church system he founded. Here was the first splinter group
within Christianity.
@ -131,9 +131,9 @@ within Christianity.
In 144 A.D., one particular ex-bishop of the church named Marcion
proclaimed three core teachings:
* Salvation-by-faith alone. “The Good [God of the NT] redeems those
* Salvation-by-faith alone. "The Good [God of the NT] redeems those
who believe in Him but He does not judge those who are disobedient
to him.” (Marcion, Antitheses #19.)(See page 49.)
to him." (Marcion, Antitheses #19.)(See page 49.)
* The Law was not given by God the Father and could be disregarded; and
@ -144,8 +144,8 @@ Marcion relied upon Paul exclusively for doctrine. He rejected any of
the Gospels written by the twelve apostles. Marcion claimed they were
written solely for Jews. In a sense, he was simultaneously
Dispensational and His claim that Paul alone had the correct gospel
dispensation allowed Marcion to shuffle aside any of the apostles’
writings as unimportant if they did not match Paul’s gospel.
dispensation allowed Marcion to shuffle aside any of the apostles'
writings as unimportant if they did not match Paul's gospel.
( [[JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112]] at page ix.)
We have seen previously that Paul indeed taught:
@ -154,10 +154,10 @@ We have seen previously that Paul indeed taught:
unrepentant disobedient Christians (committing incest) are saved. (1
Cor. 5:5, discussed at page 149.)
* The Law of Moses was given to Moses by angels who are “not gods” and
* The Law of Moses was given to Moses by angels who are "not gods" and
no obedience to the Law was therefore necessary. ((Gal. 3:17);
3:19-29, Gal. 4:8-9, discussed at “Denigration of the Law as Given
by the Angels” on page 83.)
3:19-29, Gal. 4:8-9, discussed at "Denigration of the Law as Given
by the Angels" on page 83.)
* Jesus only appeared to come in sinful human flesh ((Rom. 8:3)) and
Jesus only appeared to be a man ((Phil. 2:7)). (For discussion, see
@ -168,50 +168,50 @@ Marcion was rejected universally by the post-apostolic church leaders.
Marcion was a serious threat to the survival of Christianity. Marcion
had created a church system, with many churches. Marcionite churches
had bishops and teachers. Marcion’s church was in almost every land
had bishops and teachers. Marcion's church was in almost every land
and community. Some believe in certain cities there were more
Marcionites than orthodox Christians. The Encyclopedia Brittanica in
“Marcion” reflects this understanding:
"Marcion" reflects this understanding:
The Marcionite sect, highly ascetic and celibate, grew rapidly
until it was second in strength only to the original church
theological explanation why the Law did not have to be
followed. Marcion must have realized that Paul’s claim that the
followed. Marcion must have realized that Paul's claim that the
Law was given by angels was unsound Biblically. So Marcion devised
what he regarded as a better reason to prove the Law of Moses was
invalid. What was this?
Marcion had a very elaborate and well-defended view why the Law was
invalid, set forth in his Antitheses . 4 Against Marcion relied on
much more than this. Tertullian’s primary defense of Christ was based
on lifting up Jesus’ words in the Gospels above Paul, thereby
much more than this. Tertullian's primary defense of Christ was based
on lifting up Jesus' words in the Gospels above Paul, thereby
defeating the core doctrines of Marcion.
Based on Tertullian’s work, the apostolic churches defeated
Based on Tertullian's work, the apostolic churches defeated
Marcionism. The Marcionites early Paul-only-ism almost swallowed the
church. Yet, the early church bravely fought back and
survived. Marcionism took almost three hundred years to be defeated
within Christianity.
In fact, Marcionism— despite being crippled by the 300s — had a strong
In fact, Marcionism- despite being crippled by the 300s - had a strong
fascination for centuries thereafter. Paulonly-ism lived on within the
fringe of Christianity. This was because the Marcionite churches had
entered Armenia early on. They re-emerged as a force in Armenia in the
eighth century. Their Christian opponents labelled them Paulicians
because of their adherence to Paul. Eventually they spread to Bulgaria
and Turkey. The Paulicians claimed: (a) only Paul’s gospel is the true
and Turkey. The Paulicians claimed: (a) only Paul's gospel is the true
gospel; (b) salvation is by faith alone; (c) the gospels Matthew, Mark
and John had to be eliminated as canon; and (d) there is to be
selective receipt of Luke’s gospel account. This was unmistakably
selective receipt of Luke's gospel account. This was unmistakably
similar to the core doctrines of Marcion. In 844, the Paulicians took
control of a state in Turkey and became a military power. In 871, they
were defeated by Emperor Basil I of Byzantium. The Eastern Orthodox
treated the Paulicians as heretics. Yet, the Paulicians survived into
the twelfth century. 5
5. See “Paulicians,” Catholic Encyclopedia. It mentions they
“[ljrejected the Old Testament...[2][T]o believe in him [[Jesus]] saves
men from judgment....[3] Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament.”
5. See "Paulicians," Catholic Encyclopedia. It mentions they
"[ljrejected the Old Testament...[2][T]o believe in him [[Jesus]] saves
men from judgment....[3] Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament."
In N. G. Garsoian, The Paulician Heresy dispensational theology. The
virtue of modem dispensationalism is that it does not expose the
advocate to an accusation of polytheism. Instead, it only exposes the
@ -223,16 +223,16 @@ A.D. clearly rejected Marcion and his Pauline theology.
### Tertullian Demonstrates Paul is Inferior to the Other Apostles
In Book 4, chapter 2 of Tertullian’s Against Marcion (ca. 207 A.D.),
Tertullian clearly says Paul’s authority is inferior to that of the
twelve apostles. Tertullian explains Paul’s gospel is only valid so
In Book 4, chapter 2 of Tertullian's Against Marcion (ca. 207 A.D.),
Tertullian clearly says Paul's authority is inferior to that of the
twelve apostles. Tertullian explains Paul's gospel is only valid so
long as it is consistent with Jesus and the twelve.
First, Tertullian starts out by emphasizing the priority of the
gospels written by the actual twelve apostles, namely the gospels of
Matthew and John. Those of Luke and Mark were inferior because they
were produced merely by disciples of their teachers. Later Tertullian
identifies Luke and Mark as “apostolic men,” but not
identifies Luke and Mark as "apostolic men," but not
apostles. Tertullian writes:
I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have
@ -259,16 +259,16 @@ John. Thus, Tertullian was saying that (a) to the extent Marcion is
using Luke legitimately then (b) Luke is still inferior to the gospel
accounts of Matthew and John.
Tertullian’s view of Luke’s Gospel as subordinate to Matthew has de
Tertullian's view of Luke's Gospel as subordinate to Matthew has de
facto been accepted by conservative Christians today, as we
must. Otherwise Luke has Jesus uttering a command to “hate your”
mother and father which is contrary to prior Scripture. Matthew’s
must. Otherwise Luke has Jesus uttering a command to "hate your"
mother and father which is contrary to prior Scripture. Matthew's
account of the same exchange
6. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Gospel according to Luke. Tertullian
is thus suggesting that Luke’s Gospel is the source of Marcion’s
gospel account of Jesus’ life. Tertullian is then saying that to the
extent Marcion’s gospel account was written by Luke, it is not as
is thus suggesting that Luke's Gospel is the source of Marcion's
gospel account of Jesus' life. Tertullian is then saying that to the
extent Marcion's gospel account was written by Luke, it is not as
authoritative as either Matthew or John. The latter were apostles of Jesus.
Luke was not.
@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ Next, Tertullian discusses the possibility that Marcion is claiming
Paul wrote this proto-Luke gospel. Scholars believe Tertullian was not
merely hypothesizing. They believe that Marcion indeed was claiming
Paul wrote protoLuke. Whatever the truth, Tertullian is going to
discuss what would be the authority of a gospel narrative of Jesus’
discuss what would be the authority of a gospel narrative of Jesus'
life even if it were written by Paul as compared to narratives written
by Matthew or John. We are going to get to a key issue: would such a
gospel narrative written by Paul be on par with a gospel written by
@ -284,39 +284,39 @@ Matthew or John? Tertullian answers no, thereby demonstrating a lower
regard for Paul than the twelve, in particular lower than the writings
of Matthew and John.
7. In Luke 14:26, Luke says Jesus said, “If any man cometh unto me,
7. In Luke 14:26, Luke says Jesus said, "If any man cometh unto me,
and hateth not more of lesser account as being the follower of a later
apostle, Paul, 9 to be sure: so that even if Marcion had introduced
his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single document
would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of
his [i.e., Paul’s]predecessors [the twelve apostles]. For we should
his [i.e., Paul's]predecessors [the twelve apostles]. For we should
demand the production of that gospel also which Paul found <in
existence >, that to which he gave his assent, that with which shortly
afterwards he was anxious that his own should agree: for his intention
in going up to Jerusalem to know and to consult the apostles, was lest
perchance he had run in vain— that is, lest perchance he had not
perchance he had run in vain- that is, lest perchance he had not
believed as they did, or were not preaching the gospel in their
manner. At length, when he [i. e., Paul] had conferred with the
original < apostles >, and there was agreement concerning the rule of
the faith, they joined the right hands <of fellowship >....If he
[i.e., Paul] therefore who
9. For the doubting Thomas’ over this Oxford translation, the Latin
original confirms this is correct. It is: “Porro Lucas non apostolus
9. For the doubting Thomas' over this Oxford translation, the Latin
original confirms this is correct. It is: "Porro Lucas non apostolus
sed apostolicus, non magister sed discipulus, utique magistro minor,
certe tanto posterior quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli for
his faith as well as his preaching, much more must I require for
Luke’s gospel the authority [i.e., from the twelve] which was
Luke's gospel the authority [i.e., from the twelve] which was
necessary for the gospel of his master [i.e., Paul]. 10
Tertullian could not be more clear. Paul’s authority was not
Tertullian could not be more clear. Paul's authority was not
recognized as direct from Jesus or by revelation. It only derived from
Paul’s recognition by the twelve apostles. He was their disciple, and
they were Paul’s masters. If Paul created a gospel text, Tertullian
responds that Paul’s conduct in Acts chapter 15 reveals Paul’s
Paul's recognition by the twelve apostles. He was their disciple, and
they were Paul's masters. If Paul created a gospel text, Tertullian
responds that Paul's conduct in Acts chapter 15 reveals Paul's
authority could not exceed the words and guidance of the twelve. Paul
was not allowed to run beyond the teaching of Christ that the twelve
had. Thus, if Paul was Luke’s source for his gospel, then Luke’s
had. Thus, if Paul was Luke's source for his gospel, then Luke's
gospel still must be consistent with the apostolic canon of Matthew
and John or otherwise it is invalid. This means that for Tertullian,
Paul was not free to utter doctrines that were inconsistent with the
@ -324,11 +324,11 @@ gospels of Matthew or John.
### Tertullian Questions In What Sense Paul Was An Apostle
Tertullian is not through analyzing Paul’s authority within the New
Tertullian is not through analyzing Paul's authority within the New
Testament church. Tertullian even gets to the issue in what sense Paul
was an apostle of Jesus. Tertullian in Book 5 of Against Marcion
remarks that there is actually no proof in the gospels of Matthew,
Mark, Luke or John that Paul was made an apostle. It is solely Paul’s
Mark, Luke or John that Paul was made an apostle. It is solely Paul's
word. Tertullian says that if we are forced to admit any contradiction
between Paul and the twelve, we must abide in the words from the
twelve. (Tertullian never admits a contradiction, and seeks to
@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ twelve. (Tertullian never admits a contradiction, and seeks to
Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who and
that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus
Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim
is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes
is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person writes
the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and
a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both
claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that
@ -375,9 +375,9 @@ twelve. (Tertullian never admits a contradiction, and seeks to
validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but
reject the means of establishing them. Let Christ, let the
apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it
except from the Creator’s archives.
except from the Creator's archives.
[You may argue:] ‘And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle?’ I
[You may argue:] 'And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle?' I
speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it
is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim
that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief,
@ -389,26 +389,26 @@ twelve. (Tertullian never admits a contradiction, and seeks to
11 .Tertullian, Against Marcion their teaching. There is no unique
authority that Paul can ever have apart from the twelve, as Marcion was claiming.
Tertullian then goes on to prove that Paul is “his apostle” but only
by Tertullian’s elaborate effort to prove Paul does not contradict the
twelve (i.e., Matthew and John). Tertullian’s arguments in the balance
Tertullian then goes on to prove that Paul is "his apostle" but only
by Tertullian's elaborate effort to prove Paul does not contradict the
twelve (i.e., Matthew and John). Tertullian's arguments in the balance
of Book 5 of Against Marcion (as well as in Book I) reveal efforts to
save Paul as the source of edifying yet these cannot possibly seem to
have qnalified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their
very nature [i.e., they were ‘unspeakable’] was such as to render them
very nature [i.e., they were 'unspeakable'] was such as to render them
communicable to no human being. 12
In conclusion, Tertullian’s statements in Against Marcion and
In conclusion, Tertullian's statements in Against Marcion and
Prescription Against Heretics completely marginalized the status of
Paul. The church was being forced to examine Paul’s credentials.
Paul. The church was being forced to examine Paul's credentials.
Tertullian found them wanting. Yet, Tertullian was not through.
### Tertullian Criticizes Every Pauline Doctrine of Marcion
Tertullian throughout Against Marcion shows how Marcion’s
Tertullian throughout Against Marcion shows how Marcion's
understanding of Paul does not square with reason, Jesus, or Paul
himself. Tertullian’s approach is typically “Paul says this,” but ‘you
Marcion do not understand.’ However, in a stretch of four chapters
himself. Tertullian's approach is typically "Paul says this," but 'you
Marcion do not understand.' However, in a stretch of four chapters
beginning at chapter 23 to chapter 27 of Book One, Tertullian does a
180 degree turn. He discusses doctrines of Marcion which come from
Paul but Tertullian never mentions Paul. Then Tertullian crushes each
@ -427,7 +427,7 @@ was proving as heresy everything that Paulunists emphasize today as valid.
Tertullian on Predestination : Is Double Predestination Fair? Can Marcion s God Be Truly Good If He Thwarts Salvation In The Greater Part of Humanity?
“Now, when the greater part thus perish, how can that goodness [of God]
"Now, when the greater part thus perish, how can that goodness [of God]
be defended as a perfect one which is inoperative in most cases,
is somewhat only in few, naught in many, succumbs to perdition,
and is a partner with destruction [i. e ., wills the lost to
@ -436,14 +436,14 @@ Tertullian on Predestination : Is Double Predestination Fair? Can Marcion s God
will lie. For as it is the operation of goodness which brings
salvation, so is it malevolence which thwarts it [i.e., if it is
goodness of God that predestines salvation, Marcion must imply it
is evil in God that intentionally thwarts it].” (Against Marcion 1.24.) 13
is evil in God that intentionally thwarts it]." (Against Marcion 1.24.) 13
Tertullian on Total Depravity and Justification of the Ungodly Rather than the Righteous: Why Would God Capriciously Grant Salvation On Enemies Rather than Prefer Those Who Love Him and Are Righteous?
“Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion’s god is rational, on
"Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion's god is rational, on
this account first, because it proceeded to the salvation of a
human creature which was alien to him [i.e., an enemy not seeking
Him.] [I omit here T.’s discussion on limits to love of enemies a
Him.] [I omit here T.'s discussion on limits to love of enemies a
person seeking God and to please Him, not an enemy], and only at
its second stage on an alien object by a redundant righteousness
over and above that of scribes and Pharisees [i.e., apply
@ -497,14 +497,14 @@ Tertullian on Total Depravity and Justification of the Ungodly Rather than the R
rejection-that is, his salvation ? Therefore his being cast away
will involve the forfeiture of salvation; and this sentence cannot
possibly be passed upon him, except by an angry and offended
authority, who is also the punisher of sin—that is, by a judge.”
authority, who is also the punisher of sin-that is, by a judge."
(Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.27.) 15
14. Paul teaches we are all enemies of God, but God then bestowed His
mercy on us while we were yet sinners. (Rom. 5:10). Tertullian says
this is absurd because he believes there are those who seek after
God. The Lord Almighty should pick them to bestow His
mercy. Tertullian is basing this on Jesus’ clear teaching of the saved
mercy. Tertullian is basing this on Jesus' clear teaching of the saved
fourth seed who had prior to hearing the word been a good and noble
heart. (Luke 8:15). However, a Paulunist does not acknowledge ever
that such a person exists. Yet, the Bible teaches they do exist: e.g..

