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 later 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. Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. All they asked was that I should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before 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. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Those who are Jews by birth know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He ransomed us so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ. If you belong to Christ, then you are heirs according to the promise.

What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But 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? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong. As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ himself. What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!


Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

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.

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule.

Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Christ.

The grace of our Lord be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

:wave:

dog-on

For further clarification, I believe that the term "Christ" should be substituted with the term "Chrestos".

Sheshbazzar

Considering what Paul had to say about his background and upbringing,
It is far more likely that he employed the ancient and and scripturally supported term "THE Messiah" in the original composition of this epistle.
Note that the Greek text still has the direct article "THE" preceding the substitute term "Chrestos", it is only an English convention which omits that prefixing "THE", turning what was and still is in both the Greek and the Hebrew, an honorific title, into a false quasi "name".
The text of The NT as we now have it has the evidence of the greasy fingerprints of Constantine's and Eusebius's tamperings and interpolations all over it.

Chili

Must have been a witch.Was Paul a Catholic by any chance?Nice poem, true story.We call her Mary.There is no such thing as a Christian religion in Paul's gospel.So for a [so called] Christian to obey the law is to have been severed from Christ and therefore has fallen from grace (as in "fallen from God's favor").

Bottom line is that Christian churches are whitchcraft organizations.

Sheshbazzar

"A more coherent reading"? No, I think not, rather a reading that removes important central ideas.
For example;
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?

spin

While I see no reason to insinuate Chrestus into the Greek christian literature, "Chrestus" is not 'false quasi "name"'. I've even seen it as part of a name on an inscription in Rome (at the tomb of Cecilia Metella). Here's another Chrestos (from here):

CHRESTUS (Xphstos), of Byzantium, a distinguished scholar of Herodes Atticus, lived in the second century of the Christian aera, and taught rhetoric at Athens, where he had sometimes as many as a hundred auditors. Among the distinguished men who were his pupils, Philostratus enumerates Hippodromus, Philiscus, Nicomedes, Aristaenetus, and Callaeschrus. Chrestus was given to wine. (Philostr. Vit. Soph. ii. 11.)

As a name, Chrestus was functional.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Oh I don't doubt that Chrestus or Chrestos was a functional name within the Hellenic world, only that Paul, "an Hebrew of the Hebrews" and one known to be "exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." would have engaged in such an extreme Hellenization as to discard the ancient and Scriptural term "messiah", the well known hope of the Nation of Israel, and the Jewish people.
No, I harbor no doubts at all that the original manuscripts of the NT were willfully altered by the devotees of the apostate popular religion, starting with the so-called "Hebrew" names and titles. and then proceeding on to other Theological "corrections" and "improvements".

I have an old and long time friend, a Greek man whose given name is Christos, it would be disrespectful of his name, and of his Hellenic heritage to Judaize/Anglicanize it, and insist that it is "Messiach" or "Messiah", or that his mother or father ever so named him.
The reverse is also true.
No, the "recieved text" alters, and substitutes Greco-Roman names and titles, and places them into the mouths of first century Judeans, but the textual evidence reveals the substitution.
Do you really believe that Zechariah "asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is "John"?
Or that when the Hebrew maiden Miriam took her newborn son up to the Temple in accord with all of the customs and traditions of the Jewish nation, that she bestowed upon him the name of a Greek? as it is given in the "recieved text"?
I would like to think better both of your scholarship and of your judgment.
You know what Hellenization is, what do you think is the better and more ethical path, to participate in a conformity to the status-quo of the ignorant, or to stand up like a man, speaking truthfully out of that measure of knowledge of the truth which has been vouchsafed to you?

There were and are Greeks whom were named by the name, "Chrestus" (and also the other famous substitute) and it is totally appropriate to them who were in actuality so named, but it is not appropriate to that One whom we both know was not so named, No, certainly not by His Father, not by the angel Gabriel, and not by His mother.
Do you not perceive that eating polluted bread is not a good thing?
Why then feed it to children and to the unlearned?

