Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-15-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Enough of all this off topic wrangling, I am certain spin will not be persuaded by me, and am even more certain that I will not soon be accepting of, or acquiescing to his conclusions.

Regarding the OP in this thread, in post #5, I pointed out one deficiency in dog-on's rendering, anyone care to contest that observation, or take up further discussion of other aspects of his revision of the NT text?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by God and all the brothers with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Christ, who gave himself to ransom us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of God and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of God.

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from God.

For you have heard of my previous way of life, I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers but when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him, I did not consult any man, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

Fourteen years LATTER I went up to Jerusalem. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders.

The composition loosely follows the recieved text of Galatians 1 up to the point where Paul records his first visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 1:17-19

Two points here, First the composition omits any reference to the first visit that is recorded to have taken place "after THREE YEARS" substituting instead the section from Galatians 2:1 which records Paul's second visit to Jerusalem.
Secondly, Paul clearly specifies that on his first visit;

Whereas in his second visit recorded in Galatians 2:1-10

Quote:

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also............privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
...<snip>...
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;

by the events related in Gal. 2:1-10 it is evident that this was his second visit; "I went up AGAIN to Jerusalem."

Anyone here accept that dog-on's revision is really "a more coherent reading"?
Any comments on the contents of the original post?

I think that if you took the time to really study what I have presented (minus a few areas still needing cleaning), you will understand exactly what the writer was talking about. You will also be able to more easily discern those areas where a later writer with a different agenda has confused the original message. As a matter of fact, this later writer created contradictions, most of which I have removed, but I will "wet" my sponge in a few days.

Sheshbazzar · 09-15-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

"A more coherent reading"? No, I think not, rather a reading that removes important central ideas.
For example;Quote:
"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Christ, who gave himself to ransom us from the present evil age,..."

Whereas the Greek and versions directly translated from it give;

Quote:
Who gave himself FOR OUR SINS, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

The original, and every version prepared from it, maintains an implicit statement that we, the believers, are by nature also sinners, along with all men.
This idea is omitted and totally lacking in your wording. What text supports your rendering of this verse?

Whereas the Greek and versions directly translated from it give;

The original, and every version prepared from it, maintains an implicit statement that we, the believers, are by nature also sinners, along with all men.
This idea is omitted and totally lacking in your wording. What text supports your rendering of this verse?

The idea of sin has been interpolated into this letter, it was not part of the theology of the writer. Christ did not deliver us from sin, he served as a ransom to the demiurge.

The writer has made that fairly clear, imo...

I have identified a few other areas I need to take the sponge to, but am not in a position to do it as of yet. Perhaps sometime in the next few days.

BTW, next is 1Cor...

Sin "not part of the theology of the writer"? with over 500 hundred references to "sin" and "sins" to be found within the texts, from Gensis on foward, On what basis did you arrive at the idea that "sin was not part of the theology of this writer"?
Please provide a little concrete evidence to support the assertion.

dog-on · 09-16-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The idea of sin has been interpolated into this letter, it was not part of the theology of the writer. Christ did not deliver us from sin, he served as a ransom to the demiurge.

The writer has made that fairly clear, imo...

I have identified a few other areas I need to take the sponge to, but am not in a position to do it as of yet. Perhaps sometime in the next few days.

BTW, next is 1Cor...

Sin "not part of the theology of the writer"? with over 500 hundred references to "sin" and "sins" to be found within the texts, from Gensis on foward, On what basis did you arrive at the idea that "sin was not part of the theology of this writer"?
Please provide a little concrete evidence to support the assertion.

Sorry, I retract that statement due to it being quite unclear and poorly thought out. (Shouldn't try to post under certain conditions...).

The act itself redeems man from sin by ransoming us from the law of the creator.

Since we are no longer under the law, we are no longer slaves to the law. We are now justified soley through faith.

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

This writer believed that he was, indeed, free.

Also, substitute the phrase "sinful nature"with the word "flesh".

I trust that you can see that the idea of "sin" that has been insterted in this letter does not truely reflect the author's intention. In his view, we are free from it if we live in the spirit.

Chili · 09-16-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

[
This writer believed that he was, indeed, free.

He was, he had died to sin in Romans.

Quote:

Also, substitute the phrase "sinful nature"with the word "flesh".

I trust that you can see that the idea of "sin" that has been insterted in this letter does not truely reflect the author's intention. In his view, we are free from it if we live in the spirit.

The Galatians were supposed to be set free but were they really?

The 'we' refers only to those who were able to walk away from religion and slavery to sin = freedom in Christ. IOW Paul doesn't think we can be a "saved sinner" [for long].

Sheshbazzar · 09-16-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Sin "not part of the theology of the writer"? with over 500 hundred references to "sin" and "sins" to be found within the texts, from Genesis on forward, On what basis did you arrive at the idea that "sin was not part of the theology of this writer"?
Please provide a little concrete evidence to support the assertion.

Sorry, I retract that statement due to it being quite unclear and poorly thought out. (Shouldn't try to post under certain conditions...).

The act itself redeems man from sin by ransoming us from the law of the creator.

Since we are no longer under the law, we are no longer slaves to the law. We are now justified soley through faith.

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

This writer believed that he was, indeed, free.

I agree that the writer believed himself to be freed from "sin";
That he was well aware of what "sin" was, and is, as revealed in all those hundreds of verses of The Ancient Scriptures; Sin IS the transgression of The Law, and ALL men are transgressors of The Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Also, substitute the phrase "sinful nature"with the word "flesh".