74
JWO_16_02_PatristicEra(125-325A.D.)RejectedPaulsSalvationDoctrine_0092.md

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.) Rejected Paul s Salvation Doctrine
Jesus’ Words Only was the earliest post-apostolic standard of
Jesus' Words Only was the earliest post-apostolic standard of
orthodoxy. The era that predates the Roman Catholic period is
traditionally called the Patristic era. It spans 125 A.D. to 325
A.D. In this period, the bishop of Rome was just one of many bishops
@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ apostles. (This is why it is called the Patristic Era.) They thereby
serve as a witness of what the twelve apostles likely must have been
teaching. A
15.Tertullian’s chapter title is interesting: “Dangerous Effects to
Religion and Morality of the Doctrine of So Weak a God.” He saw
15.Tertullian's chapter title is interesting: "Dangerous Effects to
Religion and Morality of the Doctrine of So Weak a God." He saw
eternal security as a threat to morality. Tertullian repeats this
attack on eternal security forcefully in his book The Scorpion’s Bite
attack on eternal security forcefully in his book The Scorpion's Bite
(207 A.D.) He felt the doctrine sapped the resolve of those under
persecution. Many were teaching that if you denied Christ, Christ
would not deny you and you remained saved (quoting Paul in 2
@ -25,24 +25,24 @@ Timothy). Tertullian regarded this eternal security doctrine as the A
Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than
700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers (Peabody, Mass.:
Henrickson Publishing, 1998.) Based on this extraordinary research,
Bercot claims “early Christians universally believed that works or
obedience play an essential role in our salvation.” 16 This was
completely contrary to Paul’s teaching in (Eph. 2:8-9).
Bercot claims "early Christians universally believed that works or
obedience play an essential role in our salvation." 16 This was
completely contrary to Paul's teaching in (Eph. 2:8-9).
If true, then Bercot’s claim causes us to ponder. Are we to believe
If true, then Bercot's claim causes us to ponder. Are we to believe
the twelve apostle taught works were not essential to salvation? If we
believe this, then we must also believe the church which had a diffuse
organization as of 125 A.D. became heretical immediately after all the
apostles died. This also had to occur simultaneously in numerous
disparate congregations under different authorities. Further, as
Paulunists concede, we have to believe this ‘heresy’ that rejected
Paul’s doctrines on salvation continued universally for 1400 years
Paulunists concede, we have to believe this 'heresy' that rejected
Paul's doctrines on salvation continued universally for 1400 years
until Luther rediscovered the true salvation formula in 1517. If
Bercot is correct, the Paulunist asks us to swallow a host of
implausibilities if we assume the twelve accepted Paul’s teaching on
implausibilities if we assume the twelve accepted Paul's teaching on
salvation.
Thus, Bercot’s claim is a big one. However, it is one which Bercot
Thus, Bercot's claim is a big one. However, it is one which Bercot
backs up with thorough quotes. For example, while the early church
believed you were not saved by works
@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, falsewitness;...forgive,
and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain
mercy;.(Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, ch. 2.) 17
Hennas, whose work of about 132 A.D. was one of the favorites of that early era, wrote: “ Only those who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God.” (Hernias, Shepherd II. comm. 7; III sim. 10 ch. 2.)
Hennas, whose work of about 132 A.D. was one of the favorites of that early era, wrote: " Only those who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God." (Hernias, Shepherd II. comm. 7; III sim. 10 ch. 2.)
Clement of Alexandria (150-212 A.D.), an elder of his church and whose
works quote the New Testament 2,400 times, wrote around 190 A.D.:
@ -65,43 +65,43 @@ works quote the New Testament 2,400 times, wrote around 190 A.D.:
attaining the objects of their hope. (Clement, Rich Man chs. 1 and
2.)
“Even a baptized person loses the grace he has attained unless he
remains innocent.” Cyprian (250 A.D.)
"Even a baptized person loses the grace he has attained unless he
remains innocent." Cyprian (250 A.D.)
f\nti-[\jicene
J—ath evs Vol. 5 at 542.
J-ath evs Vol. 5 at 542.
17.
http://www. earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-roberts.html
18. Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands A Verdict![Picture #86](images/img_0086.png)
In response to the Marcionites’ claim that salvation was by faith
In response to the Marcionites' claim that salvation was by faith
alone, Clement further responded:
Let us not merely call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He
says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will be saved, but
he who does what is right.’ Thus, brothers, let us acknowledge him
says, 'Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will be saved, but
he who does what is right.' Thus, brothers, let us acknowledge him
by our actions. ...This world, and the world to come are two
enemies. This one means adultery, corruption, avarice, and deceit,
while the other gives them up. We cannot, therefore, be friends of
both. To get the one, we must give the other up. (Second Epistle
of Clement ch. 4.) 19
What led into this quote was Clement’s explanation that a true
What led into this quote was Clement's explanation that a true
confession of Christ is not with the lips but with the heart by action.
For He himself declares, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him
will I confess before my Father.’ This, then, is our reward if we
For He himself declares, 'Whosoever shall confess me before men, him
will I confess before my Father.' This, then, is our reward if we
shall confess Him by whom we have been saved. But in what way shall we
confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His
commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with
all our heart and all our mind. For He says in Isaiah, ‘This people
honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.’ (Second
all our heart and all our mind. For He says in Isaiah, 'This people
honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' (Second
Epistle of Clement, ch.3.)
What if we should strive to win the crown in Christ, but commit sin en routel as some today read Paul’s words in (Rom. 8:39). Clement wrote instead:
What if we should strive to win the crown in Christ, but commit sin en routel as some today read Paul's words in (Rom. 8:39). Clement wrote instead:
We must remember that he who strives in the corruptible contest,
if he be found acting unfairly, is taken away and scourged, and
@ -111,37 +111,37 @@ What if we should strive to win the crown in Christ, but commit sin en routel a
shall he have to bear?
For of those who do not preserve the seal [unbroken], [the
Scripture] saith, ‘Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall
not be quenched, and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh.’
Scripture] saith, 'Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall
not be quenched, and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh.'
(Second Epistle of Clement ch. 7.)
These and numerous other sources demonstrate Paul’s salvation theory was not recognized. Paul’s ideas were that salvation was by a one-time faith alone, without works, and there was no condemnation once in Christ. (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 8:1.). However, the only proponents who took these verses seriously were the Marcionites. They were branded, however, as heretics by the early post-apostolic church. Paul’s salvation formulas were never accepted in the universal post-apostolic Christian church from 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. In that period, Paul, even if quoted on salvation by faith, was always read to line up with Christ’s emphasis on the essential nature of works and the damning power of sin in a Christian’s life.
These and numerous other sources demonstrate Paul's salvation theory was not recognized. Paul's ideas were that salvation was by a one-time faith alone, without works, and there was no condemnation once in Christ. (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 8:1.). However, the only proponents who took these verses seriously were the Marcionites. They were branded, however, as heretics by the early post-apostolic church. Paul's salvation formulas were never accepted in the universal post-apostolic Christian church from 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. In that period, Paul, even if quoted on salvation by faith, was always read to line up with Christ's emphasis on the essential nature of works and the damning power of sin in a Christian's life.
For example, Polycarp is the only ancient ‘father’ to quote (Eph. 2:8-9) that we are “saved by grace, not of works.” (. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 1:6.) Yet, in
For example, Polycarp is the only ancient 'father' to quote (Eph. 2:8-9) that we are "saved by grace, not of works." (. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 1:6.) Yet, in
20.If you go to www.earlychristianwritings.com, every time a verse is discussed in a patristic writing, it is linked. However, neither (Rom. 8:1) nor 8:39 are ever once cited by any patristic-era ‘father.’ See if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness....
20.If you go to www.earlychristianwritings.com, every time a verse is discussed in a patristic writing, it is linked. However, neither (Rom. 8:1) nor 8:39 are ever once cited by any patristic-era 'father.' See if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness....
[Epistle to the Philippians, 2:13-14.) 21
Thus, whenever tension between Paul and Jesus were apparent, our Lord Jesus was never interpreted to fit Paul, as is the nonn today. As Bercot puts it:
The early Christians didn’t put Paul’s letters to the Romans and
The early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and
Galatians up on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the
other apostles. They read Paul’s words about grace in conjunction
other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction
with...Scriptures [where Jesus requires endurance for salvation,
Matt. 24:13, doing the will of God for salvation, Matt. 7:21, the
resurrected will be those who have done good, John 5:28, 29, etc.]
(Bercot, Will the Real Heretics Stand Up, supra, at 63.)
Calvin’s research corroborates Bercot’s position. Calvin was the
Calvin's research corroborates Bercot's position. Calvin was the
second major figure in the Reformation after Luther. Calvin cited
Augustine as the only early church figure who agreed with any aspect
of salvation in Paul’s teachings. However, Augustine was from the
of salvation in Paul's teachings. However, Augustine was from the
mid-300s. faith-alone without works. While Paul was quoted on
salvation by faith, he was always put back in the context of Jesus’
words. Paul was always then interpreted to line up with Jesus’
salvation by faith, he was always put back in the context of Jesus'
words. Paul was always then interpreted to line up with Jesus'
emphasis on the essential nature of works for salvation, i.e.,
obedience to Jesus’ commandments, doing righteousness, charity,
obedience to Jesus' commandments, doing righteousness, charity,
repentance from sin, etc. The early apostolic age emphasized always
![Picture #87](images/img_0087.png)

