Does Apostle Paul Contradict Jesus?

[Punchinello]

I ask this because my Fundie friend as well as some articles I found online said that there are no contradictions. From things I have read, it sure looks like there are contradictions.

I pointed out to my friend what Jesus said to the Lawyer who asked Him what does he need to do to be saved. Jesus said basically to Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. "Do this and you shall live.". Paul, I believe, basically says that to be saved, you need to accept Jesus as your savior. Believe that and you'll get a golden ticket to heaven. My friend tried to harmonize what Jesus said by saying nobody can do what Jesus said to the Lawyer to do. We can't even come close. We're not going to give up all of our worldly posessions. I told him he was editorializing. He said he wasn't.

Here is Jesus telling the Lawyer what he needs to do to be saved and that's not a good enough answer?. Here is the Son of God telling the Lawyer exactly what he needs to do but some people say that's not good enough. Why would the Son of God give the Lawyer a half azzed answer or an incomplete answer?

This is my second post and I hope it doesn't cause an argument like my first post.

[ThatGirlAgain]

The persecution would have been about blasphemy. Acts involves Paul (Saul) in the execution of Stephen for blasphemy, specifically for identifying Jesus with the Son of Man. (url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV]Ref[/url]) How reliable that might be is anyone’s guess, being written many years later by Luke the storyteller. But it is line with the Sanhedrin accusing Jesus of blasphemy for the same reason recounted in Mark and not unreasonably derived from a known tradition of Jesus followers being considered blasphemers. Mark also talks of those followers being “flogged in the synagogues� and “arrested and brought to trial� (Mark 13) That is given as a ‘prophecy’ by Jesus but presumably Mark’s contemporary audience would know it as history.

Well, that is the claim. Do you have any non-Christian source for any of this? Do you have any source showing that the Sanhedrin had people going out to 'persecute heretics', other than the claims from Christians?

This is what you said.

but it does not show any knowledge of Judaism as it was practiced in that time. Another issue to me at least is the story he was going to to persecute Christians, but as far as I can see, Christianity did not exist at that time, and any sect would have been considered Jewish...

You said that he was going out to persecute Christians but Christians did not exist at that time. The word ‘Christian’ would have been an anachronism, but there was clearly a Jesus movement and Paul frequently uses the word ‘Christ’. I do not need any non-Christian sources. We are talking about what is in the story, which is clearly that Paul persecuted Jesus followers. You cannot jump in and out of the story at will. As far as any movements being Jewish, that is what Paul is all about – separating the Jesus movement from being exclusively Jewish, for which he gets flak. The fact that Paul uses ‘Christ’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ so much shows that he considers Jesus to be the Messiah. Anyone who claimed that this Aramaic speaking, rabble rousing, iconoclastic, and generally troublesome peasant who got executed by the Romans was the Messiah probably would have been charged with blasphemy. So why is the story as told unreasonable?

And once again where are the examples of his ignorance of Judaism? I gave a good example of his knowledge of Jewish customs and their meanings.

And I gave you his attitude towards the law, and how it was inaccurate.


An snippet from Hyam MacCoby's The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity explains it a bit better.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby3.htm

Paul's attitude toward the law is that of a Jew who is leaving traditional Judaism for something new of a more universal nature. Paul's technique for convincing others that this new movement is indeed universal is to remove the unique status of Jews. That perceived unique status is based on the Law. And so Paul's attitude toward the Law is no longer that of a traditional Jew. He is clearly fully aware of the meaning of the Law to Jews. A gentile would not understand that point as well.

I am familiar with The Mythmaker. I read it a few years ago but it is still packed away in one of the several boxes of books I still have not opened since moving. So I cannot reference it directly. Annie and I share a fairly modest apartment and Pandora's boxes remain closed for the nonce.

Underlying MacCoby's argument is the hidden assumption that no Jew could ever possibly become a Christian. The boundaries between Judaism and Christianity are rock solid and air tight and cannot possibly be breached. Therefore Paul could never have been a Jew in the first place. This exclusivist attitude is part of what has allowed Judaism to survive for thousands of years despite their relatively small numbers.

One of the related arguments he raises is the "Testimony of the Ebionites" in which (if I remember the details right) he uses a 4th century cataloger of 'heresies' quoting a 2nd century source purporting to represent the 1st century attitude of the Ebionites toward Paul. The Ebionites accepted Jesus as the (non-divine) Jewish Messiah but remained fully Jewish in their practices. Their attitude toward Paul would have been the same as MacCoby’s.

