Why did Jesus die? Why couldn’t God just forgive all our sins? How did Jesus’ death pay for sin? How can someone else die for my sins? Questions like these are what atonement theories strive to answer. Throughout the history of Christianity a half dozen prominent theories have vied for adherents. In what follows I begin by surveying what the bible says about atonement before moving to briefly cover seven atonement theories. I originally released this presentation as two separate talks a while back (Theology 17 and Theology 18), but due to continued interest and inquires about this subject, I thought it would be a good idea to rebroadcast this talk.
For those who would like to go more in depth, you can access the full-length paper here.
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
—— Links ——
- access the full-length paper here
- More posts on atonement here
- If you’d like to support Restitutio, you can donate here or designate Restitutio as your charity of choice for Amazon purchases
- Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter @RestitutioSF
- Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air
- Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.
- Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here.
Wonderful teaching, Sean. God bless you.
Very interesting to keep in mind as I read through the Scriptures.
Divine Justice and Mercy, as described in Ezekiel 18 (Cf. Rom. 2:6-11) clearly denies any moral or theological grounds of vicarious punishment & salvation on the merit of others (either a father like Adam or a son like Jesus), clearly contradicting the salvation theory proposed by Paul, who believed Jews would eventually be saved by the merit of the righteousness of the Fathers (Rom. 11:28-29), and Christians by the merit of Jesus’s righteousness (culminating in his death) (Rom. 3:25; 5:18-19). Soccinius was probably right in not following Paul on this key theological stance. The Qur’an in line with Ezekiel 18, also denies salvation on the merit of Fathers or of Jesus, but stressed individual responsibility. What are your thoughts on this issue?
As a long time Christian and Bible student I agree with the Muslim position as you stated, as well with positions they have re: the Trinity. They are in line with a more primitive Christianity, which I’m sure the folks at Restitutio are seeking to be in concert with as well. In fact, I see Mohammad as being an ally in returning believers to a faith closer to that of Jesus and his apostles.
As for “Jews would eventually be saved by the merit of the righteousness of the Fathers (Rom. 11:28-29), and Christians by the merit of Jesus’s righteousness (culminating in his death) (Rom. 3:25; 5:18-19)”, I don’t think Paul believed in such a thing. If this is what Soccinius objecting to then he was objecting to a later innovation by the Reformers, not to what Paul believed.
“Election” does not equal “salvation”. The Elect were not chosen to be saved, they were chosen to be blessed. It was up to them to work out their own salvation in response to the blessing.
Also, “justification” is the process by which a person becomes righteous in his own actions. If he gets there through faith in Christ then he has been justified by faith in Christ. It is not something that is conferred on a person because of what they believe. If an unrighteous person remains unrighteous after he believes the Gospel then he has not been justified. Faith in Christ was provided as a tool to make people better, not as a “solution” to a supposed problem of universal guilt because of sin.
I believe all these things are better understood by understanding the Moral Influence theory of atonement. Penal Substitution only muddies the waters.
Also, my article may be helpful:
http://kirbyhopper.com/introduction-to-salvation-by-being-good/
1. No one comes to Jesus, Kirby, without having personal sins to confess. This illustrates the universality of sin amongst the morally responsible.
2. It is unlikely Mohammed knew much about the first century C.E. Jesus movement.
3. You, Kirby, are preaching a ‘gospel’ by sinless perfection. Only one human being has been completely morally sinless – and that’s Jesus.
God bless you, Kirby.
Paul taught salvation through Jesus for both Jews and Gentiles. When Jesus returns to this earth at the end of this Age, the Jews will then realise that their past religious leadership were instrumental in crucifying their Messiah – leading many Jews to subsequently repent and believe in Jesus. Christians have a responsibility to believe and obey God, as revealed by Jesus – Who (unlike Mohammad) was resurrected by God (YHWH) from the dead. This fundamental fact sets Jesus aside from any other religious leader.
This was a very excellent synopsis and foundation from which to explore possibilities. I’m thinking perhaps we need not be required to so strictly choose “one theory over another,” but can include “several together”, even though that seems “sloppy”. But I also think SOME of the theories outright contradict Scripture and slander God’s character, such as Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and these should be pointed out. I am NOT recommending sitting on the fence, rather just being inclusive of all of Scripture without feeling compelled to cram everything into a neat, concise “sound-bite”.
A side comment, re- your “8 Non-negotiables” – #6 states “To justify us apart from the Law” – This is thoroughly Pauline and Paul was a FALSE apostle preaching a FALSE Gospel, so this “non-negotiable” needs to be re-negotiated IMO. Most will brush this off, Paul being a false “13th” apostle, as “heresy”, but I challenge ALL Truth Seekers to investigate first before rushing to judgment. This is THE MAJOR deception/delusion in “Christendom”!!
Another side comment – One need not think there are only TWO possibilities for the nature of Yahushua, i.e. Man OR God (or Man AND God). The truth is that Yahushua is the “Son of God” (NOT “God the Son”) who was literally born, begotten, in eternity past (thus pre-existant to Creation, but not “co-equal, co-eternal”), INHERITING his Father’s divine, good, sinless nature, yet capable of truly dying AND he was subordinate to the Father. Monotheism is true – there is only ONE TRUE GOD, Creator and Source of all, but this God “had a real son”, and “became a real Father”, somewhere in the span of time/eternity BEFORE the creation of the world. Since his resurrection and ascension, he can no longer die. The TRUTH of the Father and the Son solves the problems of Trinitarianism and Tritheism, and of a Universalism which sees Yahushua as a mere man only, or as identical with the Father.
CORRECTION – Last sentence in my above post – should say “Unitarianism”, not “Universalism”. I am new to this “movement” you describe and both of these words have historically had a bad connotation for me but I see now my need to re-think esp. “Untitarianism”, which may be the same as “Monotheism” which I absolutely view favorably. I am very grateful to have stumbled on to this website and these teachings. I have been anti-trinitarian for over 4 or 5 years now, but since I still believed in Yahushua as the Son of God, Messiah, and Savior, I didn’t really know what label to ascribe to myself, assuming, I guess incorrectly, that Unitarianism discounted Jesus. The only other non-trinitarian “Christian” movement I know of is the “Father-Son movement” of which I was a part for a long time. I anticipate we will have MUCH in common, and look forward to the teaching videos, though I know already the issue about Paul and his doctrine will be a major disagreement. But I am THRILLED to have found you. Thank you so much.
Hi, Geri :
1. On your ‘logic’, if Jesus had inherited God’s nature (before creation) then surely Jesus would have been ‘born’ immortal ?
2. The Apostle Paul was commissioned by the risen Jesus to preach the Gospel primarily to Gentiles. Are you a Gentile, Geri ?
Hi John:
Re-1 – It is not for you to decide WHICH divine qualities Jesus inherited from his father and which he didn’t. Scripture bears witness that Yahushua was pre-existant to Creation, that he was a literal, begotten Son, a Son already BEFORE being sent into the world as a human being, that he was perfect, good and sinless, and that he truly died (all of him died). I’m just sticking with the Bible witness, not man’s so-called “logic” which gets us in trouble almost every time.
Re -2 – You really need to do your due diligence and research the matter of Paul. You called him “the Apostle Paul”. NOONE else in Scripture ever called him an apostle. He is SELF-appointed only. You say he was “commissioned by the Risen Jesus” – again, according to WHO? Paul is the only witness of this vision of light being the Messiah (and all 3 of his testimonies contradict each other), and Jesus had just warned his disciples in Matthew 24 to NOT be deceived by FALSE Christs claiming to be him, such as in the desert (Damascus Road), though Paul never heard this warning. No, Paul NEVER met Jesus or heard Jesus say or teach ANYTHING, and he never quotes Jesus in his preaching either, never talks about his sermons or parables or miracles or anything he did, (and was never even interested in finding out anything about him when he was here in the flesh from those who had been with him – Kind of strange, don’t you think?), which is what an apostle is supposed to do, i.e. give the message of the one who sent you, not give your own message. All we have from Paul are his personal “visions” (how is this any better than Joseph Smith or Mohammad or Ellen White?), and we are to believe Jesus only used his true apostles for a few short years, until they could be supplanted by someone who never even met Jesus, (and Jesus never even gave his disciples, his “friends”, a heads-up, that this was coming?), to present a brand NEW Gospel DIFFERENT from what he taught his hand-picked disciples that he lived with day-in and day-out for 3 1/2 years? Paul contradicts Jesus’ teaching OFTEN, contradicts Torah, contradict the true apostles, and he was FOUND OUT by the true apostles, that he was a “liar” and a “false apostle” and kicked him out, (Paul even admits this, “Everyone in Asia left me”), of Ephesus/the Asian churches. (see Rev.2). He was also flatly rejected by the early Ebionite Christians, and really not listened to much after his break with the true apostles until Marcion brought him back out a century or two later. Paul’s narcissism and arrogance mushroomed beyond all decency, (he constantly berated the true apostles, seeing himself as superior to them) and he saw himself as a 2nd Christ, or as “completing Christ’s unfinished work”. He only preaches about a “mystical cosmic spiritual Christ”, insisting “We no longer know him after the flesh” – yes, precisely, because he, Paul, never knew him after the flesh in the first place, and had to make stuff up! He does horrible damage to the OT texts, twisting them for his agenda. There is way more evidence than I can put in a comment, but I urge you to investigate before judging. Paul is an ANTI-CHRIST and the biggest delusion and deception in the church. If you follow Paul, you of necessity deny Yahushua. (Addendum – Yahushua appointed Peter, NOT Paul, as apostle to the Gentiles.)
Hi, Geri,
Thanks for your comments.
1.. Do you have recognize any canon of Scripture, Geri – and if so, of what does it comprise ?
2. Do you believe in the Gospel of Luke, Geri; and do you believe that the author of Luke’s Gospel probably also wrote the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ ?
3. Paul says that the fruit of the holy Spirit includes love, joy and peace (Gal. 5:22). Have you experienced what Paul is talking about, Geri ?
God bless you.
Hi John.
