Page 2 of 2

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:32 pm
by Hephzibah
That seems like a whole lot of twisting. How you read that into corinthians I don't know. That's not how the aramaic reads though. I do not agree with your assessment of circumcision, and have read your other posts on them. That's okay. There are a million reasons I don't believe in Paul, when I get a computer I will post a books worth I'm sure.

Trolling?

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:36 pm
by sestir
"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." -- Jer 31:33.
Do you believe this prophecy was fulfilled in Pauls time?
I have not studied this subject, so I do not know more about it than the average guy on this site.

The words quoted above, particularly "write it in their hearts" have to be pictorial. Christians seem to variously understand it as:
A) Jesus taught the principles behind the law so that we are no longer guided by the letters but by our consciences' applications of these principles.
B) Instead of people being born into the covenant, sometimes against the inclination of their hearts, those who love the will of Yahuweh will be gathered from all around the earth.

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:27 am
by Hephzibah
So Paul didn't author ephesians and......what other books? Obviously it was someone else who twisted scripture in ephesians and called himself Paul. Did Paul author Romans, in your opinion?

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:27 am
by Swalchy
I think we should wait until when you get a new computer sorted before we start adding more stuff to talk about. We've got more than enough at the moment to wade through :)

(Edit: Also, I would give the pages on the main webpage a read. You'd understand this place, and my responses, a lot more - http://downloads.thewaytoyahuweh.com/pdf.php#main_pages" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:06 pm
by sestir
There is a story from 4th century Romania (Moesia) which shows a non-compromising application of Paul's recommendations in 1 Cor 8:9-13, that a Christian should not appear to partake in idolatry by eating meat associated with it. It is the story of Sava (or Saba).

Some Gothic leaders pressed the Christians to share in their sacrifices, but their neighbours tried to save them by having them eat meat before the Gothic leaders, secretly replacing the sacrificed meat with meat that had not been sacrificed. Sava refused to eat anyway and told everyone: "If anyone eats of that meat, this man cannot be a Christian".

Edit: adds some links where one can read more about Sabas story:
http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/ritual.htm
and the book they also reference
Heather & Matthiew - The Goths in the Fourth Century

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:19 am
by Swalchy
Thanks for that story there, sestir. I unfortunately couldn't find much about it on the old interweb. Would you be able to provide us with a quick webpage source? :)

It’s probably against my better judgement to reply to this of yours, Heph, but what the hey. Hopefully it might aid others who would bring up these “statements” to think again. I doubt it'll do anything to help you.
Is Allah, the same God we serve, only called by another name??? What about Budda, or maybe Zues???
Seeing as though no one is arguing such a point at all, this needn’t’ve been asked
This is an important question, that we all need to take some time to consider. Have you heard it before? I have.
Good for you. See above comment.
Acts 17:22,23 [snip]

Who is Sha'ul proclaiming to them
Yahuweh. Quite obvious.
I know that most people believe Sha'ul was simply trying to reach these people at their own level, in light of his statement that he "becomes all things to all people. But because we are searching for the false apostle that Yeshua warned about, I thougth this deserved some further research.
“False apostle” that “Yeshua warned about”… where, exactly? The Greek term αποστολος, in the singular, is never found on the lips of the Messiah. Ever. If your words above are a reference to Revelation 2:2, the word is αποστολους, the plural, and it says that the Ephesians found these people (not ‘this person’) whom λεγοντας εαυτους αποστολους (“say they are emissaries”) ‘to be false’. Contrast this to Acts 20:17-38, where the Ephesian Ekklesia members weep in grief over Paul, whom they’d never see again. They didn’t consider him anything other than a friend and a bringer of the good news.

Not surprisingly, Paul here (20:29-30) warns the Ephesian Ekklesia that λυκοι βαρεις (‘fierce wolves’) will come into the Ekklesia μετα την αφιξιν μου (‘after [his] departure’) – perhaps these ‘fierce wolves’ that came to be are those persons whom said they were emissaries that the Ephesians “found to be false”, that the Messiah is now confirming? Looks to me that Revelation 2:2 confirms Paul’s words (or perhaps, ‘prophecy’?), not the Messiah speaking against him.
Acts 17:28 For in Him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring'.

