Did anybody refute A. Victor Garaffa article on Paul?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Dor

Actually belief and trust in Jesus was very important part of his teachings.

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I was not supplying a list of souls that I place Faith in. If I were, per the teaching of Jesus: God (swt) should always be first:
1: God (swt)
2: the Faithful: Jesus (pbuh), any prophet or messenger, my commitments with people, any stranger that asks me for help.
3: Give to charity... approach anyone, especially enemies and people in need and ask them, "Is there anything I can do?"

So that is my list for Faith. The original list was my order for obtaining information to sort out the teaching that came from Jesus (pbuh). It may have been Gods (swt) word, but Jesus (pbuh) defined Christianity. But every soul that touches a piece of information can alter it.

The problem I see here, everywhere for that matter, is a large misunderstanding of the difference between Faith (believe, trust, works), and information, (communication, knowledge, truth). The word 'believe' you've quoted from comes from a word that is closer to 'Faith'. History has reduced Faith to a 'belief' or an emotion like 'trust'. But a belief is considered believing a piece of information, whereas Faith means to place your power in the will of another. 'Trust' requires communication for there is nothing to trust if you see nothing, but 'Faith' further requires doing per the will of a soul. So that is the confusion in my opinion.

So what is a Christian? From the book of John you quoted from:
John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, IF you continue in my word, THEN are you my disciples indeed. And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.

So I see a clear IF / THEN statement between the same "believe / trust" and "disciple", and it is following the entire teaching from Jesus that defines it. A Christian is a disciple... following the teaching replaces the word 'should' in the verse that you quoted from.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, InLove!
It sure is great to have you back around!

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi juantoo3 and all--

I don't want to detract from cyberpi's questions, juan, so be sure and scroll back. I am only jumping in real quick-like to say thanks for the heads up link to the other thread. I guess I missed the conversation when I was away. I've been playing catch up ever since.

InLove, be assured you were in the back of my thoughts as I wrote my responses to Victor. I have had that gauntlet laid before me on three different occasions by various people. When it was laid before me by Victor himself, I just *had to* rise to the occasion. I kept it low key, discrete and polite. I feel our conversation was a model for a proper interfaith dialogue where the two parties have opposing views.

(I would have posted this on the other thread, but the discussion there has evolved a bit in subject matter, so I decided to say something here instead.)

Noticed that, did you? None of the follow up responses even touched the subject raised between Victor and I, almost like a live wire or third rail.

I am so happy you are back here with us, InLove. Please jump in with your two cents anytime. You are more than welcome to do so.

[juantoo3]

Does anybody think maybe I should collect the conversation with Victor and myself into it's own thread to make it easier to find?

[flowperson]

Yup !

flow....

[Dor]

Yep. I think it would be good.

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I would also like to note that, with the exception of Mr. Garaffa, most who present with the purpose of discrediting Paul and tearing down the structure of Christianity have not at any time in this forum presented any description of what they believe Christianity should look like. In other words, typically people who take Paul to task are great at demolition, and are exceptionally wanting in construction skills. Anybody can cast a stone, it takes a master to build stones one on another into an edifice, be it fortress or cathedral.

I think that if you examine the 497 pages written by Douglas Del Tondo in his book "Jesus' Words Only", you will find scholarly criticism of Paul that rivals or exceeds that of Victor's work. And like Victor's book, Del Tondo's book is also available free online. And then some of you will be persuaded to either accept or reject the doctrine of Paul. With Paul removed from the NT, we still have the words of Jesus as recorded by his apostles and disciples, but Paul and Luke were never disciples or apostles of Jesus. They never even met Him.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

I think that if you examine the 497 pages written by Douglas Del Tondo in his book "Jesus' Words Only", you will find scholarly criticism of Paul that rivals or exceeds that of Victor's work. And like Victor's book, Del Tondo's book is also available free online. And then some of you will be persuaded to either accept or reject the doctrine of Paul. With Paul removed from the NT, we still have the words of Jesus as recorded by his apostles and disciples, but Paul and Luke were never disciples or apostles of Jesus. They never even met Him.

Except for one tiny issue. A man's opinion vs. the Word of God...lol

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Except for one tiny issue. A man's opinion vs. the Word of God...lol

Unless you can prove our Bibles were published in Heaven and there is but one untampered original rather than a myriad of variant copies of variant copies, it is only the opinion of mere men that every book in the Bible is the Word of God.

Moreover the discovery of forgeries such as the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 and the "periocope adulterae" in John 8 show that unlawful additions have been added to the supposedly "inerrant" Bible.

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Unless you can prove our Bibles were published in Heaven and there is but one untampered original rather than a myriad of variant copies of variant copies, it is only the opinion of mere men that every book in the Bible is the Word of God.

Moreover the discovery of forgeries such as the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 and the "periocope adulterae" in John 8 show that unlawful additions have been added to the supposedly "inerrant" Bible.