Since I reject Paul’s letters as “inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God”, that immediately conflicts with what is considered orthodox Bible canon (which was received, uncritically I must say, by the Protestants from the Catholic Church). I believe God allowed Paul’s letters to be included in our NT because they can be used as a “contrast” or “negative witness”, and in that sense can be considered “inspired” because God can USE them to teach us truth. We can learn much about the true God and Gospel from Paul’s lies and deceptions and distortions, though it is often a “bloody battle” as we attempt to discern and separate truth from error in Paul’s writings. Paul often also speaks truth, just like Satan, and this is why he is so confusing and dangerous. He speaks with forked tongue and that is why his words can be used to support most any doctrine, even totally contradictory ones. He truly is the main reason “Christianity” is so divided into different “”denominations”. Caution should be used when reading Luke and Acts (yes, to the best of my understanding they were written by the same person) as they are very pro-Paul. I would not want to be without them, but there may be parts which are totally untrue, and again the pro-Paul bias is very evident and needs to be perpetually recognized. (It really should say “Acts of the so-called apostle Paul”, not “of the apostles” plural.) I am still trying to figure out Hebrews, which in many respects is also very pro-Paul. I do not believe our Bible is a “magic book”, “dictated verbatim” by God. God rewards diligent Bereans with greater understanding, but requires perpetual humility (something your friend Paul most decidedly does NOT have). In the OT, I do not believe the book of Esther is sacred Scripture, and even in the OT there has been corruption, such as removing the personal name of God, YHWH, Yahuwah, thousands of times and substituting generic titles like Lord and Adonai and Baal. We have heavenly treasure in earthen jars of clay and hard work is required of us. I am just now studying some of the extra-Biblical texts, and am open to Jubilees and 2 Esdras as possibly vetting as inspired, but cannot say with certainty yet. I already know many of the apocryphal books are NOT inspired (Enoch, Jasher, Maccabees,etc.).
Re- your third question, I am a little confused re- what you are trying to get at. Are you implying I do not have these “fruits of the Spirit” and therefore my opinions should be discounted? Are you saying I don’t “qualify” as a “Christian” if I reject Paul and presumably therefore reject his description of the “fruits of the Spirit”? Are you truly asking about my personal spiritual experiences or journey, or trying to use this question as a litmus test as to whether I should be listened to or not? WHAT, exactly, are you asking? Even if I experience “fruit of the Spirit”, I would NEVER couch it in Paul’s language or experience, (as you are doing – “Have you EXPERIENCED WHAT PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT?”), as I trust NOTHING of his experience to be legitimate and from God and have no desire to experience anything he experienced.
I appreciate the dialogue, and pray it can be edifying for both of us. God Bless. BTW, I see your post is from 6:25 a.m.. Where are you from?
Hi, Geri,
Best greetings from the U.K. Thanks for your additional comments.
Yes – by the grace of God I have had a supernatural experience of God’s incredible love, joy and peace – and this was before I knew anything about the Bible’s actual text. To me, Paul certainly knows what he’s talking about, and I believe that Jesus did appear to him on the way to Damascus – primarily for the sake of the Gentiles (of which I am a grateful one). The Bible to me, has the ‘ring of Truth’ about it – and it fits in with my intellectual understanding of life, and my own spiritual experience. I can fully understand why many non-Christian, religious Jews hated Paul with a passion, but I believe that they were essentially fighting against God.
What’s your religious denominational background, Geri ? Where do your ideas come from ? (They remind me of Hyam Maccoby’s book ‘Paul – the Myth-Maker’, which I read many years ago). To me – having critically studied the Bible for decades – there is nothing that you have hitherto mentioned that carries any fundamental, persuasive power. As regards the consonants of God’s name ‘YHWH’ – both the ‘Encyclopaedia Judaica’ and the ‘Encyclopaedia Brittanica’ claim that this was pronounced as ‘Yahweh’. As regards the Epistle to the Hebrews – this may well have been written by Apollos of Alexandria.
God bless you, Geri.
Hi John. Great to meet someone from the UK. I’m in NC, USA. I’m guessing you are a couple hours later than me? Today is Sabbath. Shabbat Shalom.
I have no knowledge of the book by Maccoby that you referenced. I have been studying the issue about Paul for at least the past 3 years. I am so perplexed when believers say, like you do, that a more serious investigation of Paul’s legitimacy is not needed, because “There is nothing that you have hitherto mentioned that carries any fundamental persuasive power”. And you say you have “critically studied the Bible for decades”. IF Paul and his writings are fraudulent and wrong, this is HUGE and of life and death significance for any follower of Yahushua. I know as of this moment your conscience is not apparently provoked to embark on a more in-depth investigation, so I was wondering if you might at least respond to a few objections I have about Paul. This is not rhetorical – I sincerely would like to see someone try to defend him. The following is only a sampling of objections, obviously.
1 – Yahushua specifically warned about false prophets and FALSE Christs (e.g. Matt.7 and 24) and said if visions of such appear in the wilderness claiming to be him, to NOT believe or follow them, yet this is precisely what Paul did. Not just his “conversion”, but ALL of his subsequent doctrine was supposedly received by this kind of unverifiable personal “vision”/”revelation”. How is this different than Joseph Smith or Mohammed, and how do you legitimize these visions?
2 – How do you reconcile Paul’s 3 CONTRADICTORY testimonies of his Damascus Road experience recorded in the book of Acts? Wouldn’t such an experience be emblazened in his memory? What exactly did he see (a light? – no body described) and how can he claim what he saw is the same as what the true disciples saw? (he barely even talked with them) Did Yahushua give him direct instructions there on the road while he was blinded (an odd thing for God to do except in punishment), or were the instructions given him later by Ananias? It is one, OR, it is the other – which is it? If this was a true conversion, why is there no record of his repentance for previous persecution and murder of God’s people? How can Paul qualify as an apostle when he meets none of the criteria for such in Acts 1?
3 – Jesus said he gave (and did give) his disciples authority over demons. Why was Paul afflicted with demonic oppression and denied power to get rid of it even after fervent prayer? Is such still possible for Yahushua’s followers today, that God would leave His genuine children in this horrible state, ignoring their pleas for help?
4 – God in both the OT and NT urges us to “TEST THE PROPHETS (and their doctrines, and the spirits within them) to make sure they are legitimate and God sent (Deut. 12, 13, 18, John4), but Paul FAILS these tests many times, clearly contradicting Yahushua himself, Torah, and the teaching of the true apostles. For example, Paul preaches:
a – circumcision is no longer needed, in fact may be or is harmful to one’s salvation
b – eating food sacrificed to idols is fine so long as your conscience isn’t bothered and you are not causing another “to stumble”
c – Sabbath and Feast Day observances are now optional
d – there are no longer any “unclean” foods and it is OK to eat whatever, so long as you “give thanks”
e – that God “justifies the ungodly”, when the OT is clear God does NOT do this
f – that God is the God of both the living and the dead, whereas the Biblical witness is that He is NOT the God of the dead, but of the living only
g – anomia, that we are no longer “under the Law” but instead “under Grace”, and that God’s Law brought forth curse and death, and has “passed away”, whereas OT and NT claims God’s Law brings life and is eternal. Yahushua strongly warns about those who allege to know him but disobey his commands, and esp. those who would entice someone else AWAY from the Law, calling them “least” and “liars” and saying he “never knew them”
h – that there is now a NEW “Gospel of Grace” wherein salvation is by “faith alone”, in sharp contrast to both the OT and NT witness, including Yahushua himself, that repentance, obedience, faithfulness, and works are also all required
i – brand NEW teachings and doctrine, and NOT doing as Jesus said , i.e. to “teach all things whatsoever I have commanded you”
j – that he, Paul is their “teacher’ and “father” when Yahushua said to consider or call no man such, as HE was their ONLY teacher
5 – Why does such an allegedly mature and devout follower of Jesus, and supposed “greatest apostle”, evidence such narcissistic, proud, arrogant, and unloving character qualities, e.g. assuming for himself Christ-like qualities, saying his “spirit” is with a particular church and “judging them”, ‘handing people over to Satan”, claiming to be an apostle because of his “signs and wonders”, alleging he is “filling up the sufferings of Christ”, being hypocritical and two-faced and speaking with forked tongue and trying “to be all things to all people” even if it meant contradicting himself, outright lying, slandering the true apostles and calling them false and inferior to himself, personally appealing to Caesar but telling his churches to judge among themselves or the believing community and NOT go to secular court, (“rules for thee but not for me”), trying to win the praise of men, trying to get his churches to pay him a salary saying he is entitled and twisting OT texts to support his case (“don’t muzzle the ox” doesn’t mean let the ox eat, but “pay him his due” ). Why is he forever publicly broadcasting himself an apostle (the other apostles didn’t do this), and exalting and praising himself, etc. etc..
6 – Jesus specifically warned the disciples about the coming, in their lifetime, of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a “thief” who does not come in by the door, a false prophet (all referring to Paul); Why does John warn of “antichrists” that are already present among them, but left their company proving he was not “one of them” (i.e. Paul)? Why did none of the apostles rise to his defense in Acts 22? Why did Jesus prophesy that in his old age Peter would be bound and taken where he did not want to go? (i.e Paul corrupting Peter’s witness); Why did Jesus COMMEND the church in Ephesus for testing an “alleged” apostle (obviously Paul) and finding him false and a liar and kicked him out? Why did the Ebionites reject Paul? What about all the many clues God left for us to warn of Paul – that he is a Roman, a Pharisee, a Benjaminite, namesake with “least”, and “Sheol” and King Saul, similarities with Balaam, etc. The hard and soft witness against Paul is MASSIVE.
This is getting way too long. There is so much more. But I ask you to DEFEND PAUL against these allegations, if you can. What Scripture proof can you give that unequivocally qualifies Paul to have the authority to speak for God (or Yahushua)? I look forward to your response. If you end up interested in further research, would recommend a website that has been taken down but is archived and still accessible. On Youtube, check out Daniel Bjorndahl channel and he has a Playlist of articles he reads which are from this website, and under the first video of this series he puts a link in the description so you can still go to this website, entitled JESUS’ WORDS ONLY. I hope you will check it out. God Bless.
