Can we believe what Paul tells us?

[polonius]

Some researcher on Paul's Epistles noted these says?

Should we believe without question what he claims in his Epistles?

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" (Rom. 3.7)

and

"Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. But be it so: ... nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile." (2 Cor. 12.15-16)

He sounds sort of manipulative, doesn't he?

[bjs]

I prefer the actual text, not one that may have been altered to support the beliefs of a particular faith group.

Great. Actually read the text.

RESPONSE:

7 But if through my falsehood Gods truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Probably because Paul lied.

You are blatantly pulling a verse out of context to make appear as if Paul was saying something that he was not only not saying, but was in fact arguing against. This is an extremely dishonest debate tactic.

[polonius]

[quote="bjs"

You are blatantly pulling a verse out of context to make appear as if Paul was saying something that he was not only not saying, but was in fact arguing against. This is an extremely dishonest debate tactic.

RESPONSE:

Ah, yes. The old "out of context" ploy to be used when the evidence does not support one's claim!

Paul wrote "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from Gods law but am under Christs law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. " 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

"Now granted, I have not burdened you; yet sly as I am, I took you in by deceit! " Corinthians 12:16


Gal 1:6-8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

I kind of like the plain meaning of words and facts of history!
javascript:emoticon(':study:')

[bjs]

[Replying to post 12 by polonius]

Saying that you are taking something out of context is not a ploy. The ploy is taking something out of context. This thread is an extreme version of this dishonest ploy. Pointing out the context is an effort at honesty.

Perhaps I haven not effectively explained what taking something out of context is. Let me give you an example of taking something out of context so that it is clear what I am talking about.

______________________________________________________________

I took you in by deceit!

Polinus admits that he is lying! This is the plain meaning of the words and the facts of history. Polinus openly admits that he is deceitful and so no one should not trust anything he writes.
______________________________________________________________

That is an example of taking something out of context. It is what you have done in this thread. You have taken Pauls words out of context. Your ploy has been to make it appear that Paul was saying something which anyone who has read the text can plainly see Paul was not saying.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 12 by polonius]

Saying that you are taking something out of context is not a ploy. The ploy is taking something out of context. This thread is an extreme version of this dishonest ploy. Pointing out the context is an effort at honesty.

Perhaps I haven not effectively explained what taking something out of context is. Let me give you an example of taking something out of context so that it is clear what I am talking about.

______________________________________________________________

I took you in by deceit!

Polinus admits that he is lying! This is the plain meaning of the words and the facts of history. Polinus openly admits that he is deceitful and so no one should not trust anything he writes.
______________________________________________________________

That is an example of taking something out of context. It is what you have done in this thread. You have taken Pauls words out of context. Your ploy has been to make it appear that Paul was saying something which anyone who has read the text can plainly see Paul was not saying.

RESPONSE: I use the plain meaning of words like you find them in dictionaries. When there is an obvious contradiction, appeals to the "out of context" ploy are seldom credible.

Paul's "I took you in by deceit! " is a simple and accurate sentence! Read his epistles closely and spot what is wrong.

And in spite of the three conflicting versions of Paul's Damascus experience we find in Act, Paul never mentions them in any of his Epistles.

Don'f forget the epistles were written first so these fictions hadn't been invented yet.

[showme]

[Replying to polonius]

We can rust Paul to be the founding Christian theologian. His theology is (like Christianity) all about the risen Christ. I wonder if Paul would have been a disciple if had the chance, Paul was something in addition to Jesus, he didn't preach the words and deeds of Jesus. He preach postmortem words and deeds of Jesus. The power of the risen Christ. So we can believe in what Paul tells us. 'cause that's what he thought. His experience with Christ was totally spiritual, not Jewish, something new and different called (you got it) Christianity. This was what he called his new gospel.

It is Paul's "new gospel" and it is antithetical to Yeshua's gospel of the "kingdom of heaven". Yeshua's message was that if they say they saw me in the wilderness, "do not believe them" (Matthew 24:26).

[Zzyzx]

.
More broadly, should we believe the unsubstantiated word of ANY promoter of a cause? Should we believe the word of a condominium or time-share salesman? OR should we reserve judgment until or unless we can verify what we are told?

Before we take the word of a person selling real estate, are we well advised to verify the parameters " such as through researching the deed, consulting a title company, engaging an attorney?

Promoters of the worlds thousands of religions say and write what appear to be grandiose claims and stories to further their cause. Politicians do much the same. It seems the height of gullibility and naivete to believe what any of them say without fact-checking (verifying).

More specifically, Paul / Saul claimed to have a vision (that may have involved a trip to heaven). The tale was supposedly not verified by his companions " and was not detailed by Paul/Saul " but was told in some detail in Acts (by an author whose identity is disputed by theologians and scholars).

Why believe such tales any more than tales by other religious promoters of flying carpets, winged horses, golden tablets, etc?

[ttruscott]

Just to be personal for a mo...I got the message that I consider to have been from Christ Himself that the Bible was His book, with no mention of not including Paul or Luke.

I think that the worst Satanic attack upon the Bible in the last 100 years has been the Bible Literary Criticism interpretation of the bible, absolutely secular and materialistic with no spiritual value in the least.

[Zzyzx]

.

I got the message that I consider to have been from Christ Himself . . .

Message from Christ himself . . . ?

I am a bit dubious of those who, in Internet debate posts, claim to have received messages from gods attesting to their position.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 12 by polonius]

Saying that you are taking something out of context is not a ploy. The ploy is taking something out of context. This thread is an extreme version of this dishonest ploy. Pointing out the context is an effort at honesty.

Perhaps I haven not effectively explained what taking something out of context is. Let me give you an example of taking something out of context so that it is clear what I am talking about.

______________________________________________________________

I took you in by deceit!

Polinus admits that he is lying! This is the plain meaning of the words and the facts of history. Polinus openly admits that he is deceitful and so no one should not trust anything he writes.
______________________________________________________________

That is an example of taking something out of context. It is what you have done in this thread. You have taken Pauls words out of context. Your ploy has been to make it appear that Paul was saying something which anyone who has read the text can plainly see Paul was not saying.

RESPONSE: Er. No. "I took you in by deceits" was Paul's saying, not mine. If you look at my post, you'll see I'm quoting Paul the deceiver, which he freely admitted.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 12 by polonius]

Saying that you are taking something out of context is not a ploy. The ploy is taking something out of context. This thread is an extreme version of this dishonest ploy. Pointing out the context is an effort at honesty.

Perhaps I haven not effectively explained what taking something out of context is. Let me give you an example of taking something out of context so that it is clear what I am talking about.

______________________________________________________________

I took you in by deceit!

Polinus admits that he is lying! This is the plain meaning of the words and the facts of history. Polinus openly admits that he is deceitful and so no one should not trust anything he writes.
______________________________________________________________

That is an example of taking something out of context. It is what you have done in this thread. You have taken Pauls words out of context. Your ploy has been to make it appear that Paul was saying something which anyone who has read the text can plainly see Paul was not saying.

RESPONSE: Er. No. "I took you in by deceits" was Paul's saying, not mine. If you look at my post, you'll see I'm quoting Paul the deceiver, which he freely admitted.

Hold on! Earlier you wrote:

...appeals to the "out of context" ploy are seldom credible.

But now you are suggesting that I have taken the words you wrote out of context. You are suggesting that if I look at the context I will find that you were quoting Paul instead of saying something that you thought was true about yourself.

So which is it? Should I read the plain meaning of your words, or should I look at the context of those words? And should I read the plain meaning of Pauls words, or should I look at the context in which he wrote them?