diff --git a/CodexHierosolymitanusGreek.md b/CodexHierosolymitanusGreek.md index 9e109c4..b412df5 100644 --- a/CodexHierosolymitanusGreek.md +++ b/CodexHierosolymitanusGreek.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ This question naturally arises because: that the Epistle of Barnabus in A. is in fact his. 2. Greek Codex Vaticanus (B.), known to exist as far back as the time of Erasmus (he rejected it), yet shows the same scribal hand in Mark 8 - as the fake Sinaiticus. + as the Sinaiticus fraud. These two codicies were used as the basis for Wescott/Hort/Shcaff to claim all of the world's bibles needed replacing by a new work based on this diff --git a/CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md b/CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md index 6bbea49..75542e0 100644 --- a/CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md +++ b/CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md @@ -9,20 +9,35 @@ that does not conflict with an upcoming "One World Religion". Or both. A bibles based on the combination of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are based on a fraud and are to be avoided. +See [[Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus]] + +### Links + * https://www.sinaiticus.net/ * https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/tag/codex-sinaiticus/ + +Steve Avery has excellent coverage at the Pure Bible Forum: + + "And there even could be some elements involving the counter-Reformation + attempt to make a new Bible version against the Received Text, + and this sorely needed a full Bible companion manuscript to Vaticanus" + * https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/03/sinaiticus-is-not-forgery-setting-stage.html (comments by steve avery) +* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php#sinaiticus-authenticity.301 * https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-forging-of-codex-sinaiticus-by-william-cooper.261/ (not read yet) +* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/why-the-james-keith-elliott-book-tells-you-very-little-about-sinaiticus-authenticity.240/ +* https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/james-snapp-attempts-to-defend-authenticity-of-sinaiticus-multiplication-of-nothings.468/ +* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-must-see-spots-for-understanding-the-simonides-athos-creation-of-codex-simoneidos.1616/ * https://archive.org/download/literaryforgeri01farrgoog/literaryforgeri01farrgoog.pdf + +An epic film: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG9PuqP4QvY * W. R. Cooper, "The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus", Creation Science Movement, 2016 -* David Daniels, "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?", 2018. -* https://christianpublishinghouse.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/A-Review-of-The-Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf - (Warning about anything from that publisher, and we find his arguments weak.) -David Daniels has some good research on Sinaiticus as videos: +David Daniels has some good research on Sinaiticus as videos (we do not necessarily vouch for him on other topics): +* David Daniels, "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?", 2018. * 20151205 - [01 Is Sinaiticus a Fake](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo) * 20151210 - [02 KJV Sinaiticus and the NWO](https://youtube.com/watch?v=RcgRR1NWFGU) * 20160926 - [The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OmfGK1CtMSI) @@ -33,6 +48,9 @@ David Daniels has some good research on Sinaiticus as videos: * 20180629 - [The real reason Sinaiticus was created](https://youtube.com/watch?v=VIdA6lVQpJk) * 20190407 - [Sinaiticus and Apotheosis](https://youtube.com/watch?v=o6xLMyNGoSs) +* https://christianpublishinghouse.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/A-Review-of-The-Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf + (Warning about anything from that publisher, and we find his arguments weak.) + --- See also: diff --git a/DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters.md b/DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters.md index e13e01c..abbd763 100644 --- a/DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters.md +++ b/DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters.md @@ -4,6 +4,31 @@ Parent: [[Home]] ## Did Marcion Write the "Pauline" Letters +We ask the question because it is central to the thesis of the Tubingen +School [[PaulineEpistlesDetering]]: is there any evidence of the existence of +the Paulines before Marcion? Not just things that sound like they're Paulunist, +but explicitly referring to the Paulines as if they are Epistles. + +The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch are very Paulunist, but so far we haven't +seen anything that makes me say "Pauline Epistle". And they're about the only +supposed retort the classic Tubingen/F.C. Bauer/Detering thesis we know of. + +As the Letters are so much of a mess, we decided they can't be used for +anything serious anyway. But we came across a [supposed retort](https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/08/ignatius-reliance-on-pauls-letter-to.html) +that assumes some recension of the letters is valid, but the only things in +there that we saw was "literary contact", "similarities in vocabulary" etc.; +nothing that would come up to our standards. + +So we're still left with nothing serious referring to the Paulines before +Tertullian or [P46](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46), which is 200AD +/- 25 + + +There is a really good summary article one why this is important by Hermann Detering: +[The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles](http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Detering.html). + +It's a summary but there is at least one new thing in there which stopped +us dead in our tracks (pun intended): + ### Proxy baptism for the dead (1Cor. 15:29) See 4.4 in [[PaulineEpistlesDetering]]: @@ -19,6 +44,27 @@ See 4.4 in [[PaulineEpistlesDetering]]: also have been practised among the (equally Gnostic) Cerinthians (Epiph. Haer. 28.6.4). +There is absolutely no way proxy baptism could be in a pre-60 AD story line. +NO WAY. The Jamesian church was less than 30 years old, and they were all +deep Hebrew believers (except the Apostate