Hi, Geri,
Calling North Carolina
Thanks for your comments. I’ll get back to you tomorrow (I’m running behind schedule today). Just a few quick points :
1. I see that Hyam Maccoby gets a mention in the ‘Wikipedia’ article on the ‘Ebionites’.
2. Is your presumed mentor – Daniel Bjorndahl – a professional scholar in anything related to historical and/or biblical matters ?
3. Your strident anti-Pauline assertions, Geri, are often at variance with the actual New Testament data. I’ll explain more tomorrow. Stay tuned !
God bless you, Geri.
Hi John; Calling UK (big city, or countryside?)
Daniel Bjordahl is NOT my “mentor”. He is a very young believer with whom I disagree about many things. I site his channel because that is the main way I know to access the archived JESUS’ WORDS ONLY website, which is still probably the most thorough and scholarly of the “anti-Paul” channels. It’s also nice to be able to fellowship with someone who understands the deception that is Paul. We are in a very small minority, though I do find more and more people on the internet now arriving at this same conclusion, which is encouraging.
I typically don’t read/trust Wikipedia – rarely ever use it, but I will look up the article you cite. Thanks
Just because my rhetoric against Paul is “strident”, that doesn’t diminish from its truthfulness, and my decibels tend to go up when I perceive resistance and dismissal prior to investigation. I perhaps have misjudged you, but I remember your first comment that said something to effect that, “Paul was commissioned by the risen Christ to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles” which in my mind is just parroting “orthodox Christian dogma” without much individual thought. EVERYTHING in that sentence is false, and it probably triggers me to have a “strident” voice. Also, IF IT IS TRUE that Paul is preaching heresy, and the apathetic, indoctrinated, soporific church pays no heed, then what else can one do but get louder? Again I look forward to reading whatever defense of Paul you can muster. Please don’t feel in a hurry to respond. I am retired so have lots of time, and I’m guessing you are younger and still need to work for a living, so I totally understand time issues. Also, I prefer a dialogue in service of finding truth, not soundbites to win an argument, no matter which of us has to change to arrive at it. Thanks so much for being willing to dialogue. I appreciate it more than you know. God Bless you too.
Hi, Geri;
Please bear with me.
I’ve just been collecting some biblical references and composing some notes – which has all taken much longer than I had anticipated. I’ll make a start ‘putting pen to paper’ in response to your questions, tomorrow. I hope that’s O.K. God bless you, Geri. I’ll be with you, soon (Deo volente).
Of course that’s fine. Like I already said, please don’t feel under any time pressure. I remain grateful that you are willing to dialogue at all. Shalom
I’m guessing “Deo volente” means “God willing” in Latin ?, but will have to look it up to be sure. God Bless
Hi again John. I just watched a video which just came out today where Daniel is in conversation with another YouTuber and they are talking about the false apostle Paul and why and how they came to this conclusion. If/When you have time, I think you might find it interesting. It appears this is just the first installment of a series they are planning on doing together.
On You Tube channel “Without Spot or Blemish Ministry”, episode from today 2/18/22 entitled “Pt. 1 – 2 Guys Who Read Bible 15 + Times: Shocking Revelations”
Have a blessed evening.
Hi, Geri;
I’ll start off with your first question from your February 15th post – If Christ made warnings about false prophets and false ‘Messiahs’ then how can anyone be sure that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus ?
For me, personally, there are three primary reasons :
1. The Torah observant Christian – Ananias – had a confirmatory vision of Jesus that validated Paul’s conversion experience. Barnbas was also convinced that Paul was a genuine Christian, and he introduced him to the apostles – who, in turn, also recognized and accepted Paul’s conversion experience (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16).
2. Paul’s conversion to Christ is verified by his good spiritual fruit that is revealed in his literary work, as well as his evident conformity to the character of Christ – which was produced within him by the operation of the holy Spirit. Those who have experienced the holy Spirit’s presence within their own lives would readily recognize Paul as a beloved brother in Christ.
3. Because I trust God’s revelation in the providentially preserved Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures. The whole message of the Bible makes complete sense to me. I can therefore trust the words of Jesus as recorded in Luke’s Gospel, and can also trust Luke’s historical veracity in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’. Contrawise, the Koran and the Book of Mormon (et al) make no intrinsic and intuitive sense to me. They don’t resonate to me as ‘Truth’, or as testifying to the Spirit of God.
I’ll try and answer your second question tomorrow, Geri.
God bless you.
Hi, Geri;
Moving on now to your question Two – which includes several subsidiary questions :
(2a). There are no contradictions in Paul’s conversion accounts – including Acts 22:9 and Acts 9:7. The Greek ‘akouo’ has a semantic range which includes the meanings of ‘to hear’, and alternatively to ‘understand’ (cf. 1 Cor. 14:2). I can hear Arabic, Geri, but I can’t understand alot of it – especially if it’s spoken softly to someone else, and I’m just too far away to distinctly make out the actual words (cf. John 12:28-30). Also, we have to note that Paul had an accomplished familiarity with several languages (as his quotations from different linguistic biblical texts demonstrate). Paul’s linguistic competency may well also have encompassed the several dialects of Aramaic – including the dialect that Jesus presumably spoke to him in. The men with Paul on the road to Damascus heard (Gk. ‘akouo’) something – but they couldn’t understand (Gk. ‘akouo’) it. Compare the rendering of Acts 9:7 and 22:9 in the ‘The Amplified Bible’, et al.
(2b). Paul had several visions of Jesus, and he would have learnt from the Lord Jesus all he needed to know. It would be wrong to denigrate visions of the Lord Jesus, Geri. The author of the book of Revelation (who was probably ‘John the Elder’ [cf. 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1] rather than the apostle John) – also had revelations of the Lord Jesus. Would you also reject John’s vision of Jesus, as well as Paul’s, Geri ?
(2c). You suggest that Paul’s very temporary blindness somehow invalidates Paul’s claim of a Divine encounter on the road to Damascus. This is like saying that Jacob could not possibly have had a Divine encounter as recorded in Genesis 32:24-30 and Hosea 12:4, because this resulted in Jacob’s inflicted severe hip injury.
(2d). You suggest that Paul could not possibly have been a Christian because he did not repent of his past sins. But the contrary to this is obviously implied in Acts 22:16. It is also inconceivable that Ananias would have baptized Paul if Paul had not completely repented (Gk. metanoia = a change of mind) – cf. 1 Cor. 15:9.
(2e). The resurrected Jesus appeared to His followers in different forms (cf. Mark 16:12). Paul saw the risen Christ and was commissioned by Him for the sake of the Gentiles – whom Jesus termed the ‘other sheep’ in John’s Gospel. The Gentiles were also to brought in with the Jews to form Christ’s ‘one flock’. Christ accomplished this progressive revelatory task through the apostle Paul – a fact which was fully acknowledged by the other apostles at the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ (Acts 15).
I’ll move on to your question (3). in due course.
God bless you with His love, peace and joy.
Hi John. Thank you for your thoughts. You can take a break on the other questions if you like as it will take me a little time to respond to what you have just written. Thanks.
I am going to combine both your comments since they overlap in trying to defend my first 2 objections. Most of your comments apply to my first objection, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Paul’s vision/testimony, with 9 different defenses which I plan to address later. You really only provide ONE defense for my second objection, (i.e. that there are 3 CONTRADICTORY versions of his Damascus Road experience), so I will start with this first. Your defense basically says, “There is no contradiction”, only perhaps a “seeming contradiction” because it is possible to confuse “hear” for “understand”. I will show not only this claim invalid, but that there are multiple other contradictions in his 3 versions. (Re- Paul not qualifying for apostleship according to Acts 1, you didn’t address this.) I’m going to try to make a side-by-side comparison of the 3 versions, showing what agrees and what contradicts.
Acts 9 version: Acts 22 version: Acts 26 version:
1 – Paul saw a light 1 – Paul saw a light 1 – Paul saw a light
2 – The men with Paul did 2 – The men with Paul 2 – The men with Paul
NOT see the light SAW the light SAW the light
3 – Paul fell to the ground 3 – Paul fell to the ground 3 – Paul fell to the ground
4 – The men with Paul did 4 – NO mention whether 4 – The men with Paul
NOT fall to the ground, they fell or stood FELL to the ground
but STOOD speechless
5 – Paul heard a voice 5 – Paul heard a voice 5 – Paul heard a voice
6 – The men with Paul HEARD 6 – The men with Paul did 6 – NO mention whether
a voice NOT hear a voice. they heard or not
7 – Paul was blinded by the light, 7 – Paul was blinded by the 7 – NO mention of his
but CONTRADICTORY details- light blindness, however
first very brief, and when arose Paul does admit
could see again (v.8) but in the what he saw was
very next verse (v.9) it says he vision, NOT a real
was blind for 3 days physical being
8 – The voice identifies himself 8 – The voice identifies 8 – The voice identifies himself
as Jesus, and tells him to go himself as Jesus, and tells as Jesus, and there and
into the city and there be told him to go to Damascus to then DIRECTLY gives Paul
further instructions receive further instructions. his commission himself
9 – Paul receives ANOTHER. 9 – NO mention of Paul’s 2nd 9 – NO mention of other
VISION, this time of Ananias vision or of Ananias’ visions
who will restore his sight, and vision
Ananias ALSO RECEIVES A
VISION telling him to go to
Paul
10 – It is ANANIAS who 10- It is ANANIAS who later 10- It is JESUS himself who
relays the Lord’s relays the Lord’s immediately while still
instructions to Paul instructions to Paul. on the road gives Paul
his instructions
11 – Paul went to Jerusalem. 11 – Paul went to Jerusalem 11 – NO mention of this
and tried to join with the and while praying in the early visit to Jeru-
disciples but they would temple went into a TRANCE, salem
not because they were had another VISION of Jesus,
afraid and did not believe telling him to flee Jerusalem
he was truly a disciple. immediately because the
Sometime later Barnabus apostles were NOT going to
brought him to the apostles receive his testimony, so he was
and Paul gave his testimony “sent far hence unto the Gentiles”
12 – Jesus QUOTES an ancient 12 – Jesus does NOT quote an 12 – Jesus QUOTES
Greek author, “It is hard for ancient Greek author the ancient
thee to kick against the pricks” Greek author
again
As you can see, there are multiple significant contradictions. Luke appears to faithfully record these contradictions which presumably he was vey well aware of. For such a life-transforming experience, you would think the details would be rock solid consistent, but they are NOT. I’m presuming his 3 testimonies are a combination of deceptions and outright lies. I do NOT see your comment (“There are no real contradictions”) as a substantive defense, but more just denial. I am happy to hear any rebuttal.