Hi Excaliburton--

I am thinking that if you really want to convince us that Paul does not belong in the New Testament, you may have to do a complete in-depth analysis of the Old Testament, as well. Now, I know you have spent a great deal of time on the Pauline issue, specifically, and I know it will take a long time to properly support your theory in a scholarly manner with the complete and original texts of the Hebrews, but maybe this is what you should do. What do you think?

InPeace,
InLove

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

I think that if you examine the 497 pages written by Douglas Del Tondo in his book "Jesus' Words Only", you will find scholarly criticism of Paul that rivals or exceeds that of Victor's work. And like Victor's book, Del Tondo's book is also available free online. And then some of you will be persuaded to either accept or reject the doctrine of Paul. With Paul removed from the NT, we still have the words of Jesus as recorded by his apostles and disciples, but Paul and Luke were never disciples or apostles of Jesus. They never even met Him.

Good to know. Frankly, I was amazed to see Victor's work referred to as a Thesis and listed in the Christianity section of this web-site. Sign of the times I guess. I'm not wasting much time on it.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Paul and Luke were never disciples or apostles of Jesus. They never even met Him.

If that is the criteria for exclusion, who else can we dismiss? Hmmm, Jude perhaps? James was not ever officially listed in the Gospels as a disciple or apostle, although tradition is that he was the "blood" brother of Jesus. John Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark was not a disciple. There are scholars that hint that the Matthew who wrote the Gospel is not the same Matthew...

See where I am going?

John was punk kid, what did he know?

Peter was a hot headed wishy-washy jerk.

Hmmm, what does that leave us? Anything?

None of the books of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of Jesus, so they *all* must be fabrications...

So, how about the Old Testament *only?* Oh yeah, that's Judaism.

Oooops, don't get started with redaction theory and all of those books that were merged (especially around Bananabrain!).

Hmmm, while we're in demolition mode, how many other religious texts can we destroy???

[Quahom1]

Well, if Paul is to be removed from the Bible, then over half the New Testament (Protestant/Catholic) would be gone (based on number of pages), as Paul is attributed to 13 of the books (14 if you count Hebrews).

Also, as opposed to prophecy, or story telling, the moral and spiritual couselling of Paul's Epistles (the bedrock of basic Christian behavoir), would not exist.

However I fail to see why anyone would want to remove that which helps guide us in proper/Godly behavior, or insist that his words to the same are lies...

I mean, since when is adhering to common sense and moral turpidude, decietful?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Unless you can prove our Bibles were published in Heaven and there is but one untampered original rather than a myriad of variant copies of variant copies, it is only the opinion of mere men that every book in the Bible is the Word of God.

OK. So, we need to return to the "original" Bible then? As I recall the story, the oldest known complete set of manuscripts only dates to around 400 AD. The Textus Receptus, it is housed in the British Museum, and it is the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee text used by the committee that King James assembled in the early 1600's. Now, there are fragmentary pieces of various books, such as the complete book of Isaiah found with the Qumran scrolls. And, if I heard correctly, there is no difference textually between the Qumran Isaiah scroll and the Textus Receptus, even though they are dated 500 years apart. Now, I will concede, as the authors did, that certain literary concessions were made to make the text flow linguistically in Elizabethan English, but the KJV is about as close as an English reader is going to get to an "inerrant" text. Now, if one reads Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Chaldee, one may have a little more to go on in this regard.

Moreover the discovery of forgeries such as the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 and the "periocope adulterae" in John 8 show that unlawful additions have been added to the supposedly "inerrant" Bible.

Well, OK. So, you've convinced me, we basically gut the whole New Testament. What do we have left? What do I do? Where do I begin? (I am being facetious, but I really am trying to be so in a good way) What is there of value? How do I walk my walk? What am I to believe *in,* rather than do without?

[Excaliburton]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

OK. So, we need to return to the "original" Bible then? As I recall the story, the oldest known complete set of manuscripts only dates to around 400 AD. The Textus Receptus, it is housed in the British Museum, and it is the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee text used by the committee that King James assembled in the early 1600's. Now, there are fragmentary pieces of various books, such as the complete book of Isaiah found with the Qumran scrolls. And, if I heard correctly, there is no difference textually between the Qumran Isaiah scroll and the Textus Receptus, even though they are dated 500 years apart. Now, I will concede, as the authors did, that certain literary concessions were made to make the text flow linguistically in Elizabethan English, but the KJV is about as close as an English reader is going to get to an "inerrant" text. Now, if one reads Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Chaldee, one may have a little more to go on in this regard.


Well, OK. So, you've convinced me, we basically gut the whole New Testament. What do we have left? What do I do? Where do I begin? (I am being facetious, but I really am trying to be so in a good way) What is there of value? How do I walk my walk? What am I to believe *in,* rather than do without?

Gut the whole New Testament!? I never said that. You are using a "straw man" argument against me. But we do need to use the technique called textual criticism to find the original words of the New Testament.

The Old Testament was more reliable and less edited, as we can see by the close similarity to the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran and the KJV version.

The reason why the NT is less reliable is because it was written in an age when many different factions were contesting the "correct" Christian dogma, and today scholars are a widespread agreement that the gospels were edited (changed or redacted) at least 5 times.