But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, For in thee we live and move and have our being. (Epimenides' Cretica)

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken. For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.

Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring... (Phaenomena 1-5).

Here we see that Sha'ul is in Athens and he comes to a pagan alter that has an inscription to an unknown god. These people were immersed in Greek culture, and philosophy. So when Sha'ul tells the people that he knows the unknown god, and is going to reveal him, and then quotes a famous Greek Poem about Zeus, who does it sound like he is worshipping?
Seeing as though Paul doesn’t say that the people were “already worshipping [Yahuweh] in ignorance” (as whatever-the-hell translation you’re using has the words in Acts 17:23 saying, a complete bastardisation of the Greek), his quote of two poems was to show evidence of the fact that all people “seek God”, to “feel their way towards Him” and “find Him”, with even polytheistic persons proving such a thing (even if they get it massively wrong), with Paul bringing forth something they all would know, and would even agree with him on.

It should be noted that we don’t have definite proof that Paul is quoting from Epimenides' Cretica, as the only source for it is a 9th Century CE Syriac translation, ironically from a commentary on Acts by Ishodad of Merv! Even then, the hypothetical Greek text disagrees with the Acts 17 Greek, so the association is quite tenuous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides#Cretica" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Philo of Alexandria (a Hellenistic Jew before and contemporary to the time of Paul and the Messiah) went as far as to say that all the Greek philosophers and poets were just copying from Scripture, and so they spoke the truth as well. Yet, I don’t hear anyone denouncing Philo of Alexandria and his ideas. However, when Paul quotes barely 20 words from Greek poets (and I do mean in total throughout the whole of the NT), he’s apparently the most evil man to have existed!

Paul does not say that Zeus is the “unknown God”, and in fact preaches against the Athenians current practices (Acts 17:24-25: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Sovereign Master of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands), something which in the period of Roman rule would get you in severe trouble (and it did in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41)), especially as it would’ve been considered a direct front and attack on the hugely popular imperial cult worship of the time. Paul was combating their polytheism by trying to focus their attention on the one and true God.
Could the alter that they were sacrificing on belong to YHWH?
No, and Paul gives absolutely no indication that this was what he thought. Again, he preaches against their practices in Athens – he doesn’t condone or promote them.
Why, out of all the beautiful scriptures and patriarchs that he could quote from to teach the people about YHWH, does he continuously quote Greek poets and playwrights about Zeus?
You’ve provided two quotes – two! Plus one isn’t even known exactly which playwright is being quoted! What would be the point of quoting Scripture to a bunch of Greeks on the Areopagus? It would be as pointless as quoting Scripture to educate an Atheist – he isn’t going to give you the time of day. Not surprisingly, as soon as Paul started talking about the resurrection of the dead (a belief that was considered completely ludicrous by the Greeks), that is exactly when their interest in Paul started to wane (Acts 17:32). Paul didn’t have nearly enough time to start quoting Scripture to them for their education: this wasn’t a synagogue; there weren’t people there whom would’ve known who Moses or Isaiah were, so to start quoting from them immediately wouldn’t have helped any, as is obvious from the listeners mocking once the resurrection of the dead was mentioned.

Contrast this to Paul’s speech at the Synagogue in Acts 13, where not only does he give an overview of the history of Israel (v17-22), including a quote from 1 Sam 13:14, but also a summary of the events surrounding the Messiah Himself (v23-34), where Paul quotes John the Immersers own words (v25), followed by a quotation of Psalm 2 (v33) and Isaiah 55 (v34) and Psalm 16 (), to which Paul tops his entire speech off with a quotation from Habakkuk (v41). There isn’t a single word of Paul’s, throughout the entirety of his speech in the Synagogue recorded in these 26 verses, that isn’t based on Scripture or the History regarding the Messiah. People should concentrate on this instead.
In Acts 9:5 and 26:14 he quotes Euripides play Bacchae, about the divine son of Zeus.
Firstly, Acts 9:5 wasn’t written or spoken by Paul, so Paul couldn’t’ve “quoted” anything (Luke wrote Acts, for the record).