I have no idea if my portioning the information into 3 columns is going to work, as often the computer does weird things when such is attempted. I will get to your 9 defenses of my first objection either later today or tomorrow. Thanks again for dialoguing. God Bless.
The computer totally messed up my 3 columns (that I spent hours trying to make neat and clear). I will try to provide a short summary. VERY FRUSTRATING!
Is it possible to edit my computer mangled reply?
Listing of contradictions in the 3 versions (Acts 9, Acts 22, and Acts 26):
1 – the men with Paul did see a light, AND the men with Paul did not see a light
2 – the men with Paul heard a voice, AND the men with Paul did not hear a voice
3 – the men with Paul fell to the ground, AND the men with Paul stood and did not fall to the ground
4 – Paul’s blindness was immediately restored on the road, AND Paul’s blindness lasted 3 days
5 – The vision of Jesus told Paul to go to Damascus to get further instructions, AND the vision told him immediately his instructions
6 – Ananias gave Paul his marching orders from the Lord, AND Jesus personally gave Paul his marching orders
7 – Paul had a further vision of Ananias and Ananias had a vision about Paul, AND there was no further mention of visions
8 – The voice quoted an ancient Greek author, AND the voice did not quote an ancient Greek author
9 – When Paul went to Jerusalem, he went into a trance and had another vision telling him to flee because the apostles were not going to believe him, which he did, AND when Paul went to Jerusalem Barnabus escorted him to the apostles who were initially fearful, and they heard his testimony and accepted him
Sorry about the previous mess. I hope this turns out better.
Hi John,
Addendum: I forgot to include the issue about how to translate “akouo” which you brought up. On the “Jesus’ Words Only” website, Doug wrote an article entitled, “Inconsistency in Paul’s Accounts of Jesus’ Appearance to Him”. Towards the end of his commentary (just BEFORE the section entitled “Study Notes”), he mentions how the SAME Greek word “akouo” is used, where in one instance you want to translate it as “hear” and in the other instance you want to translate the same word as “understand”, but he concludes that is contrived and one cannot escape that what’s recorded “is a flat contradiction”. I am no Greek scholar, but Doug is, and knowing him personally, as well as his works, I see no reason to doubt this interpretation. Do you know of any clear examples elsewhere in the NT in which this same word “akouo” is translated these two different ways as you suggest, especially when they both occur in the SAME short narrative account and are talking about the SAME exact subject?
Still working on the other defense. You have lots there and I want to be thorough and not sidestep any of your points. Have a great day.
Hi John. I hope you haven’t disappeared. I hope we are still engaged in “dialogue”?
I’m going to respond to your defense of my first objection in installments so they don’t get too long. My first objection was that Paul’s “conversion story” directly violates Jesus’ explicit warning in Matthew 24, about being deceived by “false christs” who claim to be him, esp. when encountered in isolated places, yet Paul takes the bait and falls into this exact trap. I also mentioned that he never repented and actually exhibited the opposite of Christ-like fruit or character qualities. Your 9 defenses of Paul were, in brief:
1 – Ananias supposedly affirmed Paul’s testimony and legitimacy
2 – Barnabas ” ” ” ” ” ”
3 – The apostles ” ” ” ” ” ”
4 – Resurrection appearances were variable so it doesn’t matter if what Paul saw is different than what Jesus’ disciples saw
5 – Paul’s “changed character” was into “Spirit-filled Christlikeness” which “any true, Spirit-filled Christian would recognize”, and his repentance “was implied”
6 – John also had a vision, recorded in Revelation – How is Paul’s any different or less legitimate?
7 – Jacob’s hip socket was displaced in his struggle with the “Angel”/Lord – How is Paul’s blindness any different?
8 – God uses “progressive revelation” so it’s no big deal if Jesus FINISHED his use of the original 12 apostles and now inaugurated a NEW DISPENSATION, using a NEW APOSTLE to teach a NEW GOSPEL and NEW DOCTRINE.
9 – You “trust” Luke and Acts (and all of the Bible) because they “resonate” with you
I hope I have restated your defenses accurately.
My response to your DEFENSE # 1 – Luke, or whoever wrote Acts, did NOT interrogate Ananias as an eye-witness, rather he wrote the story as told to him by his companion Paul. What Luke reports that Ananias allegedly did and said is technically “hear-say”. Proof of this is that Luke faithfully records/preserves ALL THREE CONTRADICTORY versions of what happened. I’ve noted those contradictions above, and esp. note that in one version the “Jesus vision” directly gives Paul his commission, while in another version he only tells Paul to go into the city and there receive further instructions, and then it is Ananias who relays Jesus’ message to Paul, not Jesus himself. (Any red flags?) Nowhere in the NT are we told of a person named Ananias who steps forward to provide eyewitness testimony about Paul. Likewise, nowhere in the NT is evidence put forth that Ananias is a genuine “prophet” who had been given prophetic authority to relay Jesus’ instructions to Paul. I don’t believe the hearsay account of what Paul told Luke about Ananias would hold up in court, or in God’s Scriptures. And why would Paul just immediately accept what this stranger Ananias told him without vetting it in any way, especially as it was so diametrically opposed to his previous state of mind? WHERE is any effort at discernent on Paul’s part, both of the vision on the Damascus Road, and of the instructions from Ananias? Yet “IMMEDIATELY” he went and “preached Christ” in the synagogues in Damascus. Really?
Response to subsequent defenses pending
Hi John. This comment is in response to #2 of your defenses listed above, that Barnabas affirmed Paul’s testimony and legitimacy.
Barnabas was a hellenized Cyprian Jew and apparently a prominent disciple in the early Christian community in Jerusalem. (He was possibly cousin or uncle to Mark whose mother was Mary and they were a house/household used often by the Jerusalem Christian disciples, and Peter, who was close with Mark, apparently ran there first after his release from prison.) Barnabas appears to have been a wealthy landowner, and when he sold much of his possessions and gave the money to the apostles he apparently received a fair amount of attention. Barnabas played a key role in introducing the “converted” Paul to the Jerusalem apostles, who were initially afraid of him and Paul would probably never have gotten audience with them without Barnabas bringing him in. (It is ver unclear in Acts exactly WHEN the first time was that Paul got introduced.) The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to oversee the predominately Gentile church in Antioch, and being overwhelmed with the work went to Tarsus to seek out Paul to help him. The two not only labored there in Antioch, but were companions in Paul’s first missionary journey to Asia, and BOTH of them were active in defending new converts “against Judaizers” (Judaizers were those who followed BOTH Jesus AND the “Law of Moses”). Paul and Barnabas BOTH agreed in CASTING AWAY the Law (e.g. eating unclean food OK, eating food sacrificed to idols OK, foregoing circumcision OK, etc.). It is NOT SURPRISING then if Barnabas was sympathetic to Paul, and endorsed him, as they were both on the same page, which was opposite to the page of the Jerusalem church leaders. When Paul and Barnabas entered Lystra, they were mistaken for gods, and interestingly they believed Barnabas to be Jupiter, and Paul to be Mercurius or Hermes, “because he was the chief speaker”. Apparently Paul had quickly eclipsed Barnabas. In Acts 14:14 Luke calls BOTH Barnabas and Paul “apostles”, however this was undoubtedly in the looser sense of the word (to be “sent”) as Luke knew full well that NEITHER of them qualified to be Apostles in the formal sense of the word as used for the original “twelve”. (Revelation records ONLY 12 apostles in the New Jerusalem, NOT 13 if Paul was added, or 14 if both Paul and Barnabas were added.) It is later recorded that Barnabas and Paul had a falling out over the previous departure of John-Mark, whom Paul viewed as a “deserter”, so again Paul was not shy in assuming dominance.
At any rate, Acts describes an unfolding historical narrative over time. Things changed. The true apostles initially may have believed and accepted Paul, not discerning that he was yet teaching anything heretical (and, probably Paul’s doctrine evolved over time), but later they DID become convinced of Paul’s heresy/blasphemy and called him out on it, and none supported him at his “trial”. There were “factions” of the early Christians, due in large part to Paul and his followers coming to understand and preach the Gospel differently from the true apostles. Even if Barnabas defended Paul to the bitter end (though we have no record of what eventually happened), his endorsement of Paul does NOT provide Paul legitimacy. Barnabas was a sympathizer, and may have even preached anomia just like Paul.
God Bless
Thank you, for your comments, Geri.
I’ll make an initial start.
Unfortunately, you seem to have three immediately noticeable errors :
1. You have a flawed ‘methodology’. You simplistically assume that if an essentially minor detail is not mentioned in one of Paul’s conversion accounts, but is mentioned elsewhere – then this supposedly constitutes a ‘contradiction’. Using your ‘methodology’, one shudders at what you would make of any comparison of the narratives contained in parallel synoptic Gospel accounts, and your conclusion regarding any fundamental, substantive reality (or not ?) of Gospel incidents.
2. You commit eisegesis, not exegesis. You are reading your pre-determined conclusions and pre-suppositions INTO the text of Scripture, but not out of the text of Scripture.
Where for example, where does the Scriptural text ever explicitly say (with reference to Paul’s conversion) anything like:
a. “The men with Paul did not see the light.”
b. “The men with Paul never at any time fell to the floor.”
c. “Paul’s eyesight was immediately restored on the road into Damascus”.
d. “Paul’s eyesight was restored in less than three days.”
e. “There were no further instructions for Paul in Damascus after he had met the risen Christ”.
