Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Re:  637.0

Hi Derek,

  >Unlike some noters here, I do not hold the Bible for the inerrant
  >Word of God 

Congratulations!  This puts you squarely with the majority, both in this
conference and in the world.  But consider that the gate is narrow...  :-)

  >...and, as such, immune from serious questioning. 

Oh, the Bible is very worthy of serious questioning.  Don't be fooled
by those of us who have come to the conclusion that it is to be trusted.
I have spent years seriously questioning the Bible.

Most of my serious questions, however, are no longer about the validity
of what it says, but rather its meaning and applicability.

  >The writer feels such a love for God that he feels compelled to
  >articulate this love by writing it down.

I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to believe it means what it 
says.  :-)

  >Gal. 3:10 (KJV)
  >For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:
  >for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all
  >things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

  >If one reads the whole of Deut. 27, it is absolutely clear that:

  >- *this law* refers only to the 11 points listed in the pre-
  >  ceding verses, whereas Paul extends this to the full work of
  >  law. [This is contrary to (for example) Eccl. 7:20 For there
  >  is not a just man on earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not].

I agree with you that Deut. 27:26 refers to the points listed.  I
also agree with you that Paul extends this usage (if indeed this is
the best reference which for the quote which I assume it is) to the
full work of the law.

Now, there are several possible conclusions you can arrive at based
on these facts.

 - Paul misused the Old Testament
 - Paul expanded on an Old Testament quote with an Old Testament
   principle
 - Paul summed up Old Testament teaching
 - Deut 27:26 may be able to be interpreted in a more flexible way
   that we have interpreted it in our translated Bibles
 - other (a few minutes of thinking hardly does justice to all the
   possibilities)

Keep in mind that it is totally inappropriate to apply 20th century
quote standards to a 1st century reference.  You need to base any
conclusions on the acceptability or lack thereof of the quote on the
standards that were prevalent in the 1st century - standards which
we consider quite lax today.

  >- The curse of Deut. 27 is voiced by Moses and the commands
  >come from him. My reading of Paul leads me to think that the
  >curse is God's.

Exactly!!!  You will find this not infrequently in the Scriptures.  Moses'
words/writings are equated with God's words/writings.  The obvious
assumption is that Moses' commands are God's commands.  Perhaps you wish
to believe this is another example of Paul being carried away.  Again,
I prefer to believe it means what it says (or in this case, implies).
	
  >Gal. 3:13 (KJV)
  >Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made
  >a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
  >hangeth on a tree:

  >His written source is clearly Deut 21:23 
  >His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt
  >in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed
  >of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God
  >giveth thee for an inheritance. The part in () is rendered in
  >Hebrew as: Killelath hashem talui which is better rendered as:
  >One left to hang on a tree is like unto an insult of God.

  >In clear text: God made man in his image. It is an insult to God
  >to leave a man hanging. Hebrew tradition - as far as I am -
  >sees it this way, too.

  >Paul is appearing to say that, because Jesus died on the cross
  >(read *tree*) he nullified the curse of God by taking it upon
  >himself: a curse which was never intended.

I read this as saying that Jesus was cursed since he was hung on
a tree.  The curse Jesus took upon Himself is the curse referred
to in verse 10 (All who rely on observing the law are under a
curse).  Why?  Because none of us are perfect, we fail and we are
therefore under God's curse.  Well, Jesus was perfect.  How is our
curse transferred to Jesus?  Paul explains that this was accomplished
by hanging (crucifying) Jesus on a tree (cross).  The curse that
he receives is not a curse for what He has done, but God curses Him
with the curse that is due *us*.  This theme is repeated many times
throughout the New Testament and is the basis for the Gospel - that
Jesus died for our sins and took the punishment (curse) for them on
the cross.  Paul, here, is explaining in a more technical sense why 
God is "justified" in cursing Jesus.  At least, that's how I interpret 
it.
	
  >Where are these outpourings of Paul written? I can imagine that
  >our Jewish brothers take great exception to these words which
  >have no foundation in either the Hebrew texts or in Jewish/Hebrew
  >tradition.

Indeed, many Jews take great exception to Jesus Christ.  As I Cor 1
points out, Jesus is a "stumbling block" to Jews.  I expect Paul,
a man chosen by God to evangelize the Gentiles, would be the same.

In terms of your claim that these words having no foundation, I think
I have shown a foundation for the issues you mentioned.  I also believe
that Paul, who many consider the best of the best in his time (perhaps 
of all time) in his training as a Rabbi, is a person whose knowledge and
reasoning should not be questioned lightly (not even taking into
account his claim of Scripture being God-breathed which you freely
admit you ignore).

Collis

Re: .1 Collis

>Keep in mind that it is totally inappropriate to apply 20th century
>quote standards to a 1st century reference.  You need to base any
>conclusions on the acceptability or lack thereof of the quote on the
>standards that were prevalent in the 1st century - standards which
>we consider quite lax today.

Do you mean that the Bible is only inerrent by 1st century standards and
not by 20th century standards? :-)

				-- Bob

    ooo, Bob...harsh...
    
    8-)

Re:  .2

  >Do you mean that the Bible is only inerrent by 1st century standards and
  >not by 20th century standards? :-)

Some might phrase it that way.  :-)

Collis

    
    
    When all is said and done, 1st century standards are what count!!
    
    -Jack

Collis,

Would you say, then, that when God breathed the Bible he was rather lax
when it came to things like earlier scriptures, at least by 20th century
standards?

				-- Bob

This gets into some speculation on my part, but I think
it is reasonable speculation.

Exactly what the mix of God and human author in Scripture
is not clear.  I expect that in the parts where God is
quoted, that God did indeed say essentially what was
written (perhaps exactly, but we get back to what the
acceptable quoting standards were at that time where
paraphrasing was acceptable).

I guess what I would say is that God brough to mind in
the human author what He wanted said and kept the author
from error without dictating what to write.  This still
happens today in various forms.  For example, the musical
we are singing tonight and Sunday (The Victor) has a
message from the author/compiler (redactor if you prefer :-) )
David Clydesdale that it took a total of 19 days from
the day he started working on it until it was totally
done including having it fully written (all existing
songs, I believe) arranged, choreographed, interludes
written (probably not existing), performed and taped.
That, to me, is incredible.  It's taken our choir and those
in the drama 6 weeks of rehearsal to prepare for this
(obviously only practicing once or twice a week) which
is over twice as long as orginal conception to fully
completed work.  David Clydesdale and I both see God
in that work.

Another story involves a non-Christian who was commissioned
to paint some scenes with Jesus in them (about 7 of them,
I