A major failing of MacCoby is that he considers all of the Pauline epistles and the second half of Acts to be representative of an historical Paul. He therefore assumes that the claim in Acts that Paul studied under Gamaliel is accurate. Acts contradict Paul’s epistles in many places. Paul himself only claims to be a Pharisee, that is, one who holds to the Pharisaic teachings, including most importantly the resurrection of the dead. Specifically, in Philippians Paul states that he is “in regard to the Law, a Pharisee�. In that era this presumably would have meant adhering to the House of Shammai with its strict adherence to the letter of the Law. Paul is saying that he knows fully well the importance of the Law in Judaism as a prelude it arguing that something more important has come along.

We may note that the attitude of Jesus as represented in the Gospels appears to be similar (but not identical) to that of the [url=ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel]House of Hillel[/url] with its more liberal interpretation. We may also note that in the timeframe for the life of Jesus as inferred from the Gospels, Jesus would have learned Judaism in the Hillel era. MacCoby fails to make this distinction between the two houses when he says “in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts as a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism even when his sayings were most in accordance with Pharisee teaching.� Jesus opposed the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit of the law attitude of the Pharisees of that era. The definite impression I get from this and many other things in The Mythmaker is that MacCoby has an agenda and is less than scholarly in presenting it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Acts contradict Paul’s epistles in many places.

Hello,

could you provide evidence for this statement.

Thanks
JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I think this link spells out the contradictions well.
http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/84/59/

This appears to be taken from http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html, but even if it wasn't,[...] this page is too good to keep to yourself!

The link should be recommended reading for everyone on this site;

"12. On the commandments and eternal life:


Paul says:

Rom.5
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Punchinello: The way that I interpret the above (and I realize that I am just a theological novice), Paul is saying it is the belief in Jesus Christ that saves you. Jesus seems to say that salvation comes from following the commandments and doing good works. If this is a contradiction, doesn't that shoot down the Fundamentalist argument that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus as your savior?

#QUESTION Are the notion of Divine grace and Christian obediance mutually exclusive ?

Paul says:
Rom.5 [21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Jesus says:
John.5 [24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

FALSE ASSUMPTION(S) :

(1) {quote} "Grace has nothing to do with [salvation] ... hearing and believing his word." {end quote}

John 1:16, 17 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (King James 2000 Bible ©2003)

• ANAYLSIS To suggest Jesus call to hear and obey his word is in conflict with Paul's to accept God's grace as extended through Jesus is an illogical conclusion given the context of both messages.
  
  The word "grace" - translated from the Greek kha′ris - carrys the central idea of a kind gift (Jesus uses the same word in John 6: 32, 33) . Since, according to the gospel of John (see related scripture above) Jesus IS the "kind gift", the embodiment of the "underserved kindness" (or grace) of God, how could listening and obeying Jesus be unrelated to grace? This would be rather like saying that eating food is unrelated to ... the food (See John 7:16)

CONCLUSION: Paul focuses on the source of Jesus/Jesus Words. Jesus explains what to do when one has access to those words. Rather than being contradictory the above two passaged are complementary.

Further reading:
http://www.bythebible.page.tl/Grace.htm

DO THE WRITINGS OF PAUL CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS ON THE QUESTION OF ...

... commanements and everlasting life?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p419968

... divine grace and Christian obediance mutually exclusive ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 23#p420523

... the greatest name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p854184

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

CHRISTIANITY, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

NOTE: This is the last of the claimed "contradictions" cited; Since none of the previous rebuffles have been contested, it seems clear I have sufficiently demonstrated that any claims to "contradiction" between Paul's and Jesus' message [as depicted in the accepted bible canon] to be false.

[Goat]

We may note that the attitude of Jesus as represented in the Gospels appears to be similar (but not identical) to that of the [url=ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Hillel]House of Hillel[/url] with its more liberal interpretation. We may also note that in the timeframe for the life of Jesus as inferred from the Gospels, Jesus would have learned Judaism in the Hillel era. MacCoby fails to make this distinction between the two houses when he says “in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus speaks and acts as a Pharisee, though the Gospel editors have attempted to conceal this by representing him as opposing Pharisaism even when his sayings were most in accordance with Pharisee teaching.� Jesus opposed the letter of the law in opposition to the spirit of the law attitude of the Pharisees of that era. The definite impression I get from this and many other things in The Mythmaker is that MacCoby has an agenda and is less than scholarly in presenting it.