Secondly, the oldest manuscripts don’t contain the “Kick against the goads” in Acts 9:5 – this is a later interpolation from Acts 26:14 (See either the NA or UBS Greek NT’s apparatus for confirmation). Either way, it isn’t Paul quoting anything in Acts 9:5, but the Messiah speaking.
The quote is about kicking against the goads, and can be found on line 790. It can also be found in Pindar's odes, Pythian 2 line 94, and Aeschylus's Agamemnon line 1904.
I could find no place to back up these line numbers given - it’s line 795 in the Bacchae; line 1624 in the Agamemnon (original Greek – the Harvard Classics English publication actually has it down as line 1909 (http://www.bartleby.com/8/1/4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)); and lines 94-95 in Pythian 2.

Regardless, I have to ask: so what? So what if these plays contain the words “kicking against the goad(s)”? It’s a proverb, one employed by numerous authors over the centuries, and one which must’ve been around long before Pindar used it in Pythian 2 in order for the listeners to it to understand its meaning.

Nevertheless, the Greek used in Acts 26:14 is the following: σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν

Contrast this to the Greek of the following three plays mentioned:

Bacchae: προς κεντρα λακτιζοιμι θνητος ων θεω.
Agamemnon: προς κεντρα μη λακτιζε, μη παισας μογης.
Pythian 2: ποτι κεντρον δε τοι λακτιζεμεν τελεθει ολισθηρος οιμος.

As can be seen, there’s no direct “quoting” going on.

However, there is one more thing we should note about Acts 26:14: Paul specifically says that the Messiah spoke to him in the Hebrew language – not the Greek language! The words therefore would’ve been קשה לך לבעט בדרבנות, and so the proverb had also made its way into cultures other than Greek. So whether it’s a “Greek” saying or not is irrelevant, nor whether there’s some supposed “literary” dependence on Euripides (which there isn’t anyway): the phrase was spoken in Hebrew (קשה לך לבעט בדרבנות), and is preceded by “It is hard for you,” which isn’t found in any citation that includes “kick against the goads”.
Titus 1:12 Even one of the Cretans’ own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons” — 13 and it’s true! Here we have the very reason that the word cretan is synonymous with liar. Besides the obvious problems with this verse, we have another example of Sha'ul quoting a greek poem by Epimenides about Zeus being eternal.
Again, so what? Does Scripture have anything to say about the people of Crete? No, it doesn’t, and Epimendes’ description of the people of Crete was pertinent to show the fact that they were indeed “rebellious, idle talkers and deceivers”.

Also, refer to the comment regarding the fact that the only source for Epimendes’ words are from a 9th Century CE Syriac text
In Corinthians 15:33 he quotes Menander of Athens when he says "bad company corrupts good character".
He quotes a phrase which had become a proverb. It’s also very true – Bad company does corrupt good character – and it doesn’t matter who it was that said it.
In Philippians 2:12 he quotes the Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2.33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon, with "work out your own salvation".
I couldn’t find a single place that could back up this statement. I did however find a place that confirms that this is a made up Budda quote - http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/work-ou ... on-others/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You can also check the translation of Mahaparinibbana-sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, where again you can confirm that Budda said nothing remotely similar to Paul’s words in Philippians 2:12 (I also couldn’t find the term “salvation” in the translation; go figure).
1 Timothy 5:4 was taken from Publius Terentius Afer (Terence) (Latin comedy writer) 190 BC: "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Andria Act IV
Here is a link to an English translation of Andria Acts 4: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Ascene%3D1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you know what’s never mentioned in Act 4 (or in any place in the book)? Widow, piety, nephew and learn; effectively making the idea that Paul is quoting from Andria completely and utterly false.
what can be said about this?
The only thing that should be said is that out of all the words written by Paul, and those that record several of his speeches, he only quotes “pagan” authors a grand total of five times, and two of these five were common proverbs and so not “quotes”, bringing the total to three. How people can accuse Paul of “continuously quoting” from plays “about Zeus” is quite simply baffling and beggers belief. Paul quotes the Tanakh nearly 200 times – it is the Tanakh that Paul “continuously quotes”, not “Greek poets and playwrights”.