SPaul). + +Hence 1Cor. is post-150 AD at least; proxy baptism would not be until whatever +the Marcionite church was well established, with enough dying Marcionites to need +proxying, to such an extent they felt it necessary to work it into Holy Scripture. + +So in keeping with Detering, we take a confirmed position on this: + + 1Cor. and by implication 2Cor., Rom., and Gal. (at least) are Marcionite works, + and the Paul of the Paulines is a literary extrapolation of the Paul of Acts + by the Marcionites (Marcions mentors, or Marcion, or his followers). + +There's also the "husband is dead"/"Jehovah is dead" part of Romans 7 +which is also purely, and unabashedly, Marcionite. + +We understand that the Paulines post-150 AD will have some dating reprecussions, +be that as it may, but we can let the Tubingen school speak to that. + +* ### JWO Web Site * [[Recommended-Reading/marcionism]](.../Recommended-Reading/marcionism.html) diff --git a/GreekHierosolymitanus.md b/GreekHierosolymitanus.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c4f290f --- /dev/null +++ b/GreekHierosolymitanus.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ + + +## Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus + +Imagine this story line: + +1. A young Lutheran pastor spends a 13 month long year traveling around the + libraries of Italy when the custodian of the Vatican library wants to + write him poetry. + +2. After a young Lutheran pastor gets private audiences with the Pope, he + is given access to the most prized document of the most secretive library in + the world, under a ex-(sic) Jesuit soon-to-be Cardinal who has a reputation + for keeping everything to himself. With the help of another Cardinal, no less. + +3. After a 13 month year in and around the Vatican he goes to the ends of the earth + to make the hugest find in ecclesiastical history, in one of the oldest and most + important monasteries of a church that hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do. + +4. On your way home to his wife, he stops off in Constantinople (having flunked + geography) to visit one of the next most restrictive libraries in the world, + and again is [left alone in the library](https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-theft-and-mutilation-of-manuscripts.91/) on the OK of yet another Patriarch, + of a church that still hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do. Shortly + after which, the library makes the next hugest find in ecclesiastical history. + +5. The 2 codices in the story are then said to be the basis for cabal of "scholars" + (Wescott/Hort/Shcaff) to claim that all of the world's bibles need replacing + immediately, even though one of the Codices was rejected by the TR's Erasmus, + and the other one comes in either lily-white or lemon-tea-yellow. + +So the question naturally arises: what role does [[CodexHierosolymitanus]] +play in all of this? Clearly the tea and lemon juice years imply that the +Greek Orthodox hierarchy is cooperating fully, as well as the Patriarch of +Jerusalem Orthodox hierarchy, and the Pope and Vatican hierarchy, just like +all they did during the plandemic. So we must assume they are cooperating on H. + +So the question naturally arises: what role does Greek +play in all of this? Clearly the tea and lemon juice years imply that the +Greek Orthodox hierarchy is cooperating fully, just like they did during +the plandemic. So we must assume they would/are cooperating on H. + +We love [[TheDidache]] - it is truly the finest Early Church document after Matthew. +But because of its beautiful simplicity, it can't see it playing a role in this +affair - it can't be used for anything but primitive Christian simplicity. +(It's in our draft of an [[EbioniteCanon]].) It also came out later (he didn't +notice a work that everyone has been looking for for 1900 years, at first) +so maybe it was a distraction tossed in to take the heat off the Simonides affair. + +We can't see Barnabas playing a role either - Simonides turned the Sinaiatic one +into a real embarrassment - and having 2 is two much. It's not a document we like, +nor can see it would be any use - it would be immediately branded as anti-Semitic. + +So were left with scrutinizing the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. What role +could they play? Conveniently, they can say almost anything and not be caught +out because the field is such a mess. And the only question that we can think of +(having been worn out by the preceding story line) is: Tubingen/F.C. Bauer/Detering's +[[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]]. + +https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-theft-and-mutilation-of-manuscripts.91/ + +Tischendorf alludes to the theft of this leaf, Travels in the East, +tr. from "Reise in den Orient" by William Edward Shuckard +https://books.google.sc/books?id=KBYEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA274 + diff --git a/HealingCommentary.md b/HealingCommentary.md deleted file mode 100644 index 7b7b411..0000000 --- a/HealingCommentary.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,58 +0,0 @@ -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]] diff --git a/Home.md b/Home.md index 4a825f1..23e792e 100644 --- a/Home.md +++ b/Home.md @@ -33,8 +33,7 @@ It's time for Christianity 2.0. who later fled to Pella just before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. * We hold to a revised [[EbioniteCanon]], augmented by [[RecentCanonAdditions]]. * We follow their rejection of Paul as an Apostate as shown in Acts, - and we reject of the "Pauline" Epistles: - we ask [[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]]. + and we reject of the "Pauline" Epistles: we ask [[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]]. ## Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2 diff --git a/JWO/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md b/JWO/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md index 8d7baa7..85d81d9 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ 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 -Sojourner has to be circumcised. (Exod. 12:48; Num. 9:14). Thus, +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 contemplated His Jewish apostles would keep Passover, and amended the diff --git a/JWO/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md b/JWO/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md index 4eea5e3..166c90b 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ 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? -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 diff --git a/JWO/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md b/JWO/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md index 55bca15..456d67a 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md @@ -10,12 +10,12 @@ Paul is blunt in (Eph. 2:15), 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 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. 