This is it Greenie? Is this the best you could come up with? It is a well known fact that Kings and Chronicles occationally give differing information for the same events. That the same would apply to Paul is no good reason for your mini-crusade against him.

Vaster,

Did you look up the text? Find any authority whom you choose who would say that there is an error in the reckoning of it. It is one of the most accurate statements of time given in the Old Testament. Listen to it.



I believe God gave us this record for a reason. And it is accurate down to the month.

I did not set myself up to correct errors in the Bible. But neither do I turn a blind eye to the details that come to my attention, and just assume that two completely incongruous statements are somehow congruous just the same. One does not need to throw out all reason in order to believe the Bible. I agree with all of you here that one must not elevate one's own reason above the Bible, but God expects us to use reason nonetheless. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 1:18).

Have I offered to "correct" any of the Bible here in this thread? Have I not rather pointed out some differences? If agreeing with the Bible in one place to the exclusion of another reference is "correcting" the Bible, then I would humbly ask any of you to show me how best I should understand these "problem texts" so that they are no longer a problem. Can you match them up to make them say the same thing? If so, I would be happy to be enlightened.

And let me be clear here. It is not fair to say that I am crusading against Paul. Such is not an accurate portrayal. What I am trying to communicate is that Paul's writings are perhaps the most frequently misunderstood, and that one must exercise caution in interpreting them. They are not, in Paul's words, "milk" but rather "meat." They are not easy to understand, but neither are they impossible. They can be understood. But they are in places on a similar level to Daniel and Revelation, all the while appearing deceptively easy to understand...thus leading many to adopt incorrect conclusions as to their intent.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Giving advice on how to best understand the problem texts is difficult as long as you refrain from sharing which texts those are.

That a text is difficult to understand is much different from saying that it is a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or claim "clear contradiction" for it, just to reference one of your recent posts to this thread.

Indeed it is difficult. However, as we have already seen, pointing out the texts can be offensive to some people. Teresa would not believe me without the evidence and essentially demanded it. Once presented the evidence, however, she was completely offended by it, and I feel bad about it. I had tried to speak in very general terms without the details for this reason. And for this same reason, I will not give any further details here. There are other contradictions in the Bible. I will not here go into them.

Regarding the phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul," it was a poor attempt at some mild humor, while still making a legitimate point. Your English is quite good, but as there are several non-native speakers of English participating here, and someone may misunderstand, let me explain the idiom. To "rob Peter to pay Paul" is a common expression in English which does not actually mean that one should steal anything. It is used to express the idea that a person may borrow a problem from a new source in order to cover a current problem. It can be used to buy time, or to simply shift the problem around from one place to another, without actually solving the original problem.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

my brother, you are not the first one i have come across who "criticizes" paul. there is a whole forum dedicated to eradicating paul from the bible. there are a few on another forum who are also saying similar things you are saying. all have the same tactics.



my brother, because you have not worked out your issues in regard to this you are placing doubt in others minds regarding the scriptures. your statements are very plain even tho you are trying to downplay them now.

it would be bad enough if a member started this but for a moderator of this board....you need to work out your problems with paul in a different manner. this could very well be the downfall of the ungrounded and unstable.

i do hope this ends now. perhaps you would like to start a thread where others could help with the perceived difficulties in pauls writings. i personally do not see where "Paul has undermined the law".

Teresa,

Consider these verses:



Compare Paul's "faulty" covenant that "is ready to vanish away" with Ellen White's words here:



Of course, I do not believe Paul meant to say what he appears to say. However, most Adventists today believe the appearance of what he is saying, and do not study carefully. Many non-Adventist Christians reject the entire "Old Testament" over these words and similar by Paul. In this, he has inadvertently undermined the law, in my opinion.

And yes, we have even had discussions about the validity of, for example, the book of Leviticus within Adventist circles.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ellen would turn in her grave were she to know that her texts were used to trump Paul..

Greenie, you may IM your list of contradictions to me. Then we have something to work with.

No. Ellen White is not trumping Paul. She is explaining his meaning. There is no contradiction in this instance, only an apparent one, as I tried to make clear in the above post.

Do you see the "Old Covenant" as having been done away? If so, upon what basis? The texts I quoted above?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In my view, Hebrews is in full agreement and in the tradition of Isaiah in the verses you quoted. If you find reason to take issue with Hebrews, you may also do the same with this OT prophet.

Hello, friends

I hadn't come to this forum for a while and didn't know about these latter discussions.

Well, I think that, first of all, Mr. Ratzlaff doesn't say that Paul conflicts with Jesus. So, whoever says that is in agreement with him about that missed the point totally. What he says is that certain SDA's would imply that, for not understanding Paul's writings and the role of the law (for which he is willing to help these poor confused souls to understand things better with his "new alliance" theology).

Also, Peter said that Paul wrote some few things hard to understand that would be distorted by some (then he employs some bad adjectives to label these), saying that the end of such people would be terrible (see 2Pet. 3:19-21).

I tried to put into perspective what Paul says regarding law and grace, faith and works, justification and sanctification. One problem I notice in his writings that is often misunderstood by many, is his dealing with local problems and issuing counsels and guidance that only apply to that specific situation, but that is taken as of universal value. This is typical of how Romans 14 and Colossians 2 are interpreted.

There is a large Evangelical denomination in Brazil where women are forced to wear a veil on their head in the church, cannot ever speak in public, and them all practice the holy kiss at the end of their services (both men and women, within their gender). They take some words by Paul that refer to culturally related matters as universal principles.

That could be an "innocent" and irrelevant point, but they have these customs as a kind of mark that defines them as the true followers of all that the Bible ordains, while all the others neglect these "inspired instructions". That is what happens when local is mistaken for universal, among other distortions.

The "under the law" phrase, for example, has different meanings, for Jesus was born "under the law" (Gal. 4:4), which doesn't mean he was under sin. . . In that specific case, it means, under the regimen of the integral law of Israel.

But in Gal. 5:16-18 we have a clear constrast between those who are "under the law" and the ones guided by the Spirit. The latter are those who produce the "fruit of the Spirit" (vs. 18), while the first are the ones who commit all those sins listed in vs. 19-21.

Also, there is the rethorical use of certain key words, as "law" in Rom. 7. Since he is speaking about "law", he uses that word to apply to the principle of sin itself ("the law of sin") and the positive desire of his heart to be in harmony with God ("the law of my mind"). Are there all these different types of law?! Now, he simply uses the term "law" as a play on words, and that is what many people can't understand, mostly due to their preconceived ideas, especially when they want having Paul as their ally in the cause of teaching the end of the Sabbath commandment of a supposedly abolished law (although nine out the ten continue intact despite the total "abolition" of said law. . .).

Well, see if my attempt to harmonize Paul's statement on God's law and God's grace makes sense, after all...