54
JWO_16_03_ThePatristicEraChurchAlsoRejectedPaulsPredestinationDoctrine_0093.md

@ -3,20 +3,20 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## The Patristic Era Church Also Rejected Paul s Predestination Doctrine
Further proof of the low regard for Paul can be seen in the early
church’s view of predestination. The early church from 125 A.D. to 325
A.D. universally rejected Paul’s teachings on predestination. Paul was
church's view of predestination. The early church from 125 A.D. to 325
A.D. universally rejected Paul's teachings on predestination. Paul was
not named, but they universally regarded his teaching as blasphemy and
impiety of the worst sort. Justin Martyr died in 165 A.D. by
preferring execution than to renounce his faith in Christ. He explained:
We have learned it from the prophets, and we hold it to be true,
that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered
according to each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen
according to each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen
by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it is
predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the
first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless
humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free
choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they
choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they
may be.... (Justin, First Apology, ch. 43.)
Clement, Archelaus, and Methodius all spoke against predestination,
@ -27,18 +27,18 @@ impiety toward God himself, making Him out to be the cause and author
of human evils. (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse
8, ch. 6.)
Methodius was not exaggerating the meaning behind Paul’s writings on
predestination. Calvin in explaining Paul’s writings says Paul means
that God predestines all evil—God actually directs all evil thoughts
Methodius was not exaggerating the meaning behind Paul's writings on
predestination. Calvin in explaining Paul's writings says Paul means
that God predestines all evil-God actually directs all evil thoughts
with its evil outcome. God does not merely allow evil to happen by
God’s pennissive will. Calvin insists Paul means God makes all evil
God's pennissive will. Calvin insists Paul means God makes all evil
happen.
It was not until Luther that predestination resurfaced as a doctrine again. Luther went even farther than Augustine in drawing out Paul’s meaning. Luther insisted Paul meant God damns the lost to hell without any freewill opportunity to accept Jesus. He said that Paul’s doctrine takes great faith because God “saves so few and
It was not until Luther that predestination resurfaced as a doctrine again. Luther went even farther than Augustine in drawing out Paul's meaning. Luther insisted Paul meant God damns the lost to hell without any freewill opportunity to accept Jesus. He said that Paul's doctrine takes great faith because God "saves so few and
God’s Will For Lost?
God's Will For Lost?
“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? sayeth the Lord Yahweh. And not rather that he should return from his way and live?... For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord Yahweh. Wherefore turn yourselves and live.”
"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? sayeth the Lord Yahweh. And not rather that he should return from his way and live?... For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord Yahweh. Wherefore turn yourselves and live."
Ezek. 18:23, 32.
@ -46,30 +46,30 @@ Ezek. 18:23, 32.
![Picture #88](images/img_0088.png)
damns so many” yet we must believe God is “just” despite His own will “makes [the lost] necessarily damnable.” (Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will.) Even though this makes God abominable, Luther skates the issue by saying “it is not lawful” to ask why God does not “change this fault of will in every man.” Thus, Luther thought you proved you had great faith when you could believe Paul is correct that God is still just despite doing something so apparently unjust as damning people while depriving them of the ability of accept Him.
damns so many" yet we must believe God is "just" despite His own will "makes [the lost] necessarily damnable." (Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will.) Even though this makes God abominable, Luther skates the issue by saying "it is not lawful" to ask why God does not "change this fault of will in every man." Thus, Luther thought you proved you had great faith when you could believe Paul is correct that God is still just despite doing something so apparently unjust as damning people while depriving them of the ability of accept Him.
Neither Luther nor Calvin stopped and asked whether Paul could be
inspired when Paul ascribes such incongruous impious behavior to God.
Geisler on Calvinist Predestination: “It is theologically
inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.”
Geisler on Calvinist Predestination: "It is theologically
inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant."
(Norman Geisler)
25.Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1, ch. XVIII. For
example, Calvin writes that God “directs [Satan and his angels’]
example, Calvin writes that God "directs [Satan and his angels']
malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to
execute his judgments.” ( Institutes , Ch. XVIII, Book 1, No. 1)
execute his judgments." ( Institutes , Ch. XVIII, Book 1, No. 1)
Calvin says some dishonestly seek to evade this truth by claiming a
distinction between God permitting evil and doing evil. But God
“himself, however, openly declare[s] that he does this, [and hence
God] repudiates the evasion.” Id. Calvin means that God’s word insists
"himself, however, openly declare[s] that he does this, [and hence
God] repudiates the evasion." Id. Calvin means that God's word insists
He does the evil. He does not merely permit it. Another example is
Calvin says: “That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of
Calvin says: "That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of
God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has
previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret
direction , is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture.”
Id. Later Calvin, twisting Scripture, insists: “The fiction ofbare
permission [of evil] is at an end,” meaning it is false that God
direction , is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture."
Id. Later Calvin, twisting Scripture, insists: "The fiction ofbare
permission [of evil] is at an end," meaning it is false that God
merely permits evil rather than directs it. Id.
![Picture #89](images/img_0089.png)
@ -78,13 +78,13 @@ merely permits evil rather than directs it. Id.
More important, the postapostolic rejection of predestination from
125-325 A.D. proves that the universal church was still following
Jesus’ words alone. Without naming Paul specifically, they rejected
Jesus' words alone. Without naming Paul specifically, they rejected
every word of Paul at odds with Jesus. In particular they rejected the
notion that the lost were damned due to God’s predetermined
notion that the lost were damned due to God's predetermined
will. Rather, God is not willing that any should perish. (John 3:16);
cf. (2Pet. 3:9).
Calvin’s writings indirectly corroborate Bercot’s conclusion. Calvin
Calvin's writings indirectly corroborate Bercot's conclusion. Calvin
could not find anyone other than Augustine from the late 300s who
agreed with Paul’s doctrines. And Augustine’s agreement was limited
only to Paul’s predestination doctrine.
agreed with Paul's doctrines. And Augustine's agreement was limited
only to Paul's predestination doctrine.

