D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Freak.... you are pathetic little man.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And it is you Jaltus that have once again ducked the point and have quacked your way into further nonsensical oblivion. Your legalism is showing itself again... you have strained out the gnat of an untrue statement, and swallowed the camel of deception. You are absoluety incoherent on this issue.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
The King of Semantical Legalism strikes again. Questions in debates are routinely called challenges Jaltus. Nice way to fluff your post though. And yes your question was dumb....
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Fair warning everyone. Jaltus believes it is moral to purposely deceive someone as long as you use a true statement to do so. What a load of legalistic horse patookey.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Is that a sin??
bill betzler
New member
Hi Jerry,
It is possible that My original post was wrong when I said that Paul (I assumed the wise) obeyed James. In Gal 2 we read:
2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated
himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Now if Acts 21 comes before Gal 2 then I would say that Paul the Younger obeyed the church leadership of James because he was submitting to higher church authority. But later in Galatians Paul the Older realizes that the [Truth of the Gospel] is more important than the words of the church leadership of James. Hence he now stands up to Peter and James with the truth.
Therefore, no 'righteous lie' in Acts, but but a mistake that he corrects in Galatians, Paul is human.
bill
It is possible that My original post was wrong when I said that Paul (I assumed the wise) obeyed James. In Gal 2 we read:
2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated
himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Now if Acts 21 comes before Gal 2 then I would say that Paul the Younger obeyed the church leadership of James because he was submitting to higher church authority. But later in Galatians Paul the Older realizes that the [Truth of the Gospel] is more important than the words of the church leadership of James. Hence he now stands up to Peter and James with the truth.
Therefore, no 'righteous lie' in Acts, but but a mistake that he corrects in Galatians, Paul is human.
bill
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
I think that you will find that the events described at Gal.2 happened before the events described at Acts 21.
At Gal.2 we read that Peter "did eat with the Gentiles"(v.12),and we see this same event described as early as Acts11:2,3:
"And when Peter was come to Jerusalem,they who were of the circumcision contended with him,saying,Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,and didst eat with them."
So it still appears to me that Paul did in fact deceive the Jews in the church at Jerusalem,but like you said earlier,he had good reason for doing so.
In His grace,--Jerry
I think that you will find that the events described at Gal.2 happened before the events described at Acts 21.
At Gal.2 we read that Peter "did eat with the Gentiles"(v.12),and we see this same event described as early as Acts11:2,3:
"And when Peter was come to Jerusalem,they who were of the circumcision contended with him,saying,Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised,and didst eat with them."
So it still appears to me that Paul did in fact deceive the Jews in the church at Jerusalem,but like you said earlier,he had good reason for doing so.
In His grace,--Jerry
Last edited:
Oh, plan on arguing against my theology or just call it names?
After all, you say it is okay to lie without giving any real guidelines.
So, for you, it is ok to lie and wrong to lie, whereas I am CONSISTENT in that it is always wrong to tell untruth and never wrong to tell truth. How is that INTERNALLY inconsistent? It may not fit your unbiblical assertion of what a lie is, but it does fit quite snugly within my system and within the scriptural words used for lying, all of which require the meaning of untruth.
After all, you say it is okay to lie without giving any real guidelines.
So, for you, it is ok to lie and wrong to lie, whereas I am CONSISTENT in that it is always wrong to tell untruth and never wrong to tell truth. How is that INTERNALLY inconsistent? It may not fit your unbiblical assertion of what a lie is, but it does fit quite snugly within my system and within the scriptural words used for lying, all of which require the meaning of untruth.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jaltus:
I told you I was an overachiever.
Though you have me beat in the melodramatic exaggeration department. Just call it names Jaltus?? Really? Oh, I see... kind of like when you said...
And that is just from this page. I can play rough too. Rougher I daresay.
Untrue. One should tell you the truth unless there is a higher moral reason not to. It is not that complicated, and I have said this before. This is one reason why I refuse to go back through and cull through posts to prove to you I have answered something. If you don't want to believe I have, then fine.
I told you I was an overachiever.
Though you have me beat in the melodramatic exaggeration department. Just call it names Jaltus?? Really? Oh, I see... kind of like when you said...
And that is just from this page. I can play rough too. Rougher I daresay.
Untrue. One should tell you the truth unless there is a higher moral reason not to. It is not that complicated, and I have said this before. This is one reason why I refuse to go back through and cull through posts to prove to you I have answered something. If you don't want to believe I have, then fine.
bill betzler
New member
Jerry,
Acts 11:2,3 is the account of Peter and Cornelius in Joppa; in Gal 2 the rebuking of Peter by Paul is done in Antioch. So it still isn't established when in time the rebuking took place. Acts 11: may be all the incidents or may be one of many. We do not know. If you could establish when Peter and Paul were both in Antioch together that would be a great help.
This was a transitional period for the new church, James the brother of Jesus was more in charge than Peter because Peter obeyed him. James finds himself in charge of many Jewish Christians with no historical template to work with. Paul whose ministry is to the Gentiles doesn't have the Mosaic Law to contend with with his converts. What we have in the early church is two standards of christianity, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile.