And yet you seem (in your seemingly desperate attempt to try and find contradictions) to act as if Scripture did say any (or all) of the above statements.
3. You seem to assume that the three individual accounts of Paul’s conversion were each meant to be completely full and exhaustive accounts of what transpired. They weren’t. Some of the accounts are more abridged than others. Together (as with parallel accounts of any incident in the Synoptic Gospels) the accounts provide complementary evidence that build up a bigger narrative account.
Regarding your point (9) above, Geri (Feb. 19th post) :
Again – you are indulging in eisegesis. Where did Paul have a vision that the Apostles would not accept him ? Your astonishing idea is explicitly rejected by the Apostles themselves on several occasions in the book of Acts.
It is far more likely that Paul had a confirmatory vision that encouraged him to take the advice given by the Jerusalem Christians regarding non-Christian Jews i.e. Acts 22:17:21 refers to the same time period as that mentioned in Acts 9:28-30. That Paul was initially introduced to the Apostles in Jerusalem by Barnabas is explicitly recorded in Acts 9:26-28.
Regarding ‘akouo’ at Acts 22:9 :
a. There are numerous New Testament translations produced by professional Greek scholars that render ‘akouo’ as ‘understand’ at Acts 22:9. These include the scholars behind the NIV and NASB translations. We publicly know who all these professional scholars are, and their individual New Testament Greek qualifications – but what about your friend Doug ? What’s his New Testament Greek qualifications ?
b. Finally – a principle of New Testament translation :
The meaning of a Greek word is never determined on the basis of its most popular translational rendition – even within confined textual contexts.
God bless you, Geri. Have a good day.
Hi John. Glad we can both post again. I believe I can counter, with good evidence, EVERYTHING you just relayed in this comment.
The “minor details” which are different in the “parallel” accounts of something Jesus said or did in the Synoptic Gospels can NOT be equated with the differences in details in Paul’s 3 accounts of his personal experience. In the Gospels, slight differences can exist because DIFFERENT people, DIFFERENT witnesses, are each providing their own personal testimony. This is in CONTRAST to Paul’s 3 testimonies because these are ALL the testimony of the SAME person, and hence there is NO justification for the significant differences in details.
You ASSERT that I am committing eisegesis and not exegesis, and your support for this allegation are the examples you labelled (a) though (e). I fear you are not reading these Biblical accounts carefully, or are perhaps using a very different translation. Let me show you PRECISELY where I got my information:
(a) The men with Paul DID see the light – Acts 22:9 (“saw indeed the light”), and Acts 26:13 (“light…shining round about me and them”), VS – The men did NOT see the light – Acts 9:7 (“saw no man”
(b) The men with Paul DID fall to the ground – Acts 26:14 (“and when we were all fallen to the earth”), VS – The men did NOT fall to the ground – Acts 9:7 (“the men…stood speechless”)
(c) and (d) Paul’s eyesight was IMMEDIATELY restored – Acts 9:8 (“And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man”), VS – Paul’s blindness LASTED LONGER or 3 days, or at least until getting to Damascus – Acts 9:9 (“And he was 3 days without sight” – a CONTRADICTION to the verse just before it), Acts 22:11 (“I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me. I came into Damascus”). Interestingly, there is NO mention of blindness AT ALL in the Acts 26 account before King Agrippa
(e) Instructions received LATER, FROM ANANIAS – Acts 22:10 (“Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do’), and Acts 22:12-16 (“Ananias … came unto me…and he said…The God of our fathers hath chosen thee…”) , and Acts 9:6 (“Arise and go into the city and it shall be told thee what thou must do”), and Acts 22:17 (“the Lord, even Jesus, that hath appeared unto thee in the way…hath sent me, that thou mightest receive…”), VS Instructions given IMMEDIATELY, FROM JESUS DIRECTLY – Acts 26:15-16 (“I am Jesus…rise…I have appeared unto thee for this purpose to make thee a minister and a witness…”)
You appear to be doing a “bait and switch” with how you phrased my supposed eisegesis – changing what I actually said to something a little different so you could set up a straw man and attack that instead of what I actually said. For example, in (b) you write, “never at any time fell to the floor” – That is not what I said, and (e) you write, “there were no further instructions for Paul in Damascus”. These are attempts to harmonize contradictions by suggesting there is more to the story that was not recorded. You can’t invent stuff to accomplish harmonization. Anyway, this hopeful addition doesn’t solve the problem, as Paul was NEVER given instructions by Jesus first that later Ananias “added to it”. Even if Paul received ADDITIONAL instructions (again, not recorded) from Ananias AFTER receiving them directly on the road from Jesus Himself, this does NOT succeed in harmonizing the accounts of Paul getting instructions at one time, in one place, from one person, VS getting them at another time, in another place, from another person.
You also say I, “assume all 3 accounts were meant to be completely full and exhaustive”, but this is NOT true. Even if one account is more abridged than another, it still should NOT contain obvious contradictions. And again you try to compare parallel accounts in the Gospels (which are testimonies of DIFFERENT people) with the 3 versions of Paul’s story which are ALL given by the SAME person. You are equating apples with oranges.
You ask, “Where did Paul have a vision that the Apostles would not accept him”? HERE: Acts 22:17-21 – “And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a TRANCE, and saw him saying unto me, ‘Make haste, and GET THEE QUICKLY OUT OF JERUSALEM, FOR THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE THY TESTIMONY CONCERNING ME….DEPART; for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles'”. It’s right there.
Re- “akouo” – I do not need to rest my case solely on Doug’s understanding of the Greek. In my previous comment I had asked, “Where do you find another example where these 2 different translations of the SAME word occur in the SAME narrative and about the SAME subject? Context is everything, and trying to pit one scholar against another re- possible translations of words in isolation does not really help. Plus, different translators have different agendas, esp. including the translators of the NIV and NASB, neither of which I trust.
Your final comment about a word never being determined by its “most popular translational rendition” is NOT something I have done. Not sure why you think I did this? Rather I simply pointed out the INCONSISTENCY of translating a particular word ONE way, and then translating that SAME word in a DIFFERENT way, when it is used in the very SAME passage and very SAME subject matter.
I look forward to continued dialogue.
God Bless
Hi, Geri;
I’ll make a number of points to your comments regarding ‘akouo’ :
1. So you have no idea if Doug has any academic qualifications in New Testament Greek, then Geri ?
2. The use of the Greek word ‘sarx’ in Romans 8:3 is an example of how one Greek word can be used twice in the same verse – and each time be legitimately translated differently (See the ‘Translator’s New Testament’, et al, , and Dr. John Zeisler’s Commentary on Romans).
3. The New Testament Greek Lexicon by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates lists copious references where ‘akouo’ is more appropriately translated as ‘understand’ or ‘be informed’ rather than merely ‘hear’ (See ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary – New Testament’, AMG Publishers, pp. 113-114).
God bless you, Geri. Have a good day.
Hi John –
Can you be more explicit re- the details of your examples? (I have none of the books you cite.) I looked up Romans 3. I STILL don’t see your DIFFERENT translations of the SAME word in the SAME verse talking about the SAME subject by the SAME translator. ?? Can you quote your sources for me? According to Strongs, “sarx” is translated “flesh” in the KJV in each instance in Romans 3. So how does this example disprove my point? Also, using “sarx”, 4561, if it indeed was translated differently in the same verse, this still doesn’t prove your case for “akouo” which is a very different word. “Sarx” or “flesh” has a much wider range of possible meanings than does “akouo” or “hear”. And re- Zodhiates NT Greek Lexicon, (which I do not have), is he alleging exactly what you are, that “akouo” SHOULD BE translated “hear” in one part of a particular verse/passage, and “understand” in another part of the SAME verse/passage, esp. in THIS particular example of Acts 9, 22, and 26 which we are debating, OR in any OTHER example? Could you quote it for me? Just alleging the word can be translated different ways in different places or contexts, or by different translators, does NOT help you get out of THIS specific example/predicament. Also, is a believer at the mercy of these Bible reference books and “scholars”, and if they don’t have access to them they cannot rightly understand the Bible? I do NOT mean to belittle scholarship, but the bulk and main thrust of God’s Word should be intelligible to the common man because it is God’s intention to communicate with us. Sometimes common sense carries more weight than scholarly opinion. Also, using the Bible to interpret the Bible is superior to relying on scholarly works.
God Bless you John. You are making me dig, and that is a good thing. 🙂
Hi, Geri;
I’ll be with you tomorrow (Deo volente) – I’ve got to try and locate some more relevant material in my book archives.
As an aside – have you ever thought of running past a sample of your thinking and ideas to anyone in the Theology Departments, and/or the Religious Studies Departments of some of the excellent fifty-two Universities in North Carolina ? Check out the scholars who specialize in early Church history. I personally find that American scholars are frequently helpful and friendly.
Have a good day Geri, and may God bless you.
Hi John,
No hurry. I just took a detour yesterday and today exploring the nature of Jesus/Son of God/Son of Man and esp. whether he was in any sense “pre-existent”. Though I abhor the Trinity doctrine and see it as totally false, I retained a belief that the Son of God was born the first time “in eternity past” and lived intimately with the Father UNTIL Bethlehem when he basically died or surrendered that identity in order to become fully human, thus both Father and Son DEMONSTRATING their great love for us by doing this. After study, however, I no longer believe this, and rather accept that the “Son of God”, Jesus, was born the FIRST time at Bethlehem and was only PROMISED in the OT, NOT in any sense “pre-existent” back then. I today listened to 4 podcasts between Sean Finnegan and Bill Schlegel from 2018 which helped clear this up for me. Is this what you believe? I also wanted to admit this to show that I AM OPEN to changing my views about something IF there is evidence to back it up. I am willing to change my view on Paul IF you can provide sufficient EVIDENCE, but I still at this point don’t see that happening. I have massively more evidence proving Paul false than I ever had about the pre-existence of the Son of God. (In fact I’m thinking that Paul’s double-speak and fabricated ideas about Christ actually SUPPORTED the evolution of the Trinity doctrine, something I doubt any Paul follower would admit or be willing to research.) God Bless.