Would not be necessary if you had followed the original text, I have dozens of Bibles at my disposal, not a single one of with a reading of, "sinful nature" in these verses.
Whatever "version" or "translation" you are quoting, it is not being faithful in its conveyance of the meanings of the words of the underlying texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I trust that you can see that the idea of "sin" that has been insterted in this letter does not truely reflect the author's intention.

Sorry but I must disagree, as I believe the idea of "sin" IS a genuine part of that text, present from its original author and composition.
And for heaven sake, Why not? He was writing to deliberately conteract and set aside all of those hundreds of foregoing and ancient "sin" texts that were part and parcel of "The Law".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

In his view, we are free from it if we live in the spirit.

Yes, agreed, yet the "it" you are here referencing, is the idea of, and in the text, the word, "sin", The idea and word being implicit in the texts very claim to being now "free from "it".
The whole fabric of the very argument being set forth is dependent upon the idea of, and acknowledgment of the concept of sin, thus "sin" cannot an interpolation.

dog-on · 09-16-2007, 10:01 AM

The word sin, in these areas is not interpolated. What is interpolated is the idea of the continued existence of sin apart from the law.

We are free means that we no longer are constrained by the law. Previously, when one transgressed the law, that was sin. Since we are no longer under the law, there is, for all intensive purposes, no longer the ability to sin.

Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh [sinful nature] with its passions and desires.

If you crucify something, you do away with it, (kill it). Thus sin has been done away with...

I'm using the NIV, since it seems to clearly lay-out a "Christan" reading in modern English.

The point of all this is to begin to make the case that the current version of the letter we have has been seriously tampered with, probably in the second century as a part of "Paul's" rehabilitation.

Sheshbazzar · 09-16-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The word sin, in these areas is not interpolated. What is interpolated is the idea of the continued existence of sin apart from the law.

We are free means that we no longer are constrained by the law. Previously, when one transgressed the law, that was sin. Since we are no longer under the law, there is, for all intensive purposes, no longer the ability to sin.

Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh [sinful nature] with its passions and desires.

If you crucify something, you do away with it, (kill it). Thus sin has been done away with...

Well that is very convenient, thus "Christians" now lacking in "passions and desires" just become "free" to engage freely in all of that murdering, lying, thievery, and sexual perversions, that all of history indicates that they have always engaged in, and yet still are engaged in.
But then of course it is not "sin" because it is the "Christians" that are doing it, and they cannot "sin" because; "Since we are no longer under the law, there is, for all intensive purposes, no longer the ability to sin."

Yeah, right

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I'm using the NIV,

OK, I have now located those verses within the NIV text that you have been fashioning your textual chop-suey out of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

.... since it seems to clearly lay-out a "Christan" reading in modern English.

Oh,.... yeah,..... a -"Christian"- reading......no wonder your fellow "Christian" henchmen continue to this day in all their reprehensible conduct, "sinless".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The point of all this is to begin to make the case that the current version of the letter we have has been seriously tampered with, probably in the second century as a part of "Paul's" rehabilitation.

And of course, because you call yourself a "Christian", you also take that as your OWN licence to continue within that tradition of "tampering" with the text, as you have been so engaged within this thread.
Not even one single extant text supports the textual "revisions" that you are trying to introduce here..........but don't let that little detail detain you, have at it like your fathers before you.

dog-on · 09-19-2007, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And of course, because you call yourself a "Christian", you also take that as your OWN licence to continue within that tradition of "tampering" with the text, as you have been so engaged within this thread.
Not even one single extant text supports the textual "revisions" that you are trying to introduce here..........but don't let that little detail detain you, have at it like your fathers before you.

ummm, ok???

I call myself a Christian... :huh:

It's the "tradition of "tampering" with the text" I am discussing...

...and actually, our friend Tertullian does a fine job supporting the "revisions".

How can the writer make the following statements if he is a Jew and has accepted the authority of the "Jerusalem Apostles", to whom he seems to be referring here:

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

...and here, the "circumsision group"? Don't these guys have the same theology, but are to spread it to different groups? What the hell is he talking about?

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

...while here where Paul slams the creator, himself...

8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles?

"Weak and miserable principles?", are these the words of a Jew regarding the Law as set forth by his God? Right...

dog-on · 09-19-2007, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Well that is very convenient, thus "Christians" now lacking in "passions and desires" just become "free" to engage freely in all of that murdering, lying, thievery, and sexual perversions, that all of history indicates that they have always engaged in, and yet still are engaged in.
But then of course it is not "sin" because it is the "Christians" that are doing it, and they cannot "sin" because; "Since we are no longer under the law, there is, for all intensive purposes, no longer the ability to sin."

Yeah, right

...and therein lies the point. There is no sin ascribed, no punishment from the new God. We are free since he ransomed us from the creator (the Law Giver) at the price of the son (the Christ) and all we must do, to claim this freedom is have faith in the act of the ransom by rejecting the flesh and embracing the spirit.

He is quite clear in this...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-16-2007, 10:01 AM	#26
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The word sin, in these areas is not interpolated. What is interpolated is the idea of the continued existence of sin apart from the law. We are free means that we no longer are constrained by the law. Previously, when one transgressed the law, that was sin. Since we are no longer under the law, there is, for all intensive purposes, no longer the ability to sin. Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh [sinful nature] with its passions and desires. If you crucify something, you do away with it, (kill it). Thus sin has been done away with... I'm using the NIV, since it seems to clearly lay-out a "Christan" reading in modern English. The point of all this is to begin to make the case that the current version of the letter we have has been seriously tampered with, probably in the second century as a part of "Paul's" rehabilitation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.