You know that a divided house cannot stand so in time something had to give. History shows us that Paul wins out, but James is not excluded. Theology was in reality being formed during this period of time as was the structure of the new church. In this turmoil I am not willing to so easily accept that Paul was exemplifying a 'moral immoral' or as you say a 'righteous lie.' It is better for us to come to the conclusion that Paul was wrong rather than say he was justifying theological deception.
Acts 11:2,3 is the account of Peter and Cornelius in Joppa; in Gal 2 the rebuking of Peter by Paul is done in Antioch. So it still isn't established when in time the rebuking took place. Acts 11: may be all the incidents or may be one of many. We do not know. If you could establish when Peter and Paul were both in Antioch together that would be a great help.
This was a transitional period for the new church, James the brother of Jesus was more in charge than Peter because Peter obeyed him. James finds himself in charge of many Jewish Christians with no historical template to work with. Paul whose ministry is to the Gentiles doesn't have the Mosaic Law to contend with with his converts. What we have in the early church is two standards of christianity, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile.
You know that a divided house cannot stand so in time something had to give. History shows us that Paul wins out, but James is not excluded. Theology was in reality being formed during this period of time as was the structure of the new church. In this turmoil I am not willing to so easily accept that Paul was exemplifying a 'moral immoral' or as you say a 'righteous lie.' It is better for us to come to the conclusion that Paul was wrong rather than say he was justifying theological deception.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
From Acts 21 on until the very end of Acts there is not a time when Paul could have possibly gone to Antioch.And since Galatians was written during the Acts period,the only conclusion is that the events described in Gal.2 happened before the events described at Acts21.
And I believe that the following words of Paul are in reference to what happened at Acts21,and I also believe that this proves that he was in the right for what he did there:
"For though I am free from all men,yet have I made myself servant unto all,that I might gain the more.
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew,that I might gain the Jews;to them who are under the law,as under the law,not being myself under the law,that I might gain them who are under law"(1Cor.9:19,20).
Paul is saying that although he is a member of the Body of Christ (where there is neither Jew nor Gentile) he became a Jew again and took part again of the ordinances of the law,and he did so in order "to gain them who are under the law".
Therefore,I do not think that his action of "deceiving" those Jews at Jerusamen was an unrighteous act.
In His grace,--Jerry
From Acts 21 on until the very end of Acts there is not a time when Paul could have possibly gone to Antioch.And since Galatians was written during the Acts period,the only conclusion is that the events described in Gal.2 happened before the events described at Acts21.
And I believe that the following words of Paul are in reference to what happened at Acts21,and I also believe that this proves that he was in the right for what he did there:
"For though I am free from all men,yet have I made myself servant unto all,that I might gain the more.
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew,that I might gain the Jews;to them who are under the law,as under the law,not being myself under the law,that I might gain them who are under law"(1Cor.9:19,20).
Paul is saying that although he is a member of the Body of Christ (where there is neither Jew nor Gentile) he became a Jew again and took part again of the ordinances of the law,and he did so in order "to gain them who are under the law".
Therefore,I do not think that his action of "deceiving" those Jews at Jerusamen was an unrighteous act.
In His grace,--Jerry
Right, regarding God's "house rules" for salvation.
bill betzler
New member
Jerry,
I agree with your conclusion of Acts 21 coming after Gal 2 since after Acts 21 we see Pauls path to Rome.
Your next reasoning about Paul being all things to all people seems reasonable enough and very well could have referrred back to Acts 21, as also to unwriiten acts since not everything that he did is writen down for us.
The sticky point for me is still your 'righteous deception." If as you say, and I tend to agree, that Paul was all things to all people, why is it necessary to expain it as deception when you so easily expalined it as a viable technique? Was Jesus being deceptive when he explained more to His inner circle of apostles than He did to the rest of them? Was Jesus deceptive when he spoke in parables to some and explained them to only a few?
I agree with your conclusion of Acts 21 coming after Gal 2 since after Acts 21 we see Pauls path to Rome.
Your next reasoning about Paul being all things to all people seems reasonable enough and very well could have referrred back to Acts 21, as also to unwriiten acts since not everything that he did is writen down for us.
The sticky point for me is still your 'righteous deception." If as you say, and I tend to agree, that Paul was all things to all people, why is it necessary to expain it as deception when you so easily expalined it as a viable technique? Was Jesus being deceptive when he explained more to His inner circle of apostles than He did to the rest of them? Was Jesus deceptive when he spoke in parables to some and explained them to only a few?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
No,the Lord was not deceptive in the least because He told some of His disciples more than others.There is no deception in doing that.And the same can be said about the times when the Lord spoke in parables and only explained them to His Apostles.
But the case of Paul at Acts21 could not be described in any way but "deception".
Paul took part in ordinances under the law in order to demonstrate to the Jews,as James said,that Paul "keepest the law".
And at the time Paul took part in the law,he was teaching that "law" had been done away for all that believe:
"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believeth"(Ro.10:4).
In His grace,--Jerry
No,the Lord was not deceptive in the least because He told some of His disciples more than others.There is no deception in doing that.And the same can be said about the times when the Lord spoke in parables and only explained them to His Apostles.