26
JWO_16_04_ThePatristicEraAlsoBlastedPaulsDoctrineonEatingIdolMeat_0094.md

@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ prohibit it only being eaten in front of a weaker brother who thinks
an idol is something. ((Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:4-13), and (1Cor. 10:19-29).
(For further discussion, see page 122 et seq.)
In the Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.), Paul’s teaching was condemned
In the Patristic Era (125-325 A.D.), Paul's teaching was condemned
with no thought of even discussing Paul. Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) wrote
in his Against Heresies, chapter XXIV, that Saturninus and Basilides
were heretics because:
@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ were heretics because:
other things, and the practice of every kind of lust, a matter of
perfect indifference.
By today’s standards, however, Saturninus and Basilides are not
By today's standards, however, Saturninus and Basilides are not
heretics on the issue of idol meat. They simply took time to read
Paul’s words. They got the issue straightened out by Paul’s clear
pennission to eat such meat. However, Irenaeus’ view is so clearly
opposed to Paul’s teaching that it reminds us how little regard anyone
had for Paul’s words back then.
Paul's words. They got the issue straightened out by Paul's clear
pennission to eat such meat. However, Irenaeus' view is so clearly
opposed to Paul's teaching that it reminds us how little regard anyone
had for Paul's words back then.
However, the most intriguing quote on this issue is Irenaeus’
However, the most intriguing quote on this issue is Irenaeus'
criticism of Valentinus as a heretic. In book II of Against Heresies,
chapter XIV, we read:
@ -39,11 +39,11 @@ chapter XIV, we read:
treatment of matters of] faith that hairsplitting and subtle mode
of handling questions which is, in fact, a copying of Aristotle.
Irenaeus precisely condemned the hair-splitting quibbling with God’s
Irenaeus precisely condemned the hair-splitting quibbling with God's
commands that Paul utilized himself. Paul troubles us with questions
such as ‘do you think an idol is really something?’ Can’t you eat it
‘if you don’t believe in idols’? No one back in the Patristic era
showed any appreciation for Paul’s teaching or methodology in how to
interpret God’s commands. You did not try to find hair-splitting ways
to devise exceptions to commands. You simply obeyed God’s word.
such as 'do you think an idol is really something?' Can't you eat it
'if you don't believe in idols'? No one back in the Patristic era
showed any appreciation for Paul's teaching or methodology in how to
interpret God's commands. You did not try to find hair-splitting ways
to devise exceptions to commands. You simply obeyed God's word.

18
JWO_16_05_WhatExplainsAlmostTwoMillenniaofIgnoringPaul_sTeachings__0095.md

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## What Explains Almost Two Millennia of Ignoring Paul’s Teachings?
## What Explains Almost Two Millennia of Ignoring Paul's Teachings?
As demonstrated above at page 425, all the churches founded by the
apostles never taught after the apostles had died that salvation was
@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ taught salvation was by a faith that zealously seeks after God plus
works. This formula was not only true in the pre-Roman Catholic era
(125-325 A.D.), but in the post-Catholic era from 325 A.D. to the
present within the territories that comprised the Roman empire. 26
Likewise, salvation by faith-plus-works based on Jesus’ words
Likewise, salvation by faith-plus-works based on Jesus' words
continued on in the East where the Orthodox church flourished. For
fourteen hundred post-apostolic years, no one other than Marcion, the
Paulicians, and Pelagius (410 A.D.) taught salvation by faith alone
@ -18,26 +18,26 @@ to be heretics.
Furthermore, for fourteen hundred post-apostolic years no one taught
predestination or the bondage of the will except during a small
episode where it appears in Augustine’s writings from the
episode where it appears in Augustine's writings from the
300s. Augustine endorsed these doctrines to condemn Pelagius as a
heretic. However, Augustine’s ideas on predestination and free-will
heretic. However, Augustine's ideas on predestination and free-will
never became official teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Once
Pelagius was found a heretic, the issue died off. The Roman church
instead always has taught humans have free-will. God foreknows whom He
will save, but He does not compel them to believe. 28
Another example was that in the entire post-apostolic era, no
Christian leader ever agreed with Paul’s teaching that we could eat
meat sacrificed to idols. Paul’s indifference on the issue was soundly
Christian leader ever agreed with Paul's teaching that we could eat
meat sacrificed to idols. Paul's indifference on the issue was soundly
condemned whenever discussed in the early church.
26.The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (ca. 1543), in its Sixth Session on Justification, declared as heretical two teachings in particular: (1) that "the sinner is justified by faith alone” (Canon 9) and (2) that "men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins....” (Canon 11.)
26.The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (ca. 1543), in its Sixth Session on Justification, declared as heretical two teachings in particular: (1) that "the sinner is justified by faith alone" (Canon 9) and (2) that "men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...." (Canon 11.)
Thus, between 125 A.D. and 1517 A.D., no church body took Paul
seriously. Only Marcion did. Only Pelagius did. Only Augustine did on
predestination as a temporary tool to destroy Pelagius. However,
Pelagius — a pariah of Reformed theology — not only taught free-will
but also Paul’s doctrine of salvation by faith alone. (See footnote 27
Pelagius - a pariah of Reformed theology - not only taught free-will
but also Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone. (See footnote 27
below.) Yet, Pelagius and the Marcionites were expelled from the
church in both East and West as heretics!

104
JWO_16_06_TheEasternOrthodoxChurchandPaul_0096.md

@ -3,33 +3,33 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## The Eastern Orthodox Church and Paul
27. A little known fact about Pelagius is that he taught salvation was
by faith alone. In Augustine’s attacks on him as a heretic, he focused
on Pelagius’ belief that human free-will could, in theory, permit one
by faith alone. In Augustine's attacks on him as a heretic, he focused
on Pelagius' belief that human free-will could, in theory, permit one
to live a sinless life. Augustine never revealed what truly made
Pelagius dangerous. Pelagius was resorting to Marcion’s doctrine that
Pelagius dangerous. Pelagius was resorting to Marcion's doctrine that
Paul taught salvation by faith alone. Zimmer in the modern era
discovered a work by Pelagius that was spared destruction. It survived
because it was miscatalogued as a work of Jerome. In it, Pelagius
defends that free-will allows one to live a sinless life. However, in
this same book entitled Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul (410
A.D.), Pelagius is a proponent of salvation by faith alone, without
repentance. Pelagius even ridiculed James’ doctrines. The Catholic
repentance. Pelagius even ridiculed James' doctrines. The Catholic
Encyclopedia comments on this modern discovery, noting Pelagius
taught: “By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins
through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, ‘p er solam fidem justificat Deus
impium convertendum’), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no
interior renovation of sanctification of the soul.’’ (Zimmer,
“Realencyklopadies fur protest,” Theologie XV, 753 (Leipzig, 1904.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia comments: “Luther's boast of having been the
taught: "By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins
through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, 'p er solam fidem justificat Deus
impium convertendum'), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no
interior renovation of sanctification of the soul.'' (Zimmer,
"Realencyklopadies fur protest," Theologie XV, 753 (Leipzig, 1904.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia comments: "Luther's boast of having been the
first to proclaim the doctrine of abiding faith [must be re-evaluated
because] Pelagius [earlier] insists expressly (loc. cit. 812),
‘Ceterum sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides.’
[transl. “Moreover, without the work of faith, not of law, faith is
dead.”] Pelagius was making fun of James by twisting his words around
'Ceterum sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides.'
[transl. "Moreover, without the work of faith, not of law, faith is
dead."] Pelagius was making fun of James by twisting his words around
to sound Pauline. This raises the question whether Augustine went
after Pelagius merely on the issue of capacity of freewill to avoid
sin or because Pelagius rejected James’ teaching in favor of Paul’s on
salvation. For more on this, see “Pelagius,” Catholic Encyclopedia,
sin or because Pelagius rejected James' teaching in favor of Paul's on
salvation. For more on this, see "Pelagius," Catholic Encyclopedia,
reprinted at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm (last visited 2005).
@ -44,13 +44,13 @@ The Orthodox church has continuously flourished from the first century
in Israel, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, etc. Each national church
traces their roots to James as the first bishop of Jerusalem. They
insist it was to him alone that the original bishops looked to for
guidance. (“Eastern Orthodox Church,” Encarta.) The Orthodox maintain
guidance. ("Eastern Orthodox Church," Encarta.) The Orthodox maintain
an unbroken list of bishops in all its original territories (including
Rome), tracing back name-by-name right down to the period of James and
Paul. As Paul says, the Jerusalem church, in those earliest days, was
regarded as the “mother of us all.” (Gal. 4:21-26).
regarded as the "mother of us all." (Gal. 4:21-26).
But isn’t the Roman Catholic Church the original church? No. This is
But isn't the Roman Catholic Church the original church? No. This is
pure myth. The original church was the one founded at Jerusalem and
led by James, described in Acts chapter 15. Ten years later, Peter
went to Rome and founded a church there. Peter also had founded a
@ -58,20 +58,20 @@ church at Antioch in Syria. Neither the one at Rome nor at Antioch
could claim superiority over the other. Each was founded by Peter.
28. In 1520, Luther attacked the doctrine of free-will. Pope Leo X
condemned Luther’s claims. Erasmus, a Catholic reformer, in 1524
condemned Luther's claims. Erasmus, a Catholic reformer, in 1524
rebutted Luther, pointing out that if man lacks a free-will ability to
do good, then God is unjust to condemn man for sin. Luther’s response
in 1525 was to say that Paul’s doctrine of grace excludes any ability
do good, then God is unjust to condemn man for sin. Luther's response
in 1525 was to say that Paul's doctrine of grace excludes any ability
of man to contribute positively toward his salvation. Otherwise
salvation would be by works. However, Luther’s response did not
salvation would be by works. However, Luther's response did not
address the question posed by Erasmus: how can God condemn the lost if
they have no freewill ability to do good? Regardless, this episode
demonstrates that Paul’s doctrines are used to defend the notion that
demonstrates that Paul's doctrines are used to defend the notion that
man lacks free-will to do good. Paul teaches God gives man a will
bound to evil unless God ‘in His infinite wisdom’ having nothing to do
bound to evil unless God 'in His infinite wisdom' having nothing to do
with our behavior decides to spare some. God then infuses the few with
the will to believe and be saved. Then, and only then, can man do
good. For Jesus’ contrary teaching, see Jesus ’ Idea of Faith at
good. For Jesus' contrary teaching, see Jesus ' Idea of Faith at
www.jesuswordsonly.com.
29. See discussion of the Jerusalem church at 242, 295, 298, and 304.
@ -95,11 +95,11 @@ called themselves the Orthodox Church. As already noted, we in the
West call them and their 250 million members the Eastern Orthodox
Church.
What is the Orthodox Church’s view on Paul’s teachings? Despite Paul’s
presence in their New Testament canon, the Orthodox church’s official
What is the Orthodox Church's view on Paul's teachings? Despite Paul's
presence in their New Testament canon, the Orthodox church's official
salvation doctrine as far back as the post-apostolic records take us
(125 A.D.) up through today completely ignores Paul. Not a single
doctrine of Paul surfaces in the Orthodox’ church doctrine. Not the
doctrine of Paul surfaces in the Orthodox' church doctrine. Not the
doctrine of original sin from Romans chapter 5 (which the Orthodox
specifically reject). Not predestination of the will. Not total
depravity. Not grace alone. Not faith alone. Not one iota of anything
@ -109,13 +109,13 @@ Calvinist Reformed writer puts it in his critique of the Eastern
Orthodox:
Eastern Orthodox Christians reject the Reformed [i.e., Pauline]
teaching of the natural man’s bondage of the will as well as the
teaching of the natural man's bondage of the will as well as the
Doctrines of Grace.
They reject the Reformed view of Predestination....They reject the
doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. The
Orthodox reject the biblical idea ((Rom. 5)) of inherited (imputed)
guilt... Orthodox hold to baptismal regeneration—no one can be saved
guilt... Orthodox hold to baptismal regeneration-no one can be saved
unless he is baptized with water. 30
For the Orthodox, only the words of Christ and His twelve apostles
@ -127,29 +127,29 @@ contains nothing uniquely from Paul!
So what does the Eastern Orthodox church teach about salvation? Most
succinctly, it teaches you have to stay on the narrow road of
following Jesus. This aims at being perfect in conduct, obeying all of
Jesus’ commands. We will never be perfect while on earth, but starting
Jesus' commands. We will never be perfect while on earth, but starting
with baptism and following Jesus we will become more and more like God
in perfection. This is called theosis. It means becoming like God by
imitation, not like God in one’s nature. For support, they rely upon
Jesus’ words: “whoever obeys my teaching should never ever die.” (John
imitation, not like God in one's nature. For support, they rely upon
Jesus' words: "whoever obeys my teaching should never ever die." (John
8:51). When one sins, the Orthodox urge repentance and penance. Their
doctrines are heavily focused therefore on Jesus’ teachings. The
Orthodox wholly ignore Paul’s unique doctrines.
doctrines are heavily focused therefore on Jesus' teachings. The
Orthodox wholly ignore Paul's unique doctrines.
In fact, perhaps most startlingly of all, the Orthodox have an
unbroken string of twenty centuries of ongoing belief in the validity
of the true Saturday Sabbath. This is hardly a Pauline view. This was
the early church’s practice as well.
the early church's practice as well.
30.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic (last visited 2004).
The Orthodox’ views on salvation are hard to amalgamate in our way of
The Orthodox' views on salvation are hard to amalgamate in our way of
thinking because of our long conditioning to Paulinism. We need to
mull over their ideas. They are calling for an internal
transfonnation, not merely a verbal or internal confession of some
knowledge about Jesus. When we realize this is their point, it is
truly closer to Christ’s teaching. It completely ignores the
truly closer to Christ's teaching. It completely ignores the
Paulunist-inspired teachings of the Western church that focus on a
mental belief change.
@ -157,38 +157,38 @@ Regardless, what cannot be denied is the Orthodox represent a longer
tradition than Roman Catholicism. Their doctrines are deeply rooted in
the post-apostolic period of 125 A.D. to 325 A.D. Yet, it thoroughly
rejects everything that Paul uniquely stands for. Are all 250 million
Orthodox Christians lost because they emphasize Jesus’ words? Whatever
Orthodox Christians lost because they emphasize Jesus' words? Whatever
the answer, the history of the Orthodox church proves one thing: Paul
early on and a long time thereafter was never taken seriously.
31 .As one encyclopedia says, the “Eastern Orthodox churches
distinguish between ‘the sabbath’ (Saturday) and ‘the Lord’s day’
31 .As one encyclopedia says, the "Eastern Orthodox churches
distinguish between 'the sabbath' (Saturday) and 'the Lord's day'
(Sunday), and both continue to play a special role for the
believers...though the Lord’s day with the weekly Liturgy is clearly
believers...though the Lord's day with the weekly Liturgy is clearly
given more emphasis. Catholics put little emphasis on that distinction
and most of them, at least in colloquial language, speak of Sunday as
the sabbath.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath.) Thus, the
the sabbath." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath.) Thus, the
Orthodox not only reject all uniquely Pauline teachings, they also
reject Paul’s fright over the Galatians observing “days”
reject Paul's fright over the Galatians observing "days"
(Sabbath). (Gal.4:10). Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) of Lyon, France gave
the early rationale at total odds with Paul. “The decalogue [Ten
the early rationale at total odds with Paul. "The decalogue [Ten
Commandments] however was not cancelled by Christ, but is always in
force: men were never released from its commandments.” (“Against
Fleresies,” Anti-Nicene Fathers, Bk. IV, Ch. XVI, at 480.) He then
force: men were never released from its commandments." ("Against
Fleresies," Anti-Nicene Fathers, Bk. IV, Ch. XVI, at 480.) He then
explains the Sabbath must be kept on Saturday as a sign. This explains
why the earliest Christian tradition followed Saturday Sabbath except
at Rome and Alexandria. Socrates the Historian (b. 380 A.D.) wrote:
“For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
sacred mysteries [the Lord’s Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet
"For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet
the Christians of Alexandria and Rome, on account of some ancient
tradition, refuse to do this.”(Socrates, Ecclesiastical History’, Bk
tradition, refuse to do this."(Socrates, Ecclesiastical History', Bk
5, Ch. 22.289). Likewise Bingham summarizes numerous ancient sources:
“The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of
"The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of
Saturday, or the seventh day... It is plain that all the Oriental
[Eastern] churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the
Sabbath as a festival... Athanasius likewise tells us that they held
religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected
with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath,
Epiphanius says the same.” (Joseph Bingham, Antiquities of the
Epiphanius says the same." (Joseph Bingham, Antiquities of the
Christian Church (1878) Vol. II, Bk. xx, Ch. 3, Sec. 1,
66. 1137,1136).