Hi, Geri;
(1). You misread me. I said that the Greek word ‘sarx’ occurs twice (actually it’s thrice !) in Romans 8:3 (not Romans 3, as you misread). This provides an example of how the one Greek word can have different meanings even within a single sentence.
Many New Testament translations render at least two of occurrences of ‘sarx’ in Romans 8:3 differently. A good example is the ‘Translator’s New Testament’ . This renders Romans 8:3 as follows [ I enclose some clarifying notes in square brackets ] :
“What the Law could not do because of the weakness of human nature [ note : ‘sarx’ here = ‘human nature’] prevented it, God did. He sent His Son in a human body [note : 'sarx' here = human body] that was the same as our sinful human body [note : Except that His human body was not sinful because Jesus did not commit any sin - in thought, word, or deed] in order to deal with Sin – and through that human body He condemned Sin ” [note : 'condemned' is a legal term, and Paul is using a legal metaphor with the meaning that Jesus 'condemned' the power of sin (that tempts human nature) by always morally triumphing over it (in constant obedience God) - even to the point of death].
Jesus was a uniquely sinless man, and in His unique case God could morally condemn ‘Sin’, and not the man (all other men are sinners).
In Romans. Paul explains how being spiritually united to living Jesus (via baptism and reception of the holy Spirit), the power of sin becomes destroyed within our own lives, too.
(2). Zodhiates’ Lexicon cites examples of where the Greek word ‘akouo’ is better rendered ‘understand’ or ‘comprehend’. These include such instances as Acts 22:9, Mark 4:33, 1 Corinthians 14:2, Galatians 4:21 John 6:60 and in the Greek Septuagint : Genesis 11:17 and 42:23. Check out a few English translations.
I’ll continue to respond to the other points you raised about Paul, in due course (Deo volente).
God bless you, Geri. Have a good day.
Hi John.
Actually, I WAS talking about Romans 8:3 which you cited – I just accidentally only typed “3” instead of “8:3, so I WAS referring to the SAME passage you were. (“3” by itself would make no sense as it implies an entire chapter, not a specific verse.) In the KJV all 3 times “sarx” is used it is translated by the KJV translators as “flesh”. In the different translation of Romans 8:3 you provide, you say the translators are making a distinction between the meaning of the first “sarx” or “flesh” as “human nature”, and the second “sarx” or “flesh” as “human body”. Both of these are INTERPRETATIONS, NOT TRANSLATIONS (they are BOTH TRANSLATED “flesh”), and on top of that, when an attempt at explaining the difference is made, there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE, that is UNLESS Jesus’ human nature or human body was inescapably “sinless”, i.e. a nature that COULD NOT SIN even if it wanted to. That idea is NOT what the rest of the Bible teaches. If Jesus COULD NOT SIN, then he did NOT have a body or nature like us. If he COULD SIN like us, and was mortal like us, then WHAT is the distinction you, or these translators, are trying to make between “nature” and “body”? Are you trying to say Jesus’ “human body” was not sinful, but his “human nature” was sinful? This seems contrived. (Plus if his human “body” was NOT sinful, how is it that he is body DIED?) Plus, I don’t believe Jesus was unavoidably sinless by nature OR body. I believe he was sinless due to his CHOICE and his TRUST in his Father who provided God’s SPIRIT to him. If he didn’t have this choice, then he is NOT like us.
Re- your second point with Zodhiates’ Lexicon. Of all 5 verses that you quote of “akouo”, ONLY ONE is translated as “understand”. The rest are actually TRANSLATED as “hear” or “heard” and it is just your INTERPRETATION of the MEANING of the word to be “understand” instead of “hear”. The ONE case where it is actually TRANSLATED as “understand” is 1 Cor. 14:2. It appears from Strongs that there are NUMEROUS DIFFERENT WORDS in the Greek NT translated as “understand” (4920, 3539, 1987, 1097, 1107, 50, 995, 8085, 7919, 191, 3129, 4441, 5426, 2154, 1425). This is in CONTRAST to the word in the Greek NT translated as “hear” with the VAST MAJORITY, 95%+, being from Strong’s # 191, with just a tiny smattering (of maybe 5) coming from a different Greek word. (Just look at the page in Strongs for “understand”. You will see a huge VARIETY of DIFFERENT Greek words, with MANY EXAMPLES in each category, being translated “understand”. Contrast this with the page in Strong’s for “hear”, where the underlying Greek word is OVERWHELMINGLY just the ONE WORD “akouo” # 191. This certainly lends credence to the idea that “akouo” is, and should be, normally translated as “hear”. When you add this to the fact that deliberate contrast is being made between Paul who hears, and those with him who didn’t hear, the case seems pretty solid.
In addition, NONE of the examples you provided, where you INTERPRET the meaning as “understand”, do you see that SAME word being translated (or even interpreted) as something different in a different part of the verse, as you do with the Acts passages.
Hope you’re having a great day.
Hi John –
ADDENDUM – Do you know how many times TOTAL , according to Strongs, that “akouo” is translated as “understand”? ONLY ONE TIME, in the 1 Cor. 14:2 you mentioned. Is this not telling? ONLY ONE TIME. Out of dozens and dozens of examples, ONLY ONE TIME. WHERE are all those other times that you alleged “akouo” was translated as “understand” instead of “hear”???
Hi, Geri;
Thanks for your comments. I’ve got some more exciting information for you on ‘akouo’, which I hope to give you tomorrow. As for James Strong’s Lexicon – it would be considered scholastically out-dated, now. It was first produced in 1890, but since then there has been a quiet lexical revolution in our study of Koine (New Testament) Greek.
Incidentally, Strong’s Lexicon is essentially focused on the ‘King James Bible’ format and renderings. Strong isn’t revealing anything about what any personal ‘James Strong’s New Testament’ might have exactly looked like.
The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Biblical Greek Lexicon (3rd Edition) – usually referred to as : BAGD – is probably the most highly respected Greek Biblical Lexicon today.
Regarding Romans 8:3. A better rendering than ‘The Translator’s New Testament’ is the ‘CTS New Catholic Bible’ (2007 Edition) – which better expresses the underlying thought of ‘The Translator’s New Testament’. I enclose clarifying notes in square brackets :
” God has done what the Law, because of our unspiritual nature [NOTE : ‘sarx’ = ‘unspiritual nature’], was unable to do. God dealt with Sin by sending His own Son in a body as physical as any sinful body [NOTE : ‘sarx’ = ‘body’], and in that body [NOTE : ‘sarx’ = (Christ’s) ‘body’) God condemned Sin. ”
The essential meaning of Romans 8:3 is that God could pass a sentence of ‘condemnation’ upon Sin within the sinless life of Christ. Conversely, with all other men, Sin is always able to ‘condemn’ the man.
As for your questions (stated or implied) :
Could Jesus have sinned ? Yes, of course He could.
Did Jesus share our temptations to sin ? Yes, of course He did. He shared our physical nature, but He never sinned.
Was Jesus mortal ? Yes, of course He was – or else He could not have died.
Did Jesus commit any sin. No – He uniquely did not commit any Sin (in thought, word or deed).
As direct(ly created) mortal Son of God (cf. Luke 3:38), Adam did not necessarily have to commit sin – or incur a penalty of death. Death was only contingent upon Adam’s disobedience. As a direct(ly begotten) Son of God, Jesus did not necessarily have to commit sin, or incur death. Jesus did not have to die, but He volunteered to die for our sakes. Jesus co-operated with God to defeat the power/lure of Sin that hitherto successfully operated within post-Adamic humanity. As Adam’s direct progeny, the power/lure of Sin renders all men moral sinners (to some extent). However, the power/lure of sin (temptations) could not get any hold over Jesus. Thus, Jesus triumphed over Sin. Sin did not triumph Jesus – as it does with all other men.
By being united with Jesus in His death (to ego and sin), and in His resurrection life – by baptism (immersion) and reception of the holy Spirit – we too, like Jesus, can triumph over sin and death. This is what Paul explains in Romans chapters 5-8. I think it’s brilliant.
God bless you, Geri.
Hi John.
Glad you’re back. I still don’t fully understand what your newest rendering of Romans 8:3 is trying to convey or prove. You would need to thoroughly explain it to someone as simple-minded as myself. It seems almost as convoluted as trying to explain the nonsensical “Trinity” or the nonsensical “dual nature” of Christ. But as I respect your passion for digging for truth, I will try to mull it over to see if I can see what you apparently see. (Also, since you love Paul, and this passage is part of his manifesto, you may be biased towards “translations” that help his cause, whereas I may be biased in the opposite direction since I find Paul and his ideas despicable.) To me, regardless of bias, it does NOT seem kosher to translate a particular word two different ways when they occur in the same verse. There would have been other options, other words, if the author was deliberately trying to highlight a distinction (such as between “unspiritual nature” and “sinful physical body”), and not leave it up to translators (instead of interpreters or commentators) to “flesh it out” (LOL). Why couldn’t Paul have said, “The men with me heard the voice, but didn’t understand what it was saying” IF that is what he wanted conveyed? It was just him telling the story to Luke. Personally, I don’t think he was as smart as people give him credit for, and God allowed his careless inconsistencies to be preserved for all time. Your above “translation” seems to me to be “interpretation”, NOT “translation”. No matter how you translate Romans 8:3 “sarx” however, I don’t think that gets you off the hook for “akouo” meaning “hear”, (Isn’t this where we get our word “acoustic”?), but I look forward to whatever it is you have found. Also, I don’t want to get too derailed from the question at hand, i.e. were Paul’s 3 “conversion” stories contradictory, or were they not? Would they stand up in a court of law? I still hold firmly to my position that they are inescapably contradictory and that this is a major problem for Paul’s credibility, not to mention that not only this “conversion” experience, but EVERYTHING he offers is 100% dependent on his “visions”, (if indeed he really had them). Does Scripture anywhere teach us to learn “by visions”? Again, how is that different from Joseph Smith or Mohammad or Ellen White? And again, how do you legitimize this “vision of light” (NO description of Jesus even, in contrast to John, Daniel and Ezekiel) in the light of Jesus’ very specific warning against believing such “false christs” in Matthew 24, and that Satan himself is an “angel of light”? I still would very much like to see you answer those 2 questions.