But the case of Paul at Acts21 could not be described in any way but "deception".
Paul took part in ordinances under the law in order to demonstrate to the Jews,as James said,that Paul "keepest the law".
And at the time Paul took part in the law,he was teaching that "law" had been done away for all that believe:
"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to everyone who believeth"(Ro.10:4).
In His grace,--Jerry
bill betzler
New member
Jerry,
Paul didn't do anything in secret. Jew or Gentile could observe him so he wasn't being deceptive. He didn't lie to the Gentiles and the NT Jews were still in a transitional phase from Law to Grace. Jesus obeyed the whole law and He didn't say when to stop observing it.
Find the command in the scriptures that says when--observance of the Mosaic Law--was to be formally terminated. If you can't find it, then Paul did nothing deceptive.
Paul didn't do anything in secret. Jew or Gentile could observe him so he wasn't being deceptive. He didn't lie to the Gentiles and the NT Jews were still in a transitional phase from Law to Grace. Jesus obeyed the whole law and He didn't say when to stop observing it.
Find the command in the scriptures that says when--observance of the Mosaic Law--was to be formally terminated. If you can't find it, then Paul did nothing deceptive.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Bill,
The point is that James said that Paul would take part in an ordinance under the law sao that he could dispel the notion that Paul was not keeping the law anymore:
"Take them,and purify thyself with them...AND ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS,of which they were informed concerning thee ARE NOTHING,BUT THAT THOU...KEEPEST THE LAW"(Acts21:24).
So when Paul took part in the ordinance,he was in effect telling the Jews,the rumours you heard of me (see v.21) are not true,and I do keep the law.
But we know that at that time Paul was NOT keeping the law.
In His grace,--Jerry
The point is that James said that Paul would take part in an ordinance under the law sao that he could dispel the notion that Paul was not keeping the law anymore:
"Take them,and purify thyself with them...AND ALL MAY KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS,of which they were informed concerning thee ARE NOTHING,BUT THAT THOU...KEEPEST THE LAW"(Acts21:24).
So when Paul took part in the ordinance,he was in effect telling the Jews,the rumours you heard of me (see v.21) are not true,and I do keep the law.
But we know that at that time Paul was NOT keeping the law.
In His grace,--Jerry
bill betzler
New member
I agree, Jerry, Paul knowingly became part of James' plan of deception.
Congratulations!
bill
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Funny enough.. I don't agree it was any kind of deception. But I didn't think the point worth arguing since I wanted to see where you two would end up. So the question then Bill, taking your conclusion as true for the sake of argument (though I don't agree with it actually) were Paul and James immoral for that alleged deception?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Jaltus:
And thus again with your pedantic legalism. You have made unbiblical consistency your “idol.” So.. to repeat, by your own definition, you would have done nothing wrong in this scenario I posted before:
And before you go inquiring about how I was able to repost that, but I will not repost where I answered your questions, here is the reason. I have not saved all of my posts to you… but some points, which I knew would recur, I saved in a Word document. Also, the issue you keep saying I have not addressed, which I have, has its answer woven in and out of the context of the majority of my answers to you. It is the character of God that is presupposed in my answers. Thus, I am able to answer why some untruths are immoral and some are not.
By your own definition …. It would be wrong for me to tell my dog she was a cat. It would be wrong for a quarterback to purposely call a play the team had no intention of running. It would wrong for an actor for play a part in which he had to lie. In fact, acting in and of itself would be a lie. Your position leads to ridiculous results.
Now speaking more in general (meaning not necessarily directed towards you Jaltus), I understand that some people take great comfort in inviolable black and white rules that should be forced upon every situation. That takes all the work of ethical reasoning and responsibility off of our shoulders and we can just pay brute obedience to a rigid set of rules. Unfortunately that is simply not Biblical.
PS: I did rewrite this response to tone down some of the polemics.
And thus again with your pedantic legalism. You have made unbiblical consistency your “idol.” So.. to repeat, by your own definition, you would have done nothing wrong in this scenario I posted before:
And before you go inquiring about how I was able to repost that, but I will not repost where I answered your questions, here is the reason. I have not saved all of my posts to you… but some points, which I knew would recur, I saved in a Word document. Also, the issue you keep saying I have not addressed, which I have, has its answer woven in and out of the context of the majority of my answers to you. It is the character of God that is presupposed in my answers. Thus, I am able to answer why some untruths are immoral and some are not.
By your own definition …. It would be wrong for me to tell my dog she was a cat. It would be wrong for a quarterback to purposely call a play the team had no intention of running. It would wrong for an actor for play a part in which he had to lie. In fact, acting in and of itself would be a lie. Your position leads to ridiculous results.
Now speaking more in general (meaning not necessarily directed towards you Jaltus), I understand that some people take great comfort in inviolable black and white rules that should be forced upon every situation. That takes all the work of ethical reasoning and responsibility off of our shoulders and we can just pay brute obedience to a rigid set of rules. Unfortunately that is simply not Biblical.
PS: I did rewrite this response to tone down some of the polemics.