Please provide some sources for the statements made in the post.

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:54 pm
by Hephzibah
I see that you believe no other bible translation is quite up to par with yours. Any time there is debate over a verse you say all the other translations are wrong. I do see that you are quite intelligent, but what I dont see is that your understanding of the greek is in any way superior to the translators before you. Here are a few translations below, that all say these people were worshiping the same god that Paul is declaring to them.

New Living Translation
for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: 'To an Unknown God.' This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I'm telling you about.

English Standard Version
For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

New American Standard Bible
"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

King James Bible
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For as I was passing through and observing the objects of your worship, I even found an altar on which was inscribed: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

International Standard Version
For as I was walking around and looking closely at the objects you worship, I even found an altar with this written on it: 'To an unknown god.' So I am telling you about the unknown object you worship.

NET Bible
For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: 'To an unknown god.' Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For as I was going around and beholding your temples, I found one altar on which it was written: “The Unknown God”; him therefore whom you do not know and yet worship, I proclaim to you.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
As I was going through your city and looking closely at the objects you worship, I noticed an altar with this written on it: 'To an unknown god.' I'm telling you about the unknown god you worship.

Jubilee Bible 2000
For as I passed by and beheld your sanctuaries, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.

King James 2000 Bible
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

American King James Version
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore you ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.

American Standard Version
For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:

Darby Bible Translation
for, passing through and beholding your shrines, I found also an altar on which was inscribed, To the unknown God. Whom therefore ye reverence, not knowing him, him I announce to you.

English Revised Version
For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this set I forth unto you.

"Seeing as though Paul doesn’t say that the people were “already worshipping [Yahuweh] in ignorance” (as whatever-the-hell translation you’re using has the words in Acts 17:23 saying, a complete bastardisation of the Greek)"


Webster's Bible Translation
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I to you.

Weymouth New Testament
For as I passed along and observed the things you worship, I found also an altar bearing the inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' "The Being, therefore, whom you, without knowing Him, revere, Him I now proclaim to you.

World English Bible
For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you.

Young's Literal Translation
for passing through and contemplating your objects of worship, I found also an erection on which had been inscribed: To God -- unknown; whom, therefore -- not knowing -- ye do worship, this One I announce to you.

It is your research that is lacking here swalchy, not mine. It almost seems that you know this already, and are doing it on purpose. You nit pick every silly thing you can think of, because you assume that nobody will see through what you are doing. Like the line numbers for example, obviously depending on who translated the text the numbers will vary. So both our number were correct, and it still doesn't add to the discussion or change the facts. Again we see this with the Buddhist text. Rhys Davids translates it with salvation, Walsh and Thanissaro translate it slightly differently. Which it makes no difference how the original Pali translates into english, it matters how it was translated into Greek at the time Paul used it. If you cannot find the text, and you really care, try studying Digha Nikaya and focus on the last words of Tathagata. Which I know you don't. As for the quote from terence, again there are many translations, If you went to college I am sure you are are aware of C. E. Freeman, or Arthur sloman.

I am not going to continue discussing things with you if you can't at least attempt to be kind.

"People need to start switching on their God-given brains, or just stop flapping their decrepit and moronic mouths"
"The obvious fact that you lack the necessary intelligence to actually research things properly"

Things like the above, really are unnecessary. And even if it makes you feel better, it sets a very poor example for the one you serve. I have read quite a few of your post now, and it seems that you think everyone finally sees how right you are at the end, but what it looks like from here is that they just decide it is pointless to continue discussing things with you. That is where I am at. I am not trying to be nasty or mean, but honestly hoping you will think about what you write more carefully. Blessings to you and yours Swalch. No hard feelings

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:23 pm
by sestir
Thank you both for very well researched contributions! (one conservative and one speculative but still)

Swalchy, I believe you will want to edit away a few things from that post Dec 19 and try to figure out what went wrong. Hepzibah is right in that it is most important to be kind, and we have to understand that web forums always contain unchallenged theses that are false, unless they are empty. Almost nobody will, after reading this thread, hold you to be a guarantor for the veracity of our comments.