Since you admit that you think Romans ch. 5-8 is “brilliant”, and since I see Paul’s “Gospel” as antithetical to that of Yahushua, perhaps we should detour to this topic now, as it really is the heart of the heresy that I think Paul teaches. Would that be alright with you, to focus on Romans 5-8, and how “Paul’s Gospel” differs from what I believe is the true message brought by Yahushua and his apostles, and perhaps to use this as a “jumping off point” to contrast the many contradictions and differences between what they each TEACH? It would just mean doing things in a slightly different order, jumping now to point # 4 in my original 2/15 post. The other points are very important also, but it seems this is where your heart is at right now?
God Bless you too John 🙂
Hi again John.
Before we go on, can you please clearly elucidate your understanding of Romans 8:3 using your above “translation”? I simply do NOT see how the first “sarx” is “unspiritual nature” and the second “sarx” is “physical body” or “physical sinful body”. What exactly DID Jesus share with us, and what did he NOT share with us? And is our flesh “sinful flesh”? Is this “original sin”? What does Paul mean when he says Jesus came “in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh”? Is this some form of Platonic dualism where all things physical or material are evil and to be shed as soon as possible so the “spirit” can be freed from its tethers? Or is it some form of Docetism where Jesus only “appeared” to have flesh? Is our “physical body” the problem, or is it our “unspiritual nature” that is the problem? Did Jesus have the “lure/power/temptation of sin” in his physical body but just triumphed over it because he had a “spiritual nature” and not an “unspiritual nature” like we have? But how is that “fair”, if Jesus didn’t have our “unspiritual nature”, because that gave him an advantage over our “sinful physical body” that we don’t have? I think I need to be shown EXACTLY what you are saying here with these 2 different meanings of “sarx”, and how you can defend there being these two different “translations” in the same verse (without imposing an agenda upon it, because truly these ARE “interpretations” NOT “translations”). I need to understand EXACTLY what you are saying before I can go on. Thanks.
God Bless
Hi again again John –
I just stumbled this evening onto a brand new You Tube channel, only a couple weeks old, who is doing an excellent job exposing the truth about Paul. I encourage you to watch her 5 videos, in order, and to the end. It’s not that long. She perhaps puts some of the evidence in a way that you might hear better than how I put it. She also has started a new website – BEXIT – “Believers exit from the Pauline Gospel”, where people can share their testimonies and experiences and insights. I haven’t had a chance yet to browse through it, but I was so excited on finding her channel that I wanted to share it with you right away.
The YT channel is “The Way, The Truth, and The Life” and you can type in the title, “Paul False Apostle” – there are 4 or 5 short parts/videos. The first couple are laying the groundwork, and I suppose you could skip them, but start no later than Part 2 and persist until the end – It is put together exceedingly well. It’s a great start for someone new to the notion that Paul is actually false.
God Bless
God Bless
Hi John. I am NOT able to post here anymore for some reason. My submissions are initially accepted, but then apparently not “approved by the moderator”. I am not ignoring you, just don’t know how to connect anymore. Geri
Hi Geri,
Thanks for your questions. In order to tailor any answers, it would be very useful to know just how much of the Bible you actually believe in, Geri – and what other religious organisations you may have been involved with in the past?
As far as I know, you are still trying to work out a canon for the Jewish Scriptures, and you seem to believe little (if indeed anything) concerning the New Testament documents.
Do you believe, Geri :
(1). That from a Jewish canonical Scriptural perspective, all men (apart from Jesus), subsequent to Adam’s transgression, have committed some moral transgression(s) ? cf. Psalm 143:2, Psalm130:3, Prov. 20:9, 1 Kings 8:46, Ecclesiastes 7:20, 2 Chron. 6:36; Isa. 53:6. If so, why do you think this is ?
(2). Do you believe Jesus when he said in John’s Gospel that :
‘he who commits sin is a slave of Sin’ (John 8:34).
As all men have sinned (apart from Jesus), would you concede that all men (to varying degrees) are ‘slaves of Sin’ ? If so :
(3). Do you believe therefore, that all men (apart from Jesus) need a spiritual liberation from Sin’s guilt and from Sin’s slavery ?
(4). Do you believe Jesus when He said that all need to to ‘born again’ by the holy Spirit in order to enter into God’s Kingdom ? (John 3:3). Would you say that you are spiritually ‘born again’ by the holy Spirit, Geri ?
(5). Do you believe that Adam did not necessarily have to commit sin, and that He would not have died had he remained obedient to God ?
(6). Do you believe that Jesus always lived to the closest possible spiritual intimacy with God – because He (Jesus) always did what was pleasing to His heavenly Father ? (John 8:29).
(7). Do you believe that Jesus was thus a unique man because He was always totally sinless ?
(8). Would you say that Jesus and Adam were similar in at least one respect – i.e. neither of them had a human Father ?
May God bless you, Geri.
Hey, God bless you.
It’s now time that we resumed scholastically correcting your cases of disinformation, young Geri. But first – a few final words on the Greek word ‘akouo’ :
(1). William E. Vine’s work “An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words’ is a more recent Lexical textbook than James Strong’s Lexicon. This is how W.E. Vine grammatically analyses the use of the verb ‘akouo’ in both Acts 9:7, and 22:9. Pay particular attention to the transitive use of the verb ‘akouo’, as quoted by Vine [ibid.] :
” AKOUO – VERB : TO HEAR [in various senses]; HEARING.
Verb used : (a) Intransitively e.g. Math. 11:15, Mark 4:23.
(b) Transitively when the object is expressed, sometimes in the accusative case, sometimes in the genitive. Thus in Acts 9:7 ; ‘hearing the voice’, the noun ‘voice’ is in the partitive case [hearing (something) of], whereas in Acts 22:9 ‘they heard not the voice,’ the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a ‘hearing’ of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear).”
(2). ‘Akouo’ occurs twice in the single verse of John 6:60. This is how the ‘New King James’ Bible’ (amongst others) renders the verse :
“Therefore many of His disciples when they heard [ note : ‘heard’ = ‘akouo’ ] this, said, ‘This is a hard saying, who can understand [ note : ‘understand’ = ‘akou’ ] it ‘. ”
See also Mounce’s ‘Reverse interlinear New Testament’ for clarity.
Two samples of ‘akouo’ in one sentence, and both are translated differently. John Worsley’s 1770 New Testament seems to have been the first English Translation to introduce this piece of translational intelligibility into John 6:60.
We look forward (in the fulness of time) to hearing what God’s holy Spirit personally means to you, Geri. May Jesus bless you, sir.
Hi John – Here is an immediate response – I need to go to a previous engagement so will add more later – I just am a little taken aback by your tone in the first posting, and insinuation that I don’t believe the NT and am not Spirit filled and not “saved”. Is that warranted?
Just a brief response to “akouo”. You cite the NKJV as proof that “akouo” should be translated “hear” in the first part of the verse (John 6:60), but “understand” in the second part of the verse, apparently thinking “case closed”. I went and looked at 10 or 12 different translations of said verse, and the NKJV was the only one to do this. When other translations rendered the second “akouo” as something different than “hear” as it was rendered in the first part, it was in the sense of “Who can “LISTEN” to this?”… “Who can “ACCEPT” this (teaching)?”, which is the SAME sense which “akouo” means when translated “hear” -i.e. “Who can “HEAR” this?” …i.e. “This is preposterous”, “unacceptable”, “UNHEARD OF”, etc.. The problem wasn’t so much that they DIDN”T UNDERSTAND, but that what they DID UNDERSTAND was OFFENSIVE. Sorry, but this doesn’t provide basis for you, IMO, to claim there is “no contradiction in Paul’s 3 stories”. You are grasping on to this one detail, apparently thinking that if you can prove your case here, then “there is no contradiction in Paul’s stories”, despite many other contradictions having been exposed as well. It’s a little bit sad. Why not concede this point, and go on to try to defend another? Will write more later. God Bless.
Addendum – to John
There are SEVERAL other instances in the NT which popped into my mind where “hear” is used in this similar sense of “listen”, “accept,” “receive”, “attend”, hearken”, “take cognizance of”, “take note of”, “heed”, etc.etc. – e.g. Matthew 10:14, “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor HEAR your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet”, or Revelation 2:11, “He that hath an ear, let him HEAR what the spirit saith unto the churches”. I’m sure there are other examples just like these, where “hear” does NOT mean “understand”, but rather as explained above. It’s like confronting your child with some misbehavior, and you say, “Are you HEARING me?”, meaning, “Are you acknowledging what I am saying?”, “Are you recognizing the importance of what I am saying?”, “Are you going to heed what I am saying?”, etc. In all of these “hear” is more than the simple physical act of hearing sound waves, but of deliberately and consciously attending to something . Anyway, my conclusion remains firm, that you have NOT successfully been able to harmonize Paul’s 3 contradictory stories – they remain inescapably contradictory and the legitimacy of his witness is on shaky ground. (And this is only ONE factor in the mound of massive EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.). For you to equate salvation, and receiving of the spirit, to believing Paul, is telling of how far your idolatry of, and deception by, him has taken you, FAR, FAR from Yahushua’s testimony I fear.
Also, you are now throwing a bunch of NEW questions at me, BEFORE you ever answered MY previous questions. I think I’ll wait for those first before I reply to these.
Let’s move this conversation to email. This blog is not set up for long form debates. For that email, phone calls, or message boards are better. Feel free to exchange info. Other than that other comments continuing this conversation will not be approved.