I suggest everybody read a primer book on textual criticism from an author of your choice. Bart Ehrman recently wrote a good book called "Misquoting Jesus", but I think he goes too far and throws out the baby with the bath water, but there must be other books written by more mainstream authors as well to show you that even the Textus Recepticus is far from the original autographs.

In the meantime, I suggest you check the translator notes that are available at www.netbible.org and you will see there are many important variations between texts of the NT that have been ignored by bible publishers for the sake of tradition (and maintenance of the "faith").

Here is one example variant from www.netbible.org among hundreds of variants in the "established" NT:

Translator notes - 1 John 5:7-8 regarding the existence of the Trinity:

27tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

Originally Posted by Excaliburton

Gut the whole New Testament!? I never said that. You are using a "straw man" argument against me.

Thank you for your post.

No, I am not using a "straw man" if I have shown, several times, where the thinking used to dismiss Paul can as easily be used to dismiss the other writers of the New Testament. Depending which scholars you prefer, I have heard an assortment of pot shots that combined effectively destroy the New Testament. So, my arguments are hardly "straw man," even if they are based on a much simpler logic. I fail to see how one can "pick and choose" which "words of Jesus" (that He didn't write) are valid, and which are not. To dimantle one book or writer by a set of rules means applying the same set of rules to the other books and writers, with which they invariably fail too.

And, interestingly, the "problem" doesn't stop there. When applied to other religious texts, the same "rules" destroy them as well. Not strawmanning, simply carrying the rules to their natural end conclusion. Why pretend to be religious, why not be atheist? That is the natural end conclusion...it is simply a matter of time and application.

But we do need to use the technique called textual criticism to find the original words of the New Testament.

You might. I realize a great deal of scholarship does. I do *not* need to use anything of the sort. I can, and am prone to do, listen to the words with my heart instead of my head, and find what good is in them for my edification and uplifting.

The Old Testament was more reliable and less edited, as we can see by the close similarity to the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran and the KJV version.

There are textual critics who would argue this until the sun stopped rising. Just ask BobX, the next time he's around, or read his redaction theory thesis (to which Bananabrain wrote a scathing reply).

The reason why the NT is less reliable is because it was written in an age when many different factions were contesting the "correct" Christian dogma, and today scholars are a widespread agreement that the gospels were edited (changed or redacted) at least 5 times.

This may be the reason you prefer. Applied to the Old Testament, the same can be said, look at BobX's thesis. So, we return to which scholars you prefer...(strawman? Nah...)

the Textus Recepticus is far from the original autographs.

367 years plus or minus from the time of the execution of Jesus, I suppose one could say that there was plenty of time to doctor the scripts. Of course, who gets to pick and choose which scripts were doctored and which were not? A scholar with a reputation to make, or an axe to grind...?

I suggest you check the translator notes

Likewise, may I suggest you read the translator notes in the 1611 King James. The committee of scholarly men that translated the Textus Receptus wrote a letter to the King, and one to the people. Very worthwhile reading, I might add, straight from the "English" horse's mouths.

among hundreds of variants in the "established" NT:

Interesting thing about variants...how many were found in the "trash dumps" of monasteries. Much like the Jewish scribes, Monk scribes held the texts as sacred. If those texts were transcribed with an accidental error, it was removed from service, yet it couldn't be destroyed in any vulgar way (out of respect for G-d's Word), so these erroneous texts were laid aside. Only to be found by later scholarship to argue over...

To wit:

27tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

The Textus Receptus dates from around 400 AD. Anything dated after that cannot be used to correct it. Further, the Qumran Isaiah scroll demonstrates the integrity of *at least* that book, if no other. We have no extant NT texts earlier than the Textus Receptus with which to guage. Comparing with still later texts is an exercise in futility...so why bother? Unless the point is the undermining and obliteration of the NT.

The *actual* words of Jesus will not be known in this existence. For all any of us, scholarly or not, can do is accept on faith, or dismiss by whatever reasons seem suitable to our mentalities. There is no guarantee, other than our individual experiences with the Divine through what we hope are the messages of the man we know as Jesus. We accept and apply, and see what happens. I am not so superstitious as scribal Monks, but I would still tread with caution and treat the Word of G-d with respect, even if it turns out there is no G-d and the words are a complete hoax and sham. Call it a variation of Pascal's wager if you prefer, but I find a peace and solace in my life when guided by the Words, that is not there without. Quibble if you wish, nibble away, chip away at the stone until a hopelessly top heavy house of cards is ready to topple...best in my opinion to walk away and not waste the effort. Apply the effort to something more worthwhile, like fishing maybe? You may undermine your own faith, you may convince others to join you in your efforts. I have already looked at this, not much, but enough to know where it leads. Where it leads is *not* the words of Jesus, or even Yashua. The *exact* same tools used to "expose" those words *attributed* to Him, are the exact same tools used to destroy His words and the meaning and hope and faith and love and charity behind them.

My thoughts. Do with them as you wish.