36
JWO_16_07_ProtestantsAgreeFor1400YearsNoOneHadTheCorrectSalvationFormula_0097.md

@ -6,15 +6,15 @@ Protestant historians agree. For over fourteen centuries after the
death of the apostles, the Protestant story agrees that Paul was never
followed by the official churches, either East or West. It was Luther
who alone in this period first discovered Paul in what eventually
became a large-scale movement. “But when we say Luther ‘rediscovered’
became a large-scale movement. "But when we say Luther 'rediscovered'
this [salvation] doctrine, we are implying that the doctrine had been
lost or obscured between the New Testament era and Luther s day . I
will label this the Luther Rediscovery The
“The truth of the New Testament churchgathering was lost for 1400
"The truth of the New Testament churchgathering was lost for 1400
years....Luther, Calvin, and others were used of the Lord to
rediscover the truth of salvation by grace at the end of the dark
ages.” AteewdHy HeMewufer Vol. 99, No. 26
ages." AteewdHy HeMewufer Vol. 99, No. 26
However, in this Luther Rediscovery Thesis, this departure from true
Christianity includes the post-apostolic era in both East and
@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ the Middle-East.
![Picture #90](images/img_0090.png)
Thus, the Luther Rediscovery Thesis insists the Orthodox—although
independent from the RCC—departed simultaneously into heresy.
Thus, the Luther Rediscovery Thesis insists the Orthodox-although
independent from the RCC-departed simultaneously into heresy.
The Luther Rediscovery Thesis also teaches the early church leaders in
the Western territories between 125-325 A.D. simultaneously turned
@ -46,46 +46,46 @@ Martyr and many others in the West. These voices are simply students
of the apostles, not disciples of the bishop (pope) of Rome. In fact,
none of these men knew of a Roman papacy as we do today. There were no
Roman catechisms to which they had to conform. Such catechisms came
much later—after the emperor Constantine (post-325 A.D.) and his
much later-after the emperor Constantine (post-325 A.D.) and his
successors gave muscle to the words of the bishop of Rome. Thus, the
Luther Rediscovery Thesis must also explain how in the Western
pre-papist Roman church these early leaders from 125-325 A.D. quickly
abandoned apostolic teachings if the apostles shared Paul’s peculiar
abandoned apostolic teachings if the apostles shared Paul's peculiar
doctrines.
33. The first use of the title pontiff or pontifex summits for the
bishop of Rome dates to the Sixth Century. This is recorded in
Niermeyer’s Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, citing the Leonine
Niermeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, citing the Leonine
Sacramentary of the late sixth century. The term papa from which pope
derives in English means father. It was used early on of any
priest. It is impossible to say early on the title papa had the
connotation we give it today. The notion of superiority of the bishop
of Rome, justified on the successor-to-Peter principle, first was
asserted in the late half of the second century. However, this attempt
was “strongly criticized even by friends of Rome such as Irenaeus of
Lyon.” (B. Schimmelpfennig, The Papacy (New York: Columbia Press,
was "strongly criticized even by friends of Rome such as Irenaeus of
Lyon." (B. Schimmelpfennig, The Papacy (New York: Columbia Press,
1992) at 12-14, viz, 12-13.) The papacy error of ignoring Paul in the
early post-apostolic churches everywhere. Tertullian skewered
Marcion’s similar claim, saying:
Marcion's similar claim, saying:
[I insist that] no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its Christian faith in the Creator [being the same in the Hebrew Scriptures as in the new]. But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be amongst the adversaries of the Creator [i. e., Marcion saying the God of the New is not the God of the Old]? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an apostle, and you will have gained the day. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.23.)
late discovery previously not taught in any early apostolic
church. Here, Paulunists assume there was 1400 years of
darkness. Neither Paul’s salvation doctrine nor most of his unique
doctrines can be found in the apostolic early church. Instead, Paul’s
darkness. Neither Paul's salvation doctrine nor most of his unique
doctrines can be found in the apostolic early church. Instead, Paul's
major doctrines were ignored for 1400 years until Luther
‘rediscovered’ them. Tertullian’s logic is right. It is absurd to
'rediscovered' them. Tertullian's logic is right. It is absurd to
believe that the early bishops at diffuse and separate churches which
had been founded by the apostles could reject Paul’s doctrines unless
had been founded by the apostles could reject Paul's doctrines unless
such rejection was indeed the orthodox view of the original twelve
apostles themselves.
The lesson for us is we need to steer back to Jesus’ words as the sole
The lesson for us is we need to steer back to Jesus' words as the sole
test of orthodoxy. If you cannot find justification for a doctrine in
Jesus’ words or the inspired Scripture that preceded Jesus, then you
Jesus' words or the inspired Scripture that preceded Jesus, then you
do not have to follow it. If a doctrine is proposed, whether from Paul
or anyone else, that does not line up with Jesus’ words or the
or anyone else, that does not line up with Jesus' words or the
inspired Scripture that preceded Jesus, then it is not possibly a
prophetic voice. We must not fall into the same trap the Young Prophet
suffered when he trusted the Old Prophet who permitted him to do what

