Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets quote as the actual text reads in the first person: Paul admits:
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
That's misrepresenting oneself, a falsehood, a form of dishonesty.
and, paul recognized this. Paul freely admits in Romans 3:7
"But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (NRSV).
Regarding Romans 3:7
3:7-8. A second question is this: If someone's lack of truth enhances God's truthfulness, how can God in fairness condemn (lit. ''judge'') him as a sinner? In other words, since sin seemingly benefits God, how could He turn around and judge sinners for their sin? Paul raised these two questions, which are examples of unsaved peoples casuistry, because some opponents were falsely accusing him of advancing them and proclaiming, Let us do evil (lit., ''the evil things'') that good (lit., ''the good things'') may result. The apostle did not reply to these slanders. He assigned such persons to God and simply observed, Their condemnation (krima, ''judgment'') is deserved. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, pg. 449]
Experpt:
Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?"
Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. This concept comes primarily from the Apostles' Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead.
Nope. The original Apostles creed ("Old Roman Form") didn't have "descended into hell." That was a sixth century addition.
Many scholars consider the "Old Roman Form" the earliest known form of the creed, and that it may have came from the second century. It was put together in the fourth century by Marcellus, Bishop of Anycra (now more commonly spelled Ankara) who is considered to have been Greek or Eastern Orthodox:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).”
3:7-8. A second question is this: If someone's lack of truth enhances God's truthfulness, how can God in fairness condemn (lit. ''judge'') him as a sinner? In other words, since sin seemingly benefits God, how could He turn around and judge sinners for their sin? Paul raised these two questions, which are examples of unsaved peoples casuistry, because some opponents were falsely accusing him of advancing them and proclaiming, Let us do evil (lit., ''the evil things'') that good (lit., ''the good things'') may result. The apostle did not reply to these slanders. He assigned such persons to God and simply observed, Their condemnation (krima, ''judgment'') is deserved. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, pg. 449]
No, Paul did not misrepresent himself.
RESPONSE:
As I posted above, not only did Paul practice deceit by misrepresenting himeself as a member of certain groups to other members of those groups to win converts to his cause, he even admitted his use of falsehood (deceit).
"But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (NRSV).
Nope. The original Apostles creed ("Old Roman Form") didn't have "descended into hell." That was a sixth century addition.
Many scholars consider the "Old Roman Form" the earliest known form of the creed, and that it may have came from the second century. It was put together in the fourth century by Marcellus, Bishop of Anycra (now more commonly spelled Ankara) who is considered to have been Greek or Eastern Orthodox:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).”
But whichever form you use, Jesus didn't ascend to heave until the third day (See John's Gospel resurrection scene).
So the Good Thief couldn't have been in heaven "this day" with Jesus.
But maybe the was a "inspired" error, you think?
This isn't about the forms of the Apostle Creed. It's about whether Jesus and the criminal went to Paradise that day. And then only because you have claimed that ''Luke was flat out wrong or Jesus lied.'' Post #61.
Excerpt:
Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. >>>Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?
3:7-8. A second question is this: If someone's lack of truth enhances God's truthfulness, how can God in fairness condemn (lit. ''judge'') him as a sinner? In other words, since sin seemingly benefits God, how could He turn around and judge sinners for their sin? Paul raised these two questions, which are examples of unsaved peoples casuistry, because some opponents were falsely accusing him of advancing them and proclaiming, Let us do evil (lit., ''the evil things'') that good (lit., ''the good things'') may result. The apostle did not reply to these slanders. He assigned such persons to God and simply observed, Their condemnation (krima, ''judgment'') is deserved. [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, pg. 449]
No, Paul did not misrepresent himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
RESPONSE:
As I posted above, not only did Paul practice deceit by misrepresenting himeself as a member of certain groups to other members of those groups to win converts to his cause, he even admitted his use of falsehood (deceit).
"But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (NRSV).
What "false accusation"? I quoted the passage in Paul's own words. Obviouly, Paul admits what he does.
Paul, 1 Corinthians 9: 23 "... so that I might by any means save some. do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
Paul, Romans 3:7 "But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (NRSV).
Do you dispute that is what Paul wrote?
No, I dispute the meaning you draw from it. Paul would obviously exclude any dishonest means.... obvious except to the dishonest, and the context of the last is clearly subjunctive, "if this, then that." Do I need to quote the whole passage and point it out step by step?
In reference to romans 3:7 the word my is in atalics its been added should read. For if the truth of god hath more abounded ( literally perrisseuo overflow) through is gr. En (the dative case) and denotes being or remaining within with the idea of rest. My is not in any text thats why its in italics. Lie is pseusmo only used once in the whole word of god unto god. Therefor should read for if the truth of god hath over flowed through (en) the lie unto his glory..... need to at least read a text that italisizes word that have been added,a good critical lexicon and concordance to the english and greek new testament would help settle alot of error when trying to rightly divide the word of truth. Remember you stand approved befor god not man in your workmanship.
Last edited by sterling53; 05-20-2013 at 06:10 PM..
In reference to paul misrepresenting himself he never does. Remember there is no condemnation ( down judgement from god) to those who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. If you can show a place where hes walking by the flesh lets hear it. Also more importantly ive not seen any mention on these religious post about what we have as sons of god. Like 5 sonshiprights,9 manifestations of the spirit ,walking in love walking in light,walking curcumspectly, from ephesians ect.
"But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) [SIZE=2]6[/SIZE]By no means! For then how could God judge the world? [SIZE=2]7[/SIZE]But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? [SIZE=2]8[/SIZE]And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is deserved! "
Indeed it is!
1. Paul is being condemned as a sinner because he is a sinner. He's trying to argue that the end justifies the means.
2.‘Let us do evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is deserved! " That's exactly what Paul is doing, so his condemnation is deserved too!!!
Carried to a extreme, this type of thinking can lead some people believing that they can be blameless for killing unbelievers. Perhaps you have heard of the Crusades. And this type of moral thinking is popular with some terrorists even today!
"Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#C...
Paul, by his own admission has lied with the excuse, in effect, that the end justifies the means.
Do you really think that it does?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