2:14-17) ("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"). diff --git a/JWO/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md b/JWO/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md index 2285238..0f8b73f 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ false Jezebel who "teaches my servants to commit fornication, and Word Pictures confesses the Nicolaitans defended eating such meat based on 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 taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating meat @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ 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). -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. +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. This three-times principle, incidentally, is not without its own significance. For Paul says three times that it is permissible to eat diff --git a/JWO/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md b/JWO/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md index 6bd4146..6751f6c 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md @@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ 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 @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ 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 diff --git a/JWO/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md b/JWO/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md index 9131e98..2ce9cba 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ 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 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 diff --git a/JWO/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md b/JWO/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md index 2d42c5e..98d3918 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md @@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless * 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. 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). @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless 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? diff --git a/JWO/JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md b/JWO/JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md index 6d4703c..c6fb153 100644 --- a/JWO/JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md +++ b/JWO/JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ verses at odds with this Parable of the Sower are well-known: 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"). -* 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"). diff --git a/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md b/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md deleted file mode 100644 index 8f71894..0000000 --- a/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,291 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## Martin Luther Defends Paul s Attribution of the Law to Angels and Its Abolished Nature - -If you believe I have stretched things, I am in good company in -concluding Paul taught: (1) the Law originated with the angels; (2) -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 -thoroughly rejects Moses that he does not see how what he is saying -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 -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 -caught in a contradiction reasons this out. Luther says: - -Now the words which are here written [in the Law of Moses] were spoken -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], - 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) -Vol. 35 at 161-174. - -That is, angels were assigned, in God's behalf, to give the law of -God- and Moses, as an intermediary, received it from the angels. I say -this so that you might know who gave the law. He did this to them, -however, because he wanted thereby to compel, burden, and press the Jews. - -Luther is distancing God from the Law of Moses, just as Paul had -done. It was delivered by angels, not God personally. Luther is -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 -remark has all the earmarks of someone who has not thought through the -implications of his statement: - - We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to - let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We - 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: - - 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 - 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. - -Martin Luther then announces proudly his total rejection of the Law. - -22. (Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37. - - So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is - dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further - service.... [[E]]ven the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us. - -If this is true, then why did Jesus teach to the contrary that whoever -taught the smallest commandment of the Law should no longer be -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 -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 -law of circumcision (Gen. 17:11); (Lev. 12:3), (Josh. 5:2), then it -obviously does not apply to Gentiles. In the Jerusalem council in Acts -chapter 15, James ruled this command does not apply to Gentiles. (Acts -15:19). James said this not because the Law was abrogated in its -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). - -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 -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." -(Lev. 20:2, 10.) 