His name shall prove to be my vindication, that I stand for the truth, if that truth is not yet evident to some today, bye and bye it will become evident to every one.

spin

OK. I was merely reacting to your 'false quasi "name"' comment regarding Chrestus, a name which doesn't seem to be related to what we are dealing with here.

The only knowledge we have of the reputed events are the texts that tell us of those reputed events.

You seem to want to accept that those events are events that really happened in the past. To make sense of the reports you have (the gospels, etc.), you will willingly change what they say so that they will better reflect the current beliefs we have about the period of those reputed events. This means you will presuppose that you know more and better than the texts we have. Hey, it's possible, but you need to be able to show how you know. I doubt that you actually can.

"John" is only an English version of a name found in the text as ioannhs, which seems to be the equivalent of the Hebrew name YXNN (or even YHWXNN). "Jesus" is only the English version of ihsous which is the close equivalent to Y$W(, except that Greeks didn't have the $ sound and they needed the nominative grammatical marker -s.

At the same time people of the era changed their names from the Hebrew or Aramaic names to Greek forms Onias III (Khonyo)'s brothers were known as Jason and Menelaus, though the former was clearly Yeshua and the latter probably Manasseh. Shimeon of the high priestly family was known as Simon. It would not be strange that many names of people in Palestine were Hellenized. And it would not be strange that a text not written in Palestine would use Hellenized names rather than Hebrew ones.

It would be going beyond the text, without having anything objective to help you to do so, to insist that the names were as you think they were.

This is a magic use of the name. That's why you want to have it in the form you think is original. It is the magical effect of the name and if you use the "wrong" name, you won't have the effect. Mute people cannot use the name as you wish it. Deaf people cannot even hear it. Your use of magic names would deny them of your religion. Do you think that you have the linguistic knowledge to even know how the Hebrew name should have been pronounced? Can even you get your magic name right? I don't think so. You can only guess.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Oh come now spin, you read the text of these "reputed events" and apply your knowledge and reasoning abilities to discount and to reject a good many of the claims that are made therein, and share your opinions on those matters within these forums; The text reads thus and thus, and therefore the text must be exactly right and the final authority as to what actually transpired?
You do not believe nor accept the miracle stories, and so publicly state, using your knowledge to invalidate all that which is offensive to reason.
Yet the blatant intrusions of Hellenization are to be overlooked simply because they are supported by the texts? Ever heard of circular reasoning?
You accept, or know, that the Hellenic names are original to the text, correct, and right, just "Because the Bible tells you so" ???!!! A Fundie atheist!

Some of those events really did happen in the past, and some did NOT happen, but were interpolated, to support later invented popular church stories, conventions, and to prop up myriad questionable theological doctrines.
Even believers are not bound to accept everything that old writings relate at face value, indeed to be a believer, it is necessary that the subject that is being examined is found to be believable by the believer, and therefore is believed.

Yes, I do use current knowledge to examine the evidence, and discount that which is well known to be spurious.
I should hope so, both current knowledge and reason reveal the faults and weaknesses inherent in the recieved texts. My defense is not "I know its true, "because the Bible told me so" as your circular reasoning supports.
Yes, of course, Hellenization had became quite popular with the Jerusalem priesthood had it not?
There is evidence that what was popular and accepted within the syncretizing priesthood in Jerusalem, was abhorrent to those who valued their own nations culture, traditions, religion and language.

No, not strange at all, but of course not necessarily an entirely accurate account.
Yes, I go beyond the text, in examining all evidence to arrive at such conclusions as a clear conscience and knowledge will support, worthy of belief and being so believed.