To Sean –
I am wrestling with what the Atonement entails and am now reading through your paper which you posted under your video. I decided to ask questions AS I work my way through it, as opposed to saving up a bunch and putting them all in one comment. Re- your eight categories of relevant Scriptures, and their supposed “non-negotiableness”, the first is that “Jesus died to provide us eternal life”. I’m thinking the better and more accurate way to phrase this is that Jesus’ death provides us with the “POSSIBILITY of eternal life” or salvation, not automatic salvation. We are all FREELY forgiven of all our PAST sins by the Father’s love WHEN WE REPENT, (NOT by exacting payment of a penalty debt, but freely forgiven without payment), and THEN, once forgiven of past sins, we are RELEASED from the POWER and DOMINION of Satan and Sin and its inevitable consequence of death which previously kept us in bondage. (This “bondage” to Sin and Satan and Death was NOT “original sin”, NOR was it Paul’s idea that we are “totally depraved” and “incapable” of ever obeying God. We always have “ability” to “choose” life, but we are enmeshed in a perverted world system full of deceptions and lies (much like our current world situation – perhaps our Father is using today’s chaos as a “picture” to help us understand how Satan holds us in bondage, i.e. by deception and lies which we choose to obey, not out-and-out coercion) which perpetually entices us to sin and makes it well nigh impossible to obey due to the inherent WEAKNESS (NOT corruption) of our flesh – Jesus also had this weakness but he overcame it). This “release” from the “POWER” of Satan and Sin’s enticements, and the death which inevitably follows, is what was accomplished on the cross. It was obtained by Jesus’ voluntary, sacrificial death whereby he allowed Satan, “the god of this world” who had usurped dominion from Man, (which Jesus himself acknowledged during his temptation in the wilderness), to illegally and unjustly murder him, an innocent man, thus disqualifying him from his usurped dominion, and ransoming us, rescuing us, redeeming us out of Satan’s grip and power. (God did NOT curse, nor pour out His wrath, on His Son). However this just provided POTENTIAL, and we would only be cleansed of FUTURE sins by CHOOSING to NOT obey Satan and Sin anymore. We still needed to CHOOSE obedience, to listen to and learn from Jesus’ TEACHINGS about how to live rightly, and by doing so we would be “cleansed by His Word”, able now to live consistently righteously in obedience to God’s Law. So its like a 2 step PROCESS. First forgiven, and then second, released from Satan’s power. We are NOT AUTOMATICALLY saved for all time, but rather we are GIVEN OPPORTUNITY AND POWER to be saved, to be perpetually cleansed (by the blood and by the Word), and to BECOME “children of God”. Its not an automatic done deal, OSAS. As OPPOSED to Paul’s teaching that we are “saved by faith ALONE”, and passively inherit or are gifted with “imputed righteousness”, the Scripture rather teaches that ONCE forgiven by our repentance, we have OPPORTUNITY to OVERCOME as Jesus overcame. But STILL REQUIRED of us are overcoming, AND repeated repentance,(as we undoubtedly WILL sin again), AND obedience, AND good works, AND faith, AND faithfulness, AND heeding Christ’s teachings (which are synonymous with God the Father’s Law – Law which brings LIFE, NOT DEATH as Paul asserts).
I’m just working through all this. Any thoughts?
To Sean – ADDENDUM
This is in response the the Q & A part of your Atonement video:
1 – There is a HUGE emphasis on trying to understand “The Atonement” using PAUL. I believe Paul seriously leads us astray here, as he does in so many other places. Paul is responsible for the idea that the Law, and the old sacrificial system, the “Old Testament”, was “nailed to the cross”, “done away with”, “made obsolete”, and that all you need to do is “have faith” and “believe Jesus died for our sins” and we will be “saved”. ABSOLUTELY NOT! NOWHERE in Scripture does it directly say, or even suggest, that God’s Law was “nailed to the cross” (e.g. Matthew 5:17), EXCEPT with Paul, (e.g. “We are no longer under the Law”). Nowhere is the Written Eternal Law of God described as a “curse” , and something which produces “death” even, EXCEPT with Paul. His understanding of WHY Christ died, and what was the result of this, is OF NECESSITY flawed and suspect.
2 – Everyone commenting, and somewhat you as well, seem to be LOOKING for some PENALTY, WRATH, PUNISHMENT, VENGEANCE, JUSTICE EXECUTED, which happened to Jesus on the cross. But isn’t it right under our nose? DEATH itself is the penalty, and Jesus DIED. SIN leads inexorably to DEATH, (corrupting along the way, like perishable fruit), as an inevitable outcome or CONSEQUENCE, (DEATH ITSELF IS THE INHERENT “PUNISHMENT”), which God the Father warned about in the Garden, and which Jesus suffered in our place. We don’t have to DIE because Jesus DIED for us. And Death “couldn’t hold him”. HE now has the KEYS of Death and Hades. We just “go to sleep”, (if we belong to him, have been given his spirit, and have overcome like he did). (Anselm and Calvin have a HORRIBLE, and horribly WRONG, understanding about who God is and what His character is like IMO. So does Paul. Possibly even blasphemous.)
3 – You mentioned that you had not really taken up the subject of the OT sacrifices, and how this should be taken into consideration as we try to understand the Atonement. Obviously the idea of “atonement” did not suddenly appear with Jesus and the apostles, with no OT context to help us understand it. I too hope to study this more in depth. I offer 2 possible initial understandings:
(a). God requiring blood sacrifices in the OT, over and over again, not only underscores for us the “seriousness” of sin, but also makes for us the “connection” that “SIN ALWAYS LEADS TO DEATH”. After 1500 years of this, it hopefully gets into our thick heads that this is the TRUE NATURE OF REALITY and it CANNOT be sidestepped. The different types of sacrifices help us comprehend the multifaceted nature of sin. Sin is no simple problem. It also underscores the fact that fellowship with God is NOT POSSIBLE while we remain unrepentant in sin. It also clearly taught that sacrifice of animals never truly solved the problem. It was however NECESSARY, and temporarily “covered us”, but was primarily a TEACHING experience.
(b). The 7 Feasts God instituted in Leviticus are still valid. These were not “nailed to the cross” or made irrelevant or optional as Paul alleges. (Likewise Sabbath, the 4th commandment written in stone, is still commanded by God who expects us to observe it, and is used by Him even, to “sanctify” us – I always look forward to this day, when the “gates are open” and the time which God has especially set aside to be with us in a more intimate way.) I have always been confused as to the difference between “Passover”, the Feast in the Spring, and the “Day of Atonement”, the Feast in the Fall. It seemed BOTH were enacting the same truth that Jesus was our sacrificial “Lamb” who “DIED FOR OUR SINS”. Why were there 2 such seemingly similar Feasts? I’m wondering now if this could pertain to my hypothesis above, (see previous comment, just before this one), that there are TWO steps to obtaining eternal life/salvation. Perhaps Passover embodies or demonstrates the FIRST of these, our initial rescue and forgiveness, but this didn’t GUARANTEE permanent rescue (we are not OSAS, nor given “imputed righteousness” which saves us, (many died in the wilderness). The children of Israel STILL had to wander 40 years through the wilderness, where God “PROVED” them, and they had to conquer the enemies in the Promised Land, to “OVERCOME”. I’m wondering then if God’s Feast of “the Day of Atonement” in the Fall represents our FINAL Judgment and salvation, (in contrast to our INITIAL rescue and “salvation” which was procured for us at Passover), demonstrating whether we AVAILED ourselves of Jesus’ sacrifice and assistance, and actually SUCCEEDED in overcoming, because he had broken Sin and Satan’s power over us and we then CHOSE to obey. In the Feast or Day of Atonement, the one goat, Azuzel, is led into the wilderness, alive and not killed. Could this not represent the foreshadowing of God BREAKING SATAN’S POWER, and his eventual FINAL REMOVAL by being cast into the Lake of Fire? Just AFTER the Day of Atonement in the Fall comes the Feast of Tabernacles, where we get to LIVE IN GOD’S PRESENCE WITH HIM. This DIDN’T happen after Passover. We STILL needed to go through Pentecost, be empowered with God’s spirit, and overcome, and “PASS” judgment on the Day of Judgment/Day of Atonement, God having “proved us”, and we having “overcome”, and ONLY THEN is “eternal life”, “salvation”, “immortality”, given us on a permanent basis. We can “taste” eternal life, and “know” God a little bit, and “partake of His spirit”, BEFORE the Day of Judgment (Day of Atonement), but we don’t fully “inherit” eternal life and all that entails, UNTIL THEN (Feast of Tabernacles).
4 – This video of yours was made in 2016. Have you developed additional insights since then, or made an updated video on this subject, or is what you presented here basically the same as everything you believe and understand now?
I very much look forward to your feedback. I’m still “chewing”. Your video has been a great launching pad for further study. I have been aware of the deception of Paul for 4 or 5 years now, but having been indoctrinated with his ideas and his interpretation of God’s Word, which, like the Jesuits, his ideas have infiltrated everything, for 40 years before that, I am still slowly weeding out residual and perhaps unconscious ways of understanding that are his but are wrong. It’s a long process. Understanding the Atonement WITHOUT the influence of Paul, will give, I believe, a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of “the Atonement” than one which relies heavily on him. Thanks so much, and God Bless.
You’ll find this useful, Geri :
” How Did Jesus Fulfil the Law ” by Dr. Michael Brown ( Youtube : ‘ASKDrBROWN’ ).
Shalom.
To John –
Hey stranger. Do you want to continue any dialogue via email? I am very disappointed that Sean did not respond to my 2 posts directed specifically to him. Perhaps you read them and have a response, (since a lot of it probably addresses some of your last posted questions)? My email is gsnoke@triad.rr.com , but I totally understand if you are exhausted from our previous conversation and prefer to let it rest. (I am always game, however, for defending truth to those who seek truth.) Did you have opportunity to view the YT channel I mentioned last – “The Way, The Truth, and The Life”? She just put out a video yesterday which does a great job contrasting what Paul taught with what Jesus taught, – “Part 6, Paul False Apostle – Bema Seat Judgment Lie / Grace vs. Works”. I doubt I will be able to watch Michael Brown for very long, as we are not on the same page in many things, not just Pauline doctrine, but the Trinity doctrine he espouses as well. I’ll take a gander, but I’m pretty sure I already know where he is coming from and what he is going to say.
Hope you are well. Shalom to you too. 🙂