26 - -Was James following Scripture in making this distinction? Yes, -indeed. The Law of Moses had an example that a command for a son of -Israel not to eat meat of an animal that died naturally did not apply -to non-Israelite sojourners who were permitted to each such -meat. (Deut. 14:21). Thus, this proves that commands to Israelites do -not automatically apply to the non-Israelite. James simply applied -this principle to interpret the scope of other commands in the Law of -Moses. - -If you apply the Israel-sojourner distinction which James employed, -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' -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 -burdensome nature of the Law on Gentiles was a red herring all along. - -25. See page 138 et seq. - -26. On why the idol-food command that James also gives was a deduction as applicable to both Jew and Gentile, see Footnote 1 on page 118. - -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 -also complied with (Deut. 4:2). - -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 -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 -in the Law would be the greatest in the kingdom, Jesus meant as to -Gentiles that if you taught them to obey open-ended commands and -commands directed at sojourners in the Law then you would be the -greatest in the kingdom. (Matt. 5:19). But if you go beyond this, and -add Israel-only commands on Gentiles which God (including Jesus) never -imposed on them, you are unduly burdening their entry into the kingdom -of God. You are violating (Deut. 4:2) by adding burdens nowhere in the -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 -specific mention of most of the Ten Commandments imposed on -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 -the Decalogue to all in the New Covenant when He spoke to the young -rich man. ((Matt. 19:16-26); (Mark 10:17-31); Luke 18:1826). See -Bonhoeffer. Cost of Discipleship (1937) at 72-84. - -Did Jesus ever speak this way Himself? Yes, this is one of the obvious -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." - -James similarly speaks that putting the Israel-only commands upon -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 -in commands than a Gentile. It is inherent in their culture, as God -molded the Jews. The new wine in an old wineskin will swell up from -pressure trying to stay within the bounds of the old wineskin. The new -wine will spill out ( i.e ., become lost) if you try to make the new -fit the stiffness and boundaries of the old wineskin. Gentiles cannot -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 -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 -contemplated His Jewish apostles would keep Passover, and amended the -Passover remembrances to include His anticipated work on the Cross. If -Gentile Christians observe Passover, it is an honor. When we do so, we -were to do the remembrances that Jesus outlined in the last -passover. This explains why the early apostolic church was anxious to -and did keep Passover; and this is why Passover is a feast worldwide -in all forms of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) -except in English-speaking nations where it is known as Easter. Why -the different nomenclature? Because Catholicism could not root out the -English/Germanic preference to call that season by the name of the -goddess Eastre. As a result, English-speaking Christians have lost -memory of what festival they are attempting to celebrate while -Christians of all denominations and faiths in non-English speaking -countries keep Passover under its proper name. For more discussion, -see Appendix C: The Easter Error [[JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112]]. - -29. Yet, bear in mind, Jesus as Prophet can add a command to the Law of Moses. - -Unfortunately, Luther in this sermon did not consistently maintain -this valid Israel-Sojoumer distinction. Luther ends the sennon by -throwing off of the Gentiles all the Old Law, even the sojourner -commands. He put the New beyond any testing for its validity against -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 - 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 -prior revelation to test its validity. Luther thereby became in 1525 -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. - -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' -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 -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 -previously taught so boldly. 34 - -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.'" - -31. Martin Luther, Don't Tell Me That! From Martin Luther s Antinomian -Theses (Lutheran Press: 2004). - - -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 -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 -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 -quickly followed his lecture on Galatians. For in that epistle, we -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 -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. - -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 -http://www.jesus-is-savior.com. - -34. Calvinists thereby find the 1531 Catechism defective spiritually. See Calvin College at -http://www.ccel.0rg/s/schaff/hcc7/htm/ii.v.xiv.htm. - diff --git a/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md b/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md deleted file mode 100644 index 166c90b..0000000 --- a/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,100 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority - -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, -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 -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 -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: - - Paul has not stretched the truth at all....He reasserts his faith - 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 -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 -Felix. - -This account of Luke represents Paul making such an outrageous -falsehood that a growing segment of Paulunists (such as John Knox) -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? - -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 - -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? - -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 -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, -continuing to believe [present participle active] in all things which -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 -affirms agreement with the part of the Law with which he can still -agree. (Given