Do you believe in magic spin? I don't. I do however believe in telling what I sincerely believe to be the truth.
As it happens we do have both deaf-mutes and also blind members within our congregations, I have sat with them and they have clearly and unambiguously communicated to me their faith in that very same Name that I bear witness of, (and I was not the one who so persuaded them, neither did they receive that teaching from my hand or lips) as opposed to that other better known and more accepted Hellenic version, which they also even as I, disdain.
Thus, in this matter you are both incorrect and out of line, professing out of your ignorance, things of which you have neither a first hand experience nor knowledge.
I and my brethren, fellow believers, do not consider The Name of The Messiah to be "magic", and as for the pronunciation each is encouraged to pronounce and call upon His Name to the best of their ability, and in accord with what measure knowledge, and persuasion of Spirit, a clear conscience of beliefe therein will support.
We trust that all whom so do, have an heritage within the Promise;
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon The Name ......shall be delivered." being fully vindicated of all charges laid against them.
And the Promise is the same, as to the deaf, also to the mute, and to the blind,
As to the strong, also to the weak. As to the educated, also to the uneducated. As to the literate, also to the illiterate. As to the wise and the prudent, also to the mentally handicapped and the foolish. One Promise from One Master, unto all men of one faith.
Whosoever shall put their trust in Him, in His Name they shall trust, and be through faith in His Name vindicated and delivered, Today, and forever.

spin

There's no circular reasoning on my part. We only have the texts, texts whose provenance, authorship, or audience, you cannot say anything about. When I complain that you are saying things you have no evidence for, you limply project falsehood onto me. What you've said is simply wrong. Is it deliberate falsehood on your part??

This is interesting but in no way deals with the comment you are ostensibly responding to. Your thoughts wandered.

How about giving some tangibility to the words rather than this vague waffle?

Another dose of "I'm saying nothing in an aggressive way" on your part.

You seem to have missed the point. Greek names were used in the area. You want the biblical names to have been Hebrew. That's a wish and not based on any real evidence.

But the onus is on you to show that it is not, given your claims. You don't however.

What conclusions and what evidence?

What you say here and what you say elsewhere are two different things. When you use words for the power of their form, that is magic, isn't it?

There is no way for any reader to evaluate this claim.

You miss yet another point. I didn't talk of blind people, whose ears usually function well. I talked of deaf people who cannot hear the names you want to be used perfectly. You also are probably incapable of understanding the exact form of the names you are talking about. English speakers are mostly linguistically inadequate. This often cashes out in the fact that they, not having any functional criteria for manipulating language data, so often get it wrong. (Sit at a sidewalk cafe in Europe and listen and learn: when the English mother tongue tourist manages to put together words in the local language, it is so often mangled.)

You can't comment when you show no understanding of the issue.

Ironic.

You have little knowledge of what you claim to be talking about. You don't know anything about my experience or knowledge.

Not the name. Your usage of it. You are investing the name itself with power. You mightn't like it, but you are playing with magic.

So, if someone knows Jesus as the name, you don't have any problem with it. Right?

Do you understand how Jews used the term ha-Shem? The name of god was too sacred to be used, yes, but ha-Shem provided a simple means for the Jew to refer to god. It sidestepped the sticky issue of the name. Your literalist reading of the text seems to miss the obvious, ie that ha-Shem isn't interested in the name per se, but is an aid to refer to god. Stop using names as though they were magical.

This is irrelevant rhetoric, Sheshbazzar, reflecting a non-reading of what you are claiming to respond to. You were insisting on the name. When you can't hear it or can't reproduce it, then you don't have access to the exact name as you were arguing for earlier. If it is not important to have the exact name, then why do you rail against Greek forms?

For you it should be he that is important, not his name, Sheshbazzar. Literalist lack of contextual understanding leads to awful blunders. Note for example:

Whosoever shall put their trust in Him,
in His Name they shall trust,

The Hebrew poetic device used makes clear that "his name" equivalent to "him".

His name is a reflection of what he stands for. You seem to be distorting the text in such a way as to imbue the name itself with power, rather than reading what the text clearly intends. The use of names because of their power is one facet of magic.


spin