196
JWO_17_01_DoesItMatterIfWeRelyOnlyUponJesus__0098.md

@ -5,19 +5,19 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
### Two Paths
In our Christian walk, what would be the difference if we had to
explain salvation from Jesus’ Words Only? Without using Paul? What
explain salvation from Jesus' Words Only? Without using Paul? What
would we say instead? How does the message change when we add Paul to
the mix? If the message substantially changes, doesn’t this raise the
the mix? If the message substantially changes, doesn't this raise the
question of why did we ever regard Paul as inspired in the first
place?
So what would salvation look like if we had Jesus’ Words Alone? Then
once we establish Jesus’ doctrine, then we were supposed to measure
whether Paul fits into Jesus’ salvation doctrine. (2John 1:9.) If we
cannot fit Paul, we were supposed to eject Paul’s words, not Jesus’
So what would salvation look like if we had Jesus' Words Alone? Then
once we establish Jesus' doctrine, then we were supposed to measure
whether Paul fits into Jesus' salvation doctrine. (2John 1:9.) If we
cannot fit Paul, we were supposed to eject Paul's words, not Jesus'
words, from what we obey.
### What Jesus ’ Words Only Means
### What Jesus ' Words Only Means
If we quote only Jesus, we have to tell people that Jesus explains we
are justified by repenting from sin. (Parable of the Publican and the
@ -25,18 +25,18 @@ Pharisee, Luke 18:10 et seq
![Picture #92](images/img_0092.png)
We can witness to others by memorizing Jesus’ steps on how to have
We can witness to others by memorizing Jesus' steps on how to have
eternal life given to the rich young man. ((Matt. 19:16-26); (Mark
10:17-31); Luke 18:18-26.) Jesus told him to follow the Ten
Commandments, 1 deny himself (viz., give away his wealth) and follow
Jesus. Our Lord then explains His meaning immediately thereafter. He
tells His twelve apostles that if you give up fathers, mothers, and
brothers for Him, deny yourself, take up your cross, and “follow Me,”
you “ shall have eternal life.” (Matthew 19:27-29.) See also, Matthew
brothers for Him, deny yourself, take up your cross, and "follow Me,"
you " shall have eternal life." (Matthew 19:27-29.) See also, Matthew
10:37-39.
It was as Jesus says elsewhere. Those who are following Him and are
losing their life in this world to serve Him do so for “life eternal.”
losing their life in this world to serve Him do so for "life eternal."
(John 12:25-26).
However, the young rich man did not respond properly to this
@ -44,13 +44,13 @@ invitation. The cost was too high for him. His work worthy of
repentance that Jesus required for him to receive eternal life was
giving up all his wealth and giving it to the poor. Jesus said grace
was not free, contrary to what we are so often told. Jesus elsewhere
said that you need “to count the cost” of becoming a Christian or
otherwise you would not “complete” the course, but fail to continue
said that you need "to count the cost" of becoming a Christian or
otherwise you would not "complete" the course, but fail to continue
and be destroyed. (Luke 14:28.) Thus, Jesus taught the rich young man
(and ourselves) that salvation came at a price —a price the rich young
man was unwilling to pay. It is as Jesus says in Luke 13:24: “Strive
(and ourselves) that salvation came at a price -a price the rich young
man was unwilling to pay. It is as Jesus says in Luke 13:24: "Strive
to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek
to enter in, and shall not be able [/. e ., lack strength].” Salvation
to enter in, and shall not be able [/. e ., lack strength]." Salvation
requires a stem repentance from sin that most people refuse
![Picture #93](images/img_0093.png)
@ -61,34 +61,34 @@ this doctrine belongs to Christianity.
Jesus told us vividly what the correct response should have been from
the rich young man. Jesus tells us that Zaccheus did correctly
understand and accept Jesus’ gospel. Zaccheus is a model of what a
understand and accept Jesus' gospel. Zaccheus is a model of what a
proper response should look like. Zaccheus repents of extortion by
paying back fourfold what he stole. He gives the rest of his money to
the poor. Then he follows Jesus. After those works worthy of
repentance, Jesus responds: “Today salvation has come to this
house....” (Luke 19:9.)
repentance, Jesus responds: "Today salvation has come to this
house...." (Luke 19:9.)
Thus, if Jesus’ words alone applied, we would boldly tell people that
they should follow Zaccheus’ example. ‘Be a Zaccheus!’ we would
Thus, if Jesus' words alone applied, we would boldly tell people that
they should follow Zaccheus' example. 'Be a Zaccheus!' we would
say. Zaccheus is an actual concrete example of a person whom Jesus
said received salvation. What prompted that response from Jesus should
be the focus of almost every salvation sennon. Alas! Today Zaccheus is
a forgotten man.
If we had Jesus’ words alone, what would be the meaning of the
If we had Jesus' words alone, what would be the meaning of the
salvation promised to the thief on the cross? All the thief says is
“Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.” (Luke 23:42.)
Jesus tells us the thief will be with Him that day in Paradise. Wasn’t
the thief saved because he “confessed me before men,” declaring Jesus
was the king—another way of saying He was Messiah? Did not Jesus say
that anyone who did this, He would then “confess him before the angels
in heaven?” (Luke 12:8.)
"Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom." (Luke 23:42.)
Jesus tells us the thief will be with Him that day in Paradise. Wasn't
the thief saved because he "confessed me before men," declaring Jesus
was the king-another way of saying He was Messiah? Did not Jesus say
that anyone who did this, He would then "confess him before the angels
in heaven?" (Luke 12:8.)
Was this a promise of salvation for belief alone? Or is confession a
step beyond mere believing? Apostle John gives us the answer in clear
unmistakable terms. “[E]ven many of
unmistakable terms. "[E]ven many of
2. The thief no doubt was Jewish and knew the Messianic prophecies. He realized that Jesus was the king. The prophesied figure of a king who would rule eternally was identified only one time in Hebrew Scripture as prince Messiah. believed in Him [ i.e ., Jesus], but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing [[Him]] for fear they would be put out of the synagogues.” (John 12:42 NASB.) Thus, confession is a courageous step beyond believing. Jesus therefore promised salvation to the thief precisely because the thief took a step beyond mere belief. Faith alone would not have saved the thief any more than it could have the believing rulers who were fearful and would not confess Jesus. The thief is in Paradise because he was willing to go further than faith alone. The thief confessed Jesus in front of those who would likely whip him for standing up for Jesus. Thus, we see confession for the thief was a means of “bearing] his own cross” and following Jesus despite those risks. ((Matt. 19:27-29).) The thief confessed Jesus in the most unfavorable circumstances possible. He also first had to repent from sin. Originally the thief like everyone else was ridiculing Jesus.
2. The thief no doubt was Jewish and knew the Messianic prophecies. He realized that Jesus was the king. The prophesied figure of a king who would rule eternally was identified only one time in Hebrew Scripture as prince Messiah. believed in Him [ i.e ., Jesus], but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing [[Him]] for fear they would be put out of the synagogues." (John 12:42 NASB.) Thus, confession is a courageous step beyond believing. Jesus therefore promised salvation to the thief precisely because the thief took a step beyond mere belief. Faith alone would not have saved the thief any more than it could have the believing rulers who were fearful and would not confess Jesus. The thief is in Paradise because he was willing to go further than faith alone. The thief confessed Jesus in front of those who would likely whip him for standing up for Jesus. Thus, we see confession for the thief was a means of "bearing] his own cross" and following Jesus despite those risks. ((Matt. 19:27-29).) The thief confessed Jesus in the most unfavorable circumstances possible. He also first had to repent from sin. Originally the thief like everyone else was ridiculing Jesus.
(Matt. 27:44.) Without this repentance, there would be no confession.
@ -98,27 +98,27 @@ thus saved precisely because after repenting of sin he made a
confession of trust in Jesus as a king (messiah) in public before men
when the pressure surrounding him was to do otherwise. Jesus tells us
this is one path to Him that saves you. (Luke 23:43.) Jesus
promises He will “confess” you before the “angels in
Heaven” if you “ confess me before men .” (Luke 12:8.)
promises He will "confess" you before the "angels in
Heaven" if you " confess me before men ." (Luke 12:8.)
![Picture #94](images/img_0094.png)
3. As John MacArthur says of the thief: “Repentance wrought a
3. As John MacArthur says of the thief: "Repentance wrought a
dramatic change in his behavior, and he turned from mocking Christ to
defending him.” (J. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus,
defending him." (J. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus,
supra,![Picture #95](images/img_0095.png)
If on the other hand, you deny Jesus, then Jesus says he will deny
you—Luke 12:9, which emphasizes this confession must be out loud in a
you-Luke 12:9, which emphasizes this confession must be out loud in a
pressure situation, not just in your heart.
What does this threat by Jesus to deny those who cowardly deny Him
mean? Remember the rulers who “believed” in Jesus but were “afraid to
confess” Him? (John 12:42.) They were moral cowards. God tells us the
“cowardly” will be thrown in the “lake of burning sulfur” with
“unbelievers.” (Rev.21:8.) Hence, Jesus’ threat to deny those who deny
mean? Remember the rulers who "believed" in Jesus but were "afraid to
confess" Him? (John 12:42.) They were moral cowards. God tells us the
"cowardly" will be thrown in the "lake of burning sulfur" with
"unbelievers." (Rev.21:8.) Hence, Jesus' threat to deny those who deny
Him was intended to threaten actual believers, like the rulers were
believers, who were “afraid to confess Him.” This fact proves
believers, who were "afraid to confess Him." This fact proves
conclusively that the thief took a crucial step for salvation which
belief alone could not provide. For the same reason, the belief alone
of the rulers of John 12:42 will not save them. If they remained
@ -129,9 +129,9 @@ Thus, without Paul in the mix, the thief would be the perfect
illustration that faith alone cannot save. What saved the thief was
precisely going beyond faith and confessing Him (as
Messiah-King). This is no easy step, but involves danger, and
resisting cowardice. Thus, Jesus’ promise to the thief of salvation is
the equivalent of Jesus’ promise of “eternal life” if you “deny
yourself,” “take up your cross,” and “follow me.” ((Matt. 19:27-29).)
resisting cowardice. Thus, Jesus' promise to the thief of salvation is
the equivalent of Jesus' promise of "eternal life" if you "deny
yourself," "take up your cross," and "follow me." ((Matt. 19:27-29).)
Accordingly, faith alone could not therefore possibly be what saved
the thief. He had courage, and not just belief, and thus was saved. By
contrast, the rulers in John 12:42 had the belief, but not the courage
@ -141,23 +141,23 @@ alone does not save.
Alas, with Paul in the mix, the thief is almost never remembered for
anything other than to address the question whether someone is saved
without water baptism. 4 shall be saved” if you “endured to the end.”
(Matt. 10:22.) Cfr. John 3:16 (if continue to believe then “should” be
without water baptism. 4 shall be saved" if you "endured to the end."
(Matt. 10:22.) Cfr. John 3:16 (if continue to believe then "should" be
saved.)
In particular, if we trusted in Jesus’ words alone, we would have to