Re: Was Paul a lawbreaker Part 3

Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:49 pm
by Swalchy
I see that you believe no other bible translation is quite up to par with yours. Any time there is debate over a verse you say all the other translations are wrong.
Seeing as though most 'translations' aren't new 'translations' just "Revised versions" of previous "versions" which all mainly go back to the KJV, I really don't care what they say. I care what the Greek says, and it doesn't use the term "worship" in Acts 17:23, in either instance where translations don't make clear the distinction between the two Greek words σεβασμα and ευσεβεω.
I do see that you are quite intelligent, but what I don't see is that your understanding of the Greek is in any way superior to the translators before you.
Do you yourself understand Greek? If no, then you're in no position to make an accurate assessment of who can or can't do so either; whether it's I or someone else.
Here are a few translations below, that all say these people were worshipping the same god that Paul is declaring to them.
See above comments. You're also ignoring the fact that Paul preaches against the Athenian practices, therefore making this altar of there's moot.
It is your research that is lacking here swalchy, not mine.
Your proof of this is what, exactly? You've not shown any.
You nit pick every silly thing you can think of, because you assume that nobody will see through what you are doing.
I'm thorough - that's all. I also don't assume things about people - unfortunately, knowing how people think or what they will do is not a skill I have.
Like the line numbers for example, obviously depending on who translated the text the numbers will vary.
No, the numbers are set long before someone will translate the text. I took the line numbers from the Greek text and double checked it against English translations thereof (for example the Agamemnon: I checked the English of Herbert Weir Smyth and that of the Harvard classics - neither gave the line as 1904).
So both our number were correct
No, they weren't. You have provided no source at all for where you got these line numbers from. I made sure to check two or more different places (looking for the 'two witnesses' required by Scripture), and nothing backed up what you had down.

Two things that contradict can't both be correct - the law of logic states this.
Again we see this with the Buddhist text. Rhys Davids translates it with salvation, Walsh and Thanissaro translate it slightly differently.
I provided two sources that show that Davids was wrong, and theologically motivated, to translate it how he has it.
Which it makes no difference how the original Pali translates into english, it matters how it was translated into Greek at the time Paul used it.
Feel free to provide the Greek translation of the Digha Nikaya that Paul would've had access to.
If you cannot find the text, and you really care, try studying Digha Nikaya and focus on the last words of Tathagata. Which I know you don't.
Correct. I don't care about the Digha Nikaya, especially as I have far better things to be doing. You have not provided any source for your line numbers, nor much else.
As for the quote from terence, again there are many translations, If you went to college I am sure you are are aware of C. E. Freeman, or Arthur sloman.
Provide the source for the line number then. It's quite simple.
I am not going to continue discussing things with you if you can't at least attempt to be kind.

"People need to start switching on their God-given brains, or just stop flapping their decrepit and moronic mouths"
"The obvious fact that you lack the necessary intelligence to actually research things properly"

Things like the above, really are unnecessary.
I've been kind to people like you for many years now, and being "kind" really doesn't get through. I'm pointing out where you're wrong, which is the kindest and most loving thing anyone can do for you.
And even if it makes you feel better, it sets a very poor example for the one you serve. I have read quite a few of your post now, and it seems that you think everyone finally sees how right you are at the end, but what it looks like from here is that they just decide it is pointless to continue discussing things with you.
"Discussing" these things requires people to provide proof of what they say. Most people are just regurgitating what others have said which aggravates me intensely. It shows a lack of desire to find the truth for oneself, and just shows that humans become sheep far too easily.

All I ask is that people show proof of their claims. If they don't, then what should I do? Take them at their word? I'm sorry, but I just don't trust humans all that much when it comes to these matters.

I also don't presume that people agree with me once they stop responding. I just take it that they've stopped responding for a reason I do not know.
Thank you both for very well researched contributions! (one conservative and one speculative but still)

Swalchy, I believe you will want to edit away a few things from that post Dec 19 and try to figure out what went wrong. Hepzibah is right in that it is most important to be kind, and we have to understand that web forums always contain unchallenged theses that are false, unless they are empty. Almost nobody will, after reading this thread, hold you to be a guarantor for the veracity of our comments.
Thanks, sestir. I'll edit it to just show the facts.