Sensei Meela

The search function doesn't seem to like the number 3 in my search term, but I know that (somewhere) is a discussion about Paul regarding Romans 3:7.

Here's the passage, in both NIV and KJV, for reference.

I put both versions in there because the post I seem to recall implied that Paul was writing about himself. It sorta looks that way in the KJV, but the NIV makes it rather clear he was 'assuming' a contenders position in order to refute it.

First question: do both versions say the same thing? And if not, isn't the NIV attempting to absolve Paul?

Second question (third, to be technical): even if Paul was not saying in Romans, 'Hey, if my lies win God more converts, is that so bad?' does he not make that position (what, I'm told, Plato referred to as a 'Noble Lie') rather explicit in Phil 1:18 and 1 Cor 9:20-22?

Or, in short, didn't Paul say that it's okay to lie in order to make a convert?

sharon45

Look at Romans 3:8, he explains further.

sharon45

If you want to find fault in paul that is very easily done, many passages to choose from, try just a little further down in Romans 19-20 and then on to 22 as examples of paul's outright lying.

Sensei Meela

Right, well, that's why I put it in the link!

Anyways, it still seems a bit like - 3:8 is a counterpoint to - 3:7 in the KJV; IOW, like he has written: 'Hey, I'm not saying (as is reported of me) we should do evil to bring God's good; I'm saying that lying to make converts is not evil!' The NIV makes it out that - 3:7 is saying (in anticipation of a critic) 'Hey, if lying men make God look good, why should we be condemned for making God look good?' which he then rewords in - 3:8, and refutes.

So which is it?

And (sorry to repeat myself) did or did not Paul advocate the Noble Lie?

Yahzi

So Paul and Long Winded Fool are the same guy?

Dang, I didn't know that.

Furyus George

Huh? Romans 3:19-20 and 22? Outright lying? Do you mind explaining this?

Furyus George, stumped

sharon45

I was just pointing these out, if you can't understand why it applies from really reading it through, I guess you will have to remain stumped.

I will give one hint to get you started though if you want: paul is most of the time trying to connect the OT god and law on through to his 'newly' created god and law for the NT.

Sensei Meela

Not to mention, that sharon was referring to chapters 19, 20 and 22; not to Romans chapter 3, verses 19, 20 and 22. I think.

Rational BAC

I think Paul was a bit of a con artist. Using his personal preferences to define and expand Christianity.

Was he really chosen by God to accomplish something or other?

I think so possibly anyway. He was chosen to expand Christianity exponentially by bringing in Gentiles by whatever means necessary to accomplish that.-----Lying if necessary.

Whether Christianity should have remained a small but correct Jewish cult without the work of St. Paul or whether it should have been allowed to expand to 2 billion Christian adherants today due to Paul is debateable.

Only God knows whether Paul made Christianity better and "universally" accessible or whether he screwed the whole thing up.

ObiKenobi

And I'd also like to point out to some theists, Iacchus in particular, that it was not Jesus who proclaimed that the 10 commandments and other parts of the OT were now null & void it was Paul who is most responsible in creating the "new convenant".