But, the attitude of Jesus in the gospels have nothing to do with Paul. The example\s I pointed out where not from the pastorals, but from what are considered the genuine letters of Paul.

[chestertonrules]

I ask this because my Fundie friend as well as some articles I found online said that there are no contradictions. From things I have read, it sure looks like there are contradictions.

I pointed out to my friend what Jesus said to the Lawyer who asked Him what does he need to do to be saved. Jesus said basically to Love God and treat others the way you want to be treated. "Do this and you shall live.". Paul, I believe, basically says that to be saved, you need to accept Jesus as your savior. Believe that and you'll get a golden ticket to heaven. My friend tried to harmonize what Jesus said by saying nobody can do what Jesus said to the Lawyer to do. We can't even come close. We're not going to give up all of our worldly posessions. I told him he was editorializing. He said he wasn't.

Here is Jesus telling the Lawyer what he needs to do to be saved and that's not a good enough answer?. Here is the Son of God telling the Lawyer exactly what he needs to do but some people say that's not good enough. Why would the Son of God give the Lawyer a half azzed answer or an incomplete answer?

This is my second post and I hope it doesn't cause an argument like my first post.

I think you are mistaken about what Paul said.


Romans 2:6,7
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Gal 6
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that naturea will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

[Mithrae]

I think it's safe to say we've established that Paul did not offer a "golden ticket to heaven"; he simply taught that trying to redeem ourselves through our own efforts was futile (and indeed quite arrogant), that all salvation was by God's grace, through faith.

Yet he emphasised that love was ultimately more important than faith (1 Cor. 13); that our consciences, circumstances and actions will be our witnesses before God rather than specific heritage or rituals (Romans 2); that the Law is summed up in the command to love each other and freedom from law is not a license for sin (Galatians 5); that we should live peacefully, obey authorities and respect some differences in honour towards God (Romans 13 and 14); that we will reap what we sow and those led by the Spirit will bear good fruit (Galatians 5 and 6); and ultimately that our attitudes and behaviour should mirror the great humility, mercy and forgiveness exemplified by the Christ he preached (Philippians 2).

Personally I think this very plausibly fits a Jew zealous to please God through obedience to the Law who for some reason decided that the focus of his zeal was rather misplaced. Regardless of that side issue, I think we've covered that half of the OP's topic quite well so far.

--------------

On the Jesus side of things, my speculation centers around three not-very-controversial points:

His self-identity - Jesus considered himself Messiah. Even the Ebionites, for all their other disagreements with 'Pauline' Christianity, considered Jesus to be Messiah. Josephus mentions the death in Jerusalem of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," perhaps implying that this was believed in the Jersualem church then also. Paul obviously didn't see eye-to-eye with James on issues of Jewish tradition, but there's no hint that James or Peter didn't consider Jesus to be Christ. Even the pseudonymous epistle written in James' honour against a later interpretation of Pauline theology acknowledges, very clearly, that Jesus was Christ. It's hard enough imagining that Jesus' followers, believing him as Christ, would manage to maintain that belief after his ignoble crucifixion. It's all but impossible to imagine they would invent that belief; so most folk agree that Jesus considered himself to be Christ.

His death - Much is made sometimes of the fact that crucifixion was mostly used by the Romans as punishment for rebellion or sedition, certainly not for Jewish blasphemy. I don't actually think Jesus was killed as a blasphemer (only John's gospel really provides grounds for that view), but I suspect it's very possible that the relations between Pilate, the Jewish people and the Jewish leaders may not have been so cut-and-dried that there couldn't be other reasons for a sentence of crucifixion against the condemned. Admittedly, according to the earliest gospel Mark Jesus declared to Pilate's face that he was king of the Jews (15:2), all but signing his own death warrant. All four gospels have Jesus arguing with and even provoking both Pharisees and Saducees (or 'the Jews' in John); the synoptics have him declaring even before the Sanhedrin that he's Christ and Son of God, while John has him openly declare "I and the Father are one." All four gospels have him causing a major disturbance in the temple during Passover, when Jerusalem was crowded with folk celebrating a prior release from captivity; in the synoptic gospels this occurs shortly before his arrest and crucifixion. From the latter in particular I have to ask: Did Jesus deliberately provoke his own fate? Or was he expecting God to come to his aid?