O. Blakely, A Commentary on Paul s Defense Before Felix -at -http://wotruth.com/pauldef.htm). This argument fails because Paul -believes in nothing from the Law except that it was pregnant with its -own abolition. Paul was still being deceptive. Paul was in effect -saying, he believes still in everything in the Law that is valid -today, but since this is nothing, the statement is empty -patronizing. Blakely commends Paul for his shrewd way of saying -this. Paul made it appear he was affirming all the Law was valid when -instead Paul meant to affirm its entirely fulfilled nature, and hence -its defunct nature. Whether a shrewd way of expressing this or not, -the literal words are still a falsehood in how Felix would understand -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 -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 -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. - -Bless the Messianics. They cited (Acts 24:14) to insist Paul was -upholding Torah. What they did is bring to everyone's attention a -verse whose very existence destroys viewing Paul as a legitimate -teacher. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md b/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md deleted file mode 100644 index 456d67a..0000000 --- a/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,78 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## Chapter 5 Conclusion - -Paul is blunt in (Eph. 2:15), -(Col. 2:14), -(2Cor. 3:11-17), -(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 -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. 2:14-17) ("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"). - -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. - -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 -Sabbath. This is one of the Ten Commandments. Paul, as Luther said, -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." - -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.) - -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 -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! - -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. - -Yet, Paul has not escaped thereby. For Jesus in (Matt. 7:23) -reiterated (Deut. 13:1-5). In doing so, Jesus specifically warned of -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 -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)? - -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 -by God Himself. The Bible clearly says God delivered it personally in -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 -(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 ? - -Your eternal destiny may depend on how you analyze these simple questions. diff --git a/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md b/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md deleted file mode 100644 index 0f8b73f..0000000 --- a/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,218 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## Paul Contradicts Jesus About Idol Meat - -### Introduction - -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 -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 -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 -soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add -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 -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 -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 -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 -this apparent reason, James in Acts 15:20, 25 and 21:25 prohibits -Gentiles from eating idol meat. (On how James construed when the Law -applies to Gentiles, see page 102.) It is ludicrous to argue, as some -do, that God was concerned only that one knowingly ate such meat. If -true, the Bible could have just prohibited such food as it did with -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 -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 -eating-idol-meat rule to be only a command to follow during social -intercourse, then the council used the wrong words to convey such an -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 -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 -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 15:29). 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 -judgment that they [ i.e ., the Gentiles] should keep themselves from -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 -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 -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 -(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. - -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 -Pictures confesses the Nicolaitans defended eating such meat based on -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 - - "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." - -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. - -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, - -![Picture #34](images/img_0034.png) - -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). - -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. - -This three-times principle, incidentally, is not without its own -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." - -Paul in Titus 1:15 - -### Paul Permits Eating Meat Sacrificed To Idols - -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 -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 -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 -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." -(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." - Gordon Tessler, Ph.D. The Genesis Diet - -![Picture #35](images/img_0035.png) - -![Picture #36](images/img_0036.png) - - -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 -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 -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 -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." -(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, -hairsplitting qualifications, situationalethics, or easy outs in -deciding whether to obey God. It is wrong and prohibited. - -### Paul Clearly Teaches It is Permissible to Eat Idol Meat - -Yet, Paul teaches it is pennissible to eat idol meat. This is -transparent enough that Pauline Christians admit Paul is saying meat -sacrificed to idols is clean and permissible. They make these -admissions apparently unaware that Jesus in Revelation reconfirmed the -prohibition on meat sacrificed to idols. 