In particular, if we trusted in Jesus' words alone, we would have to
tell a new Christian it is imperative to be forgiving to others
post-salvation. Jesus makes our post-salvation forgiveness from God
and ultimate salvation expressly conditional on our being forgiving to
others. If we refuse subsequently to forgive others, God will revoke
our prior forgiveness, and absent repentance, send us to hell.
For example, Jesus told us to pray daily: “Forgive us our debts, as we
also have forgiven our debtors.’’(Matt. 6:12.) This makes our request
For example, Jesus told us to pray daily: "Forgive us our debts, as we
also have forgiven our debtors.''(Matt. 6:12.) This makes our request
for forgiveness conditional. We cannot make an unconditional plea for
forgiveness that disregards our own failure to forgive.
4. The thief’s experience is potentially relevant on the issue of
4. The thief's experience is potentially relevant on the issue of
baptism. Those who claim baptism is crucial to salvation cite promises
of salvation if you are baptized. ((Mark 16:16); Acts 2:28, 38; Acts
22:16; and (1Pet. 3:21)). However, a promise is not the same as a
@ -170,51 +170,51 @@ confessing Him (Luke 12:8). This is precisely what the thief did. This
is equally a sure way to be saved in Jesus. The thief was saved
without baptism. There is no valid verse saying negatively later done
good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to
the resurrection of condemnation.” Gathercole comments on this verse,
and acknowledges, as worded it means that “John’s Jesus [says]...the
the resurrection of condemnation." Gathercole comments on this verse,
and acknowledges, as worded it means that "John's Jesus [says]...the
criterion for whether one is punished or receives life at the eschaton
[i.e., the age to come] is the ‘doing’ of good or evil.” 5
[i.e., the age to come] is the 'doing' of good or evil." 5
Jesus repeats this principle of the necessity of fruit or works many
other times. For example, in John 15:1-6, Jesus at the Last Supper,
after Judas leaves (John 14:7), says “you,” the apostles, are
“branches” and Jesus is the Vine. They are also reassured that they
are all “clean” right now. Then Jesus tells them that a branch that
“keeps staying” in Him and produces fruit will be continually
“cleaned.” Cf Deut. 6:25. This way it bears more fruit. Jesus also
warns and encourages them in verses five and six that “a branch in me”
that produces no fruit because it failed to “keep staying” in Jesus,
will be thrown “outside” the vineyard. It is as a branch that died
(“dried up”). It is gathered up into the “fire and is burned.”
after Judas leaves (John 14:7), says "you," the apostles, are
"branches" and Jesus is the Vine. They are also reassured that they
are all "clean" right now. Then Jesus tells them that a branch that
"keeps staying" in Him and produces fruit will be continually
"cleaned." Cf Deut. 6:25. This way it bears more fruit. Jesus also
warns and encourages them in verses five and six that "a branch in me"
that produces no fruit because it failed to "keep staying" in Jesus,
will be thrown "outside" the vineyard. It is as a branch that died
("dried up"). It is gathered up into the "fire and is burned."
If our friend knows of Paul, he may not listen to Jesus’ words alone
If our friend knows of Paul, he may not listen to Jesus' words alone
from the Metaphor of the Vine which requires works after initial
salvation. Perhaps you need to quote another passage of Jesus. In the
Parable of the Unprof
5. Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting: Early Jewish Soteriology
and Paul's Response in (Rom. 1-5). (Eerdmans 2002) at 114. However,
Gathercole claims that John’s Jesus does not equate “doing good” with
“obeying Torah” because of Jesus’ answer in John 6:26-29. (Id.)
Gathercole claims that John's Jesus does not equate "doing good" with
"obeying Torah" because of Jesus' answer in John 6:26-29. (Id.)
However, Gathercole is relying on a Pauline translation of that
passage, as explained at Footnote No. 15 on page 254. In fact, it
stretches all credulity to think in John 5:28-29 that Jesus means by
“good works” simply “belief’ in Himself. To even suggest this is just
"good works" simply "belief' in Himself. To even suggest this is just
another example of the Pauline mantra in contemporary Christian
commentary that overshadows the literal meanings of Jesus. If Jesus
had in mind those who had belief outside in outer darkness. The
unproductive servant suffers there weeping and gnashing of teeth. Only
the two other productive servants are saved. In Matt. 25:14 et seq.,
Jesus says of the unproductive servant: “now throw this unprofitable
Jesus says of the unproductive servant: "now throw this unprofitable
servant into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing
of teeth.” (Matt. 25:30, KJV). 6
of teeth." (Matt. 25:30, KJV). 6
If our friend still balks at listening to Jesus alone on faith and
works, we can further cement the point with the Parable of the
Sower. In this parable, only the fourth seed is saved. The second seed
“believes for a while,” sprouts, but in time of temptation falls away
"believes for a while," sprouts, but in time of temptation falls away
and dies. (Luke 8:13.) The third goes further, grows substantially but
is then choked by thorns—by the pleasures and riches of this life. As
is then choked by thorns-by the pleasures and riches of this life. As
a result, the third seed never brings any fruit to completion. (Luke
8:14.) The fourth seed is sewn into good ground. It alone produces to
the end. (Luke 8:15.) It alone is saved. Thus, Jesus again taught
@ -229,65 +229,65 @@ believer. (Dillow, Reigri of the Servant Kings, supra, at 355.) Other
Paulunists use circular logic to deny the servant with one talent was
ever a saved Christian. Since he was evidently lost due to lacking
works, they insist he could never have been a Christian. Yet that
presupposes the very issue at stake—the validity of Paul’s contrary
teaching of works, then cite him to Jesus’ Parable of the Sheep and
presupposes the very issue at stake-the validity of Paul's contrary
teaching of works, then cite him to Jesus' Parable of the Sheep and
the Goats. (Matt. 25:32 et seq .) Both the sheep and goats call Jesus
Lord. One group serves Jesus by feeding the brethren in need, clothing
them, and giving them water. The sheep in essence give charity. The
other group who calls Jesus Lord fails to give any charity. Jesus
calls them the goats. On Judgment Day, Jesus says he will separate the
sheep from the goats. He will send the sheep to heaven but the goats
to “eternal fire.” It is as James says, the one who has “faith alone,”
to "eternal fire." It is as James says, the one who has "faith alone,"
lacking works of charity of feeding the brethren and giving them
clothes, food, and drink, has a faith that is “dead” and “cannot
save.” ((Jas. 2:14-17).) As Gathercole concedes, Jesus in
(Matt. 25:31-46) says “deeds of hospitality... are certainly the
criterion for judgment.”
clothes, food, and drink, has a faith that is "dead" and "cannot
save." ((Jas. 2:14-17).) As Gathercole concedes, Jesus in
(Matt. 25:31-46) says "deeds of hospitality... are certainly the
criterion for judgment."
If we had Jesus’ words alone, then we would have seen the identical
If we had Jesus' words alone, then we would have seen the identical
message of faith plus works appears in the Metaphor of the Vine, the
Parable of the Unprofitable Servant, the Parable of the Sower, and the
Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. The productivity that Jesus
implores is not optional. It is not forensic proof of some already
sufficient status of being saved. Instead, if we rely on Jesus’ words
sufficient status of being saved. Instead, if we rely on Jesus' words
alone, we need to tell our friend that Jesus says productivity is
essential to avoid becoming spiritually “dried up” (dead). It is vital
to avoid being thrown “in outer darkness” and “outside” to be
“burned.” Otherwise, we will suffer “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in
“eternal fire.” As Jesus said, “every tree that does not bear good
fruit...is cast into the fire.” (Matt. 7:19.) Jesus also added that
only those who have “done good” will rise to eternal life while those
who have “done evil” will rise to condemnation. (John 5:28-29.) If we
had Jesus’ Words Only, the addition of “good fruit” (works) to faith
essential to avoid becoming spiritually "dried up" (dead). It is vital
to avoid being thrown "in outer darkness" and "outside" to be
"burned." Otherwise, we will suffer "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in
"eternal fire." As Jesus said, "every tree that does not bear good
fruit...is cast into the fire." (Matt. 7:19.) Jesus also added that
only those who have "done good" will rise to eternal life while those
who have "done evil" will rise to condemnation. (John 5:28-29.) If we
had Jesus' Words Only, the addition of "good fruit" (works) to faith
as an absolute condition for salvation would never have caused a
controversy at all.
8. Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting: Early Jewish Soteriology
and Paul's Response in (Rom. 1-5) agonizomai] to be entering into the
cramped door which, I tell you, [many] shall be seeking to enter [it]
but they shall not be having strength [to do so].” 9 Jesus’ words
but they shall not be having strength [to do so]." 9 Jesus' words
meant many will be fighting to enter because of the cramped nature of
the doorway itself. But only those who strive with all their might,
and are strong enough, can enter. Jesus portrays salvation as
something you must use all your strength to obtain.
Yet, we must not forget that in the Metaphor of the Vine, Jesus taught
that “staying in me” was the crucial means of having vital
that "staying in me" was the crucial means of having vital
strength. The way to avoid sin that destroys the faith of the second
seed in the Parable of the Sower is to “keep holding to the Root.” The
key is to pray every day Father “lead us from temptation.”
seed in the Parable of the Sower is to "keep holding to the Root." The
key is to pray every day Father "lead us from temptation."
(Matt. 6:13.) We must pray for the strength to enter the
kingdom. However, absent such strength, we will not be strong enough
to enter the kingdom. The spiritually weak—those who do not pray to
resist temptation—will not be able to enter. Christians whose prayer
to enter the kingdom. The spiritually weak-those who do not pray to
resist temptation-will not be able to enter. Christians whose prayer
life
9. Because this runs afoul of Paulinism, this verse is often
translated in a tepid manner. Yet, commentators acknowledge the true
meaning. For example, Barnes agrees agonazai in Greek “literally
[means] agonize,” not strive, which is the common translation. (KJV.)
Barnes likewise acknowledges in context it means to be “diligent...to
overcome our sinful propensities.” Thus, Jesus means to say salvation
meaning. For example, Barnes agrees agonazai in Greek "literally
[means] agonize," not strive, which is the common translation. (KJV.)
Barnes likewise acknowledges in context it means to be "diligent...to
overcome our sinful propensities." Thus, Jesus means to say salvation
depends on our effort to avoid sin. Jesus thereby exhorts us in the
strongest possible terms to believe this. In Greek, the gate here is
not the same gate as in (Matt. 7:13) where Jesus talks of the narrow
@ -296,6 +296,6 @@ puls, an outside gate, while in Luke 13:24, it is thurast, the door to
enter a house. This is important, for the emphasis here is on the
cramped nature of the gate to enter the house. Finally, the last part
of the sentence is also normally translated very tepidly. Jesus
supposedly warns some “will not be able” to enter. (KJV.) However, the
Greek word emphasizes they “lack being strong.” The Greek word is
supposedly warns some "will not be able" to enter. (KJV.) However, the
Greek word emphasizes they "lack being strong." The Greek word is
icxycoycin.