His teachings - To my understanding the gospel teachings of Jesus most widely regarded as most genuine are, very broadly, the agricultural parables, the teachings on the 'kingdom of God' and the moral teachings along the lines of the sermon on the mount - especially those most characteristic of Mark or the Q source. But far as I can tell, the parables and the moral teachings pretty much preclude the possibility that Jesus the so-called Messiah was planning any kind of rebellion against Roman authority; Jewish independence simply does not figure in these most genuine aspects of his views. So what about his 'kingdom of God'? Was that, like other Messianic visions of the era, meant to be an earthly realm of peace and prosperity centered around Judea? I rather suspect not:

• Mark 4:13 And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown. When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts. 16 These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17 and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately they stumble. 18 Now these are the ones sown among thorns; they are the ones who hear the word, 19 and the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things entering in choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 20 But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.â€�
  
  21 Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.�
  24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given. 25 For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.�
  
  26 And He said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, 27 and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how. 28 For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.�
  
  30 Then He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? 31 It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth; 32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out large branches, so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.�

I do not believe that Mark's gospel supports the idea of a 'kingdom of God' which is a physical earthly kingdom. Regardless of whether we view it as a source preceding both Matthew and Luke, or as material from Matthew which Luke endorsed also, what can we learn about this 'kingdom of God' from the Q source?

• J. D. Tabor - the Q source based on Luke (cf. the Uni of Toronto's Q twosome parallel columns)
  Luke 6:20-23 Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
  
  Luke 12:22-31 Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat nor about your body, what you shall put on. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens, they neither sow nor reap. they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass which is alive in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith! Do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be of anxious mind. For all the nations of the world seek these things; and your Father knows that you need them. Instead seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well.
  
  Luke 13:20-21 He said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened."
  
  Luke 13:28-29 You will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. Men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.

Perhaps not wholly the same theme as found in Mark, but still clearly not referring to a physical earthly kingdom; Matthew actually changes Mark's kingdom of God into 'kingdom of heaven,' though he's the only gospel author to use that term.

-------------------

The question of the historical Jesus is a little bigger than pointing out that Paul wasn't a modern 'free gift' Protestant, unfortunately. The question for me is how do we reconcile Jesus' self-identity as the Messiah, his disciple's acceptance of that even after his death, and his ignoble crucifixion - whether as blasphemer, or temple-disrupter and rabble-rouser, or for sedition against Roman order and claiming to be 'king of the Jews' - with his teachings which suggest very little in the way of advocating or expecting a physical human kingdom?

As far as I know, these three are not outlandish or particularly controversial points, though reading too much into any one of them without reference to the whole picture can lead to problems. For example, there's the concept of 'Messiah,' which is often assumed to refer only to a Davidic king-type figure. With her knowledge of the DSS, Catalyst has elsewhere suggested that as far as the Qumran community is concerned at least, such a simplistic view simply does not wholly match the historical evidence available. Personally, I've long considered it curious that (as far as I'm aware) in the Tanakh there are only two occasions on which 'messiah' specifically refers to a future figure; in deutero-Isaiah it refers to Cyrus, and in Daniel 9:26 we read that
"after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary..." (Judaica Press translation)

At no point since the 6th century BCE were the city and the sanctuary destroyed, but that's what Daniel predicted. As of the turn of the millenium, in other words, for all intents and purposes this was an as-yet unfulfilled prediction that "the anointed one" would die. So while it was not typical of 1st century Jewish 'messiahs,' in all honesty I find it quite remarkable that few (if any) scholarly views that I've come across in my ramblings even consider the possibility that the 'messiah' was to die. Overwhelmingly, this is presumed to be a Christian post-rationalisation rather than even a remote possibility of ancient Jewish exegesis. But, while recognising the more prevalent view of a 'messiah' at the time (who is not termed such in the Tanakh), the view that a messiah would die followed by the destruction of Jerusalem does seem to be a fairly obvious interpretation of that passage - and not yet fulfilled by the turn of the millenium, as I say.

This post is getting quite long, so I'll leave it at that for now. But these points lay the foundations, as I see them, for two areas of speculation:

- Since Jesus considered himself Messiah, since his apparently most genuine teachings don't show much in the way of advocating or anticipating a physical human kingdom, and since the accounts we have seem to all but state that he essentially provoked his own execution - we should at least consider the possibility that Jesus might have derived the concept of a dying Messiah from Daniel 9, and what that might entail

- Or even if that wasn't Jesus' own notion of Messiah, we should recognise that preserving their belief in him as Messiah after his death must surely have required his disciples to build on that foundation - in short that Paul's conception of Christ may well have expanded on the original church's, but in all probability it wasn't wholly foreign to how they already understood him

[JehovahsWitness]

... the big issue is the one which John Calvin is best known for recognising, that Paul very clearly teaches a doctrine of predestination - [...] that we are saved entirely by God's grace and that even the faith through which we are saved is a gift of God (not of works).
.