5 A Presbyterian pastor -unwittingly admits: - - Paul says to his readers that even though there is no ontological - or theological basis for refusing to eat meat that has been - 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 -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 -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 -wants to obey Jesus Christ. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md b/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md deleted file mode 100644 index fe869f7..0000000 --- a/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,679 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## Why Does Jesus Mention Balaam in Revelation 2:14 - -### 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 -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 -New Testament era teaches eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible. - -What do we know about Balaam that would help us identify who was the -Balaam-type figure in the New Testament church? - -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 -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 -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) - -* 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' - account. Jesus alone reveals this. - -Who else is a prophet of God who was changed from an enemy to a friend -by an angelic-type vision on a Road, but then later taught it was -permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Who likewise taught an -act of fornication condemned by Jesus ( i.e ., remarriage after -divorce if certain circumstances were lacking) was perfectly -pennissible? (See page 138). Who likewise is interpreted by most -Paulunists as saying fornication is no longer strictly prohibited and -no longer leads to spiritual death but instead the propriety of -fornication is examined solely based on its expediency? On those key -points, we shall see in this chapter that Balaam identically matches Paul. - -Jesus is putting a thin veil over the fact He is talking about -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 -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 -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 -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. -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. - -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 -to know there are symbolic meanings in His words. - -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 -offered payment to travel to Moab to curse Israel. As such, he begins -as an enemy of the true God. - -God then appeared to Balaam and told him not to curse -Israel. ((Num. 22:5-12)). King Balak then called on Balaam again to -come to Moab. However, God appeared to Balaam and allowed him to go on -condition Balaam did only what the Lord told him to do. (Numbers -22:20). Apparently after starting on his trip, Balaam decided to still -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?" -((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 -angel. (Num. 22:31-33). - -Balaam then confesses to the angel that he sinned. ((Num. 22:34).) He -offers to go home. The angel tells Balaam to continue onto Moab, but -repeats the command that Balaam must only bless the -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 -famous oracles of blessings over Israel then followed. (Num. 23:1-29). - -While giving the blessing, God through Moses says Balaam was directly -led by the Holy Spirit. Balaam simultaneously turned away from his -prior practice of using omens. Moses writes in (Num. 24:1-2) - - (1) And when Balaam saw that it pleased Jehovah to bless Israel, - he went not, as at the other times, to meet with enchantments, but he - set his face toward the wilderness. - - (2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling - according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him. - [Then Balaam blesses Israel.] - -Thus Balaam had become a true prophet whom Moses reveals was having -true communications from Yahweh God. Balaam is indwelt by the Holy -Spirit and repeats precisely what God wants him to say. God wants us -to know through Moses that Balaam begins as a truly inspired prophet -of God Almighty. The last we see of Balaam in action, he is acting as -a good prophet. His words of blessings end up as part of standard -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 -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 -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. - -Rabbinic tradition tries to fill in the missing information. It -attributed to Balaam the lapse of Israel into the immorality we find in -(Num. 25:1-9). - -Jesus, however, gives us an inspired message on what was missing in -the Biblical account. Jesus says Balaam misled the Israelites by -teaching them they can eat meat sacrificed to idols and they can -commit fornication. Jesus is the only inspired source of this -infonnation. Jesus says: - - 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. (Rev. 2:14, ASV.) - -The Rabbinic tradition in Judaism supports what Jesus said, but only -in general terms. - -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.") - -### So Who is Balaam in the New Testament Era? - -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 -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 -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 -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?" -((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 -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.) - -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 -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 -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 -in detail. They always identify Balaam as merely a false teacher or -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 -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 -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: - -* It would be on a road. - -* There would be a divine vision. - -* Jesus would ask why is Paul persecuting Him. - -* Jesus would let Paul know it is hard to go up against the goads of God. - -* The experience would turn Paul around to be a true spokesperson of God for a time. - -* Finally, Paul would fall like Balaam