42
JWO_17_02_PaulsDifferentMessage_0099.md

@ -2,20 +2,20 @@ Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Paul's Different Message
However, if we preach Paul’s message, we have only one simple fonnula
to explain. Simply say with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe “in
your heart” that He rose from the dead. If you do so, then you are
However, if we preach Paul's message, we have only one simple fonnula
to explain. Simply say with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe "in
your heart" that He rose from the dead. If you do so, then you are
saved. ((Rom. 10:9).) It is belief plus nothing, as some say. In fact,
as Paulunists explain, Paul does not mean you exert even the effort to
say Jesus is Lord. Rather, the Holy Spirit entered you first and
caused the words to come forth. See 1Cor. 12:3 (“no man can say,
Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit”). Thus, it was the belief given
caused the words to come forth. See 1Cor. 12:3 ("no man can say,
Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit"). Thus, it was the belief given
by the Holy Spirit alone that saved you. Paulunists teach salvation
never depends on anything you do or initiate.
It is impossible to deny Paul teaches belief-plus-nothing saves
you. And Paul teaches this belief is itself supernaturally bestowed
with no effort on your part to even believe. When all of Paul’s
with no effort on your part to even believe. When all of Paul's
teachings are cross-analyzed, Paul certainly teaches salvation is a
free gift at every point. (Eph. 2:89; (Rom. 4:4).) Paul teaches that
if any effort beyond changing belief is required for salvation, then
@ -24,30 +24,30 @@ salvation is by works. (Rom. 4:4-6.)
This leads to a stark contradiction of Jesus. For example, if we teach
repentance from sin as a condition of salvation, as Jesus in (Mark
9:42-48) makes indispensable, then it is salvation by works. Based on
Paul’s teaching against works, the Rvrie Study Bible says repentance
from sin is “a false addition to faith” when added as a condition of
Paul's teaching against works, the Rvrie Study Bible says repentance
from sin is "a false addition to faith" when added as a condition of
salvation. 10
Likewise, Dr. Bob Wilkin says Paul’s teaching on grace and works makes
“appalling” any idea that we need to obey the repentance-from-sin
principle to enter heaven. Wilkin explains how contrary Paul’s
teachings are to that principle: “It is gibberish to speak of a free
gift which costs us everything.” 11 Wilkin further cements unwittingly
the stark contrast between Paul’s doctrines and Jesus’ teaching in
Likewise, Dr. Bob Wilkin says Paul's teaching on grace and works makes
"appalling" any idea that we need to obey the repentance-from-sin
principle to enter heaven. Wilkin explains how contrary Paul's
teachings are to that principle: "It is gibberish to speak of a free
gift which costs us everything." 11 Wilkin further cements unwittingly
the stark contrast between Paul's doctrines and Jesus' teaching in
(Mark 9:42-48). Wilkin says a promise of heaven based on repentance
from sin is a gospel “not [based upon] a free gift. It is an earned
wage.” (Id.) Exactly
from sin is a gospel "not [based upon] a free gift. It is an earned
wage." (Id.) Exactly
! As Bonhoeffer explained in the Cost of Discipleship (1937), Jesus said grace is costly. Paul has a different message that grace is free
!
We have reached the amazing situation where R.C.Sproul can declare
that “faith alone” is all there is to justification. If you reject it,
that "faith alone" is all there is to justification. If you reject it,
you are apostate and unsaved. (R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The
Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).)
Any church or person that adds any requirement besides faith as a
condition for salvation is lost and apostate. By Sproul’s definition,
condition for salvation is lost and apostate. By Sproul's definition,
Jesus is lost and apostate
!
@ -62,9 +62,9 @@ condition of salvation. Jesus said believers in Him must be careful
not to be ensnared by sin. They must realize they can go to heaven
maimed by repenting from sin. Or, if they refuse to do so, they will
go to hell whole. ((Matt. 5:29), Matthew 18:8, and (Mark 9:42-48).)
This is no doubt why Jesus warned that the road to life is “hard” and
“few” find it. (Matt. 7:13, 14.) Jesus exhorts you “strive” and in
Greek agonazai —use your very last ounce of strength you have—to enter
This is no doubt why Jesus warned that the road to life is "hard" and
"few" find it. (Matt. 7:13, 14.) Jesus exhorts you "strive" and in
Greek agonazai -use your very last ounce of strength you have-to enter
the way that leads to life. (Luke 13:24.) With Paul in the mix,
salvation relies on the easy step of belief alone. You never strive to
enter into salvation. It does not depend on how much strength ( e.g .,

34
JWO_17_03_Don_tPaulandJesusAgreeonConfessionwiththeMouth__0100.md

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Don’t Paul and Jesus Agree on Confession with the Mouth?
## Don't Paul and Jesus Agree on Confession with the Mouth?
What do Paulunists say about confession of Jesus before men? As noted
earlier, Jesus promised this was one way to become saved. (Luke 12:8.)
@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ but would not confess), and hence a work in the Pauline sense. What
would Paulunists say about that path to salvation?
Paul in his famous dictum on how to be saved in (Rom. 10:9) said one
part is “saying with the mouth” that Jesus is Lord. This appears to be
part is "saying with the mouth" that Jesus is Lord. This appears to be
an action beyond mere belief which even Paul endorsed. However,
Paulunists stress Paul’s other salvation formulas that eschew any kind
Paulunists stress Paul's other salvation formulas that eschew any kind
of work as necessary for salvation. Thus, most Paulunists also
dispense with confession with the mouth as a step in salvation. If
confession were necessary in any fonnula, the Paulunist insists Paul
@ -21,40 +21,40 @@ if necessary for salvation, would be a work, mainstream Paulunists
insist. Thus Dr. Bob Wilkin says Paul teaches against the idea that
public confession is a step in any formula for salvation. He bases
this upon Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:4. If a public confession were
really necessary, Dr. Wilkin says such an idea “results in works
salvation.” To keep Paul squared with Paul, Dr. Wilkin says public
really necessary, Dr. Wilkin says such an idea "results in works
salvation." To keep Paul squared with Paul, Dr. Wilkin says public
confession is the fruit of faith. Public confession is not what saves
you despite Paul saying this is so in (Rom. 10:9). 13
Yet, Jesus promised a public confession of Him “before men” would be
Yet, Jesus promised a public confession of Him "before men" would be
matched by His confession of you before the Father. You will be
treated like the thief on the cross. If you died that same day as your
confession “before men,” Jesus would promise you salvation just like
confession "before men," Jesus would promise you salvation just like
He gave the thief on the cross. Jesus gave no mixed messages that a
silent confession of belief alone had the same promise of
salvation. (Luke 12:8.) Jesus told us plain and clear that confession
with the mouth “before men” was one path to salvation. Jesus never
with the mouth "before men" was one path to salvation. Jesus never
cast that principle in doubt by excoriating anyone who would add any
kind action to any salvation formula.
When previously we compared Jesus’ and Paul’s main salvation message,
When previously we compared Jesus' and Paul's main salvation message,
they were at direct odds at so many points. However, even when they
appear consistent such as on the confession issue (Luke 12:8;
(Rom. 10:9)), the Paulunists dodge even drawing a parallel. They
insist upon rereading Paul to not line up with Jesus. They
re-interpret Paul to match Paul’s faith alone statements in Eph. 2:8-9
re-interpret Paul to match Paul's faith alone statements in Eph. 2:8-9
and Romans 4:4. They do not acknowledge that confession with the mouth
—a clear action —is a necessary step to Paul’s formula in Romans 10:9,
-a clear action -is a necessary step to Paul's formula in Romans 10:9,
even though Paul says so in this verse.
12. Bob Wilkin, Is Confessing Christ a Condition of Salvation? (1994)
(reprinted online at
http://www.faithalone.org/news/yl994/
94july3.html). Ironically, Wilkin says “[s]ince the Bible [i.e., Paul]
94july3.html). Ironically, Wilkin says "[s]ince the Bible [i.e., Paul]
is clear that eternal salvation is a free gift and that it is not of
works..., this passage [i.e., from Luke 12:8, ‘confess me before men,
and 1 will confess before the Father’] cannot be dealing with the
Gospel .” Jesus’ words are thereby nullified based on Paul
works..., this passage [i.e., from Luke 12:8, 'confess me before men,
and 1 will confess before the Father'] cannot be dealing with the
Gospel ." Jesus' words are thereby nullified based on Paul
! Wilkin is the author of such works as Confident in Christ. Fie is also the head of the Grace Evangelical Society.
@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ re-read Paul in (Rom. 10:9) to mean believe in your heart Jesus is
Lord. Then they see the fruit of this will be public confession. Thus,
when you first believed in your heart, you were instantaneously saved
without the work of a confession in public. (See prior footnote.)
Thus, if you pay close attention to Paul’s formulas, he is not always
Thus, if you pay close attention to Paul's formulas, he is not always
consistent.
Yet, it is not their fault: Paul does utter self-contradictory statements that undennine the very formula for salvation he gave in (Rom. 10:9). Paul’s self-contradictions thus make it always impossible to line up Paul with Jesus even when Paul says the very same thing as Jesus.
Yet, it is not their fault: Paul does utter self-contradictory statements that undennine the very formula for salvation he gave in (Rom. 10:9). Paul's self-contradictions thus make it always impossible to line up Paul with Jesus even when Paul says the very same thing as Jesus.

16
JWO_17_04_WhatAboutJohn3_16__0101.md

@ -6,24 +6,24 @@ Picking just one verse from Jesus that sounds Pauline, i.e ., (John 3:16),
is not a solution. The verb tense for believes in (John 3:16) has indeed
been translated to sound Pauline. In the original Greek, it means
something not only quite different, but also actually the opposite of
how it reads in the KJV and NIV. It should read: “He who continues to
believe/trust should have eternal life.” This is the true meaning of
how it reads in the KJV and NIV. It should read: "He who continues to
believe/trust should have eternal life." This is the true meaning of
the underlying Greek verbs. (See [[JWO_19_01_GreekIssues_0111]])
Faithfulness, not one moment of faith, is what should save.
Therefore, we have a choice to make. We can explain salvation based on
Jesus’ Words Only. Or we can use Paul’s words. They are two radically
Jesus' Words Only. Or we can use Paul's words. They are two radically
different messages.
![Picture #96](images/img_0096.png)
Andreas Rudolf Borenstein von Carlstadt (1480-1541). Co-leader of
Reformation with Luther. Believed Jesus’ words in Gospels more
Reformation with Luther. Believed Jesus' words in Gospels more
important than epistles for formulating doctrine.
| What About John 3:16? |
| TABLE 10. Salvation Checklist — |
| TABLE 10. Salvation Checklist - |
| Jesus |
| The one who repents from sin is “justified.” (Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. Luke 18:1014.) Th son who was dead but now repents is “alive again” (born again). (Parable of the Prodigal\\Son, Luke 15:1-32, viz. v. 24.) |
| The one who relies upon God’s election to salvation and does not repent goes home unjustified. (Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. Luke 18:10-14.) |
| To have eternal life, follow the\\Ten Commandments, deny yourself (i.e.,![Picture #97}}\\{{images/img_0098.png|Picture #98}}\\{{images/img_0099.png|Picture #99](images/img_0097.png)\\TABLE 10. Salvation Checklist — Jesus versus Paul |
| The one who repents from sin is "justified." (Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. Luke 18:1014.) Th son who was dead but now repents is "alive again" (born again). (Parable of the Prodigal\\Son, Luke 15:1-32, viz. v. 24.) |
| The one who relies upon God's election to salvation and does not repent goes home unjustified. (Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. Luke 18:10-14.) |
| To have eternal life, follow the\\Ten Commandments, deny yourself (i.e.,![Picture #97}}\\{{images/img_0098.png|Picture #98}}\\{{images/img_0099.png|Picture #99](images/img_0097.png)\\TABLE 10. Salvation Checklist - Jesus versus Paul |

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show more