Before discussing the specific scriptures in the above post and particularly what Paul is refering to when he refers to "works" (see Eph 2:18) I would like to post some thoughts on the general assumptions above (based on the presumption that the poster uses the word "works" to mean "general actions".

False assumption:

(1) That God provided the faith rather than the BASIS for faith.

ANALYSIS The assuption that Paul's teaches that an individual's possession of faith is unconnected with anything a person DOES (because faith is bestowed upon him at birth or some later moment in time, independent of his or her personal wil) is actually based on a false assumption that is quite significant, namely that Paul taught God's will is never influenced by a person's actions. After all if a person could do something that could get God to respond in giving him faith, then the question is effectively moot. For the statement "faith [...] is a gift of God (not of works)" to mean anything, the two ("faith as a gift" and "faith through works") must be mutually exclusive.

However, Paul highlights the efforts individuals must make to obtain, secure and come to a full realization of their faith.

• Romans 10: 17
  So faith follows the thing heard. In turn the thing heard is through the word about Christ.
  
  Philipians 2:12 ,
  keep working out YOUR own salvation with fear and trembling
  
  Ephesians 6:16
  Above all things, take up the large shield of faith, with which YOU will be able to quench all the wicked one’s burning missiles

CONCLUSION: Paul certainly did NOT teach that God's grace is absolute and unconditional or that the actions of an individual cannot influence the obtaining or the outcome of their faith, but rather that God provided mankind with the basis for faith through his undeserved mercy (grace) and that attaining salvation through faith in that provision is dependent on the effort the individual makes in connection to his calling.

[JehovahsWitness]

But the big issue is the one which John Calvin is best known for recognising, that Paul very clearly teaches a doctrine of predestination - see Ephesians 1:3-11, Ephesians 2:4-10 and especially Romans 9:16ff - or, in other words, that we are saved entirely by God's grace and that even the faith through which we are saved is a gift of God (not of works).

ust as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love For he foreordained us to the adoption through Jesus Christ as sons to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will [...] in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, in that we were foreordained according to the purpose of him who operates all things according to the way his will counsels

#QUESTION Is Paul saying in Eph 1:4 that an individual's salvation is predeterimined?

The context of Ephesians 1 clearly indicates that WHAT is being refered to here as being predetermined" was God's plan for salvation rather than individuals personal place in that plan. God predetermined a group of people would be "saved" who those people were would depend, in part on what each individual did. God offers salvation, a "holy calling" (2 Timothy 1: 9) to a privileged few (and paradise on earth for everyone else (Math 5:5)) and it is up to the individuals if they will accept the offer or reject it. The presumption that the "us" of Ephesians 4:5 is "me as and individual" rather than "me + others as a group" is false.

• To illustrate, a mother finds out she is pregnant and prepares a baby room. When the baby is born, a girl, named Sally, she of course can say she prepared the room for Sally. In reality, she prepared the room for any baby she gave birth to, and if the baby had turn out to be a boy, she wouldn't have prepared the room for Sally she would have prepared the room for Josh (or the twins..).

In a similar way Paul is refering to God's plan for salvation which includes a group of spiritually anointed ones. If Paul and the Ephesians remained faithful and eventually did take up the "room" in their heavenly places, then those places were prepared for them; if Paul had proved unfaithful that same place would have been prepared for anyone else that filled the place. While the heavenly "calling" is for a set number (their individual places are not personaly 'predetermined') "salvation" itself, is a university with limitless "places" (see 1 Cor 9:24; Philipians 3:12; Eph 1: 10(b) Rev 14:1)[/list].

#QUESTION What does Paul mean when he says that group was chosen "in union with him before the founding of the world"?

The context indicates that this refering to God's plan for redemption, it would therefore be illogical that Paul would be refering to the world of Adam’s day, because that would mean that God provided for mankind’s redemption before Adam had sinned, something contrary to Paul's teaching (see Eph 1:7 compare Romans 5:18 ).

Further reading
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.co ... n-our.html

[Shermana]

Perhaps it's worth noting that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes (or at least a division of them) thoroughly rejected Paul as a false apostle.

[JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps it's worth noting that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes (or at least a division of them) thoroughly rejected Paul as a false apostle.

This has been noted and discussed
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 430#420430