did by teaching it was - permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. - -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 -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 -(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." - -### 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." - -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. - -Brown-Driver-Brigg s Hebrew Dictionary defines the contexts for -fornication (Hebrew zanah ) as: - -lal) to be a harlot, act as a harlot. - -Ia2) to commit adultery - -la3) to be a cult prostitute - -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 -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 -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 -adultery. The word has many broad meanings in Greek, but the -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 -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 -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 -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 -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.) - -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 -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 -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 -remarry. However, even if the Greek version of 5:32 were correct, -Jesus is merely saying that if the certificate were improperly -delivered to the wife, without her being guilty of an unseemly thing -as required by (Deut. 24:1), the divorce was invalid and the right of -remarriage under (Deut. 24:2) does not exist. This makes sense even if -Jesus never said it. - -Whether you accept the Greek or Hebrew version of Matthew, Paul says -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 -of fornication which Jesus prohibits. - -Incidentally, if the Greek text were correct, Jesus would be resolving -a dispute under the divorce Law on what unseemly thing was necessary -to justify a bill of divorce. 6 Yet, if the Hebrew version of -(Matt. 5:32) were correct, Jesus was re-invigorating the requirement -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 -was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, see -[[JWO_19_01_GreekIssues_0111]]. - -Regardless, what remains the problem is that under either text -tradition, Paul permits the very act of fornication/adultery that -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 - -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/lthessalonians/lthessalonians4.htm). -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 -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 -a warning to a non-believer, not a believer. As a result, while 1 -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? - -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, -in (Gal. 6:1), Paul again refers to those being warned as brethren. - -This has led other Paulunists to admit that Paul is warning Christians -in (Gal. 5:19-21). However, they still have a response that permits a -Christian to commit fornication without losing their inheritance in -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 -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 -does not intend to warn a Christian who engages in occasional -fornication that they should fear the loss of salvation. 10 - -John MacArthur is a major voice of modern evangelical -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).) - -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 -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 -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. - -Some Christians may do some of those things infrequently, but that -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 -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 -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 -hopeful addition. - -11.John MacArthur, Liberty in Christ, reprinted at -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 -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). - -Furthermore, Dillow insists that even if a Christian practices -fornication, Paul does not mean to threaten anything more than loss of -rewards. Dillow argues that (Gal. 5:19) and the comparable (1Cor. 6:9) -mean by threatening the loss of an inheritance of the kingdom to -threaten only a loss of rewards. The argument is a forced-one, -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 -occasionally commits fornication. - -### Paul Is Boldly Claimed To Teach Fornication Is Permissible - -Now that we see how Paulunists dismiss the threats in (Gal. 5:19-21), -it should come as no surprise that mainstream Christians declare Paul -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 -Paul permits fornication, they rely upon three independent proofs. - -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 -you could commit fornication. The test is expediency; it is no longer -whether it is absolutely prohibited. - -This reasoning is bluntly stated by Bob George. Mr. George is an -author of numerous mainstream theological books on eternal -security. Over the past several years, he has been a national radio -talk host whose daily topic is often eternal security. You have been -able to hear him on the radio in Los Angeles every week day. He -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 - -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 -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." - -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 -benefits. Then if the costs outweigh the benefits, it is wrong. - -12. Bob George, People to People (Radio Talk Show), 11/16/93. - -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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 -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. - -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 - -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 -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: - - [[N]]o sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit - fornication and murder a thousand times a day. 14 - -Zane Hodges, a leading evangelical writer, similarly says: - - Paul does not say...his readers should question their salvation if - they become involved in sexual impurity . 15 - -Unless these mainstream writers are wrong, Paul is teaching a grace -that pennits sexual immorality with no serious loss. At least there is -no penalty. - -14. Martin Luther, Luther Works, I Letters (American Ed.) Vol. 48 at 282. - -15. Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1989) at 94. - -What about loss of rewards? Paul never says expressly you lose a -reward for fornication. But assuming he did say this, if anyone loses -a reward that does not affect salvation, it is certainly not a -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 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." - -### The Sexually Immoral Man in 1Cor. 5 Was Never Lost - -As the third and final proof that Paul says fornication is -permissible, Paulunists actually cite (1Cor. 5:5). They insist this -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 -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.) - -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 -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 - 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 -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 -salvation despite his unrepentant and consistent sin. Thus, this verse -proves eternal security, Dillow claims. - -Dillow is not an aberrant view of this passage. The mainstream idea of -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 -salvation thereby. (Dave Hunt.) 18 diff --git a/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md b/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md deleted file mode 100644 index 2ce9cba..0000000 --- a/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,65 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## Some have regarded (1Cor. 5:5) as the strongest verse in the Bible for once saved, always saved and I would not disagree. - -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 -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 -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 -capital cases. (Deut. 17:7; cf John 8:4). Second, the witnesses in an -incest case with a stepmother had to confirm the father was alive at -the time of the act. Otherwise, as some Rabbis pointed out, the act -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 -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. - - -Kendall, Once Saved Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985) at 156.) - -In spite of the sin of fornication, Paul still regarded the person as -a saved man. (Gromacki, Salvation is Forever (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976) at 138.) - -If Dillow and these writers are correct (and they are accepted as -correct by mainstream evangelical Christianity which Moody Press -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." - -### Recap: How Mainstream Christianity Proves Paul Teaches A Christian May Fornicate - -Accordingly, mainstream Christianity offers several proofs that Paul -teaches it is permissible for a Christian to commit fornication -although it may not be expedient: - -* The Law is abrogated. - -* If one said fornication were strictly impermissible, that is not - only Legalism, but also it implies a works-salvation. - -* Paul only warns loss of rewards in (Gal. 5:19) if a Christian - 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 - unrepentant incest do not even threaten loss of salvation, so - practicing unrepentant fornication cannot possibly pose such a threat. - -18. Dave Hunt, CIB Bulletin (Camarillo, CA: Christian Information Bureau) (June 1989) at 1. diff --git a/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md b/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md deleted file mode 100644 index 98d3918..0000000 --- a/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,390 +0,0 @@ -Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]] - -## Does Jesus Share Salvation Doctrine with Paul - -### 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. - -### Luke 7:47 - -Jesus encountered a woman who loved Him much, washing His feet with her tears. Jesus declares her sins forgiven. He tells us why in ways that when Paulunists look closely at the passage, they cringe. Can Jesus forgive someone because they love much, and not on faith alone? Nevertheless, we read in Luke 7:47: - -Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. - -(ASV]. - -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. - -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. - -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. - -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.) - -The Uniqueness of Luke 7:50 in the Synoptics - -What is most interesting is that in all of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), this is the only passage where Jesus goes on to say someone is saved by faith. Jesus next says to the woman (Luke 7:50): - -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! - -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: - -Ever notice that the first three gospels (the synoptic gospels) never explicitly speak of salvation through faith in Christ (except for [the - -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? - -I infer that the synoptic gospels were primarily to prepare people to hear the gospel of grace, - -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! - -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. - -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. - -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 - -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: - -* 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. 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 (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). - -* 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? - -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 - -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. - -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. - -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.) - -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. - -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 -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. - -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. - -### 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 -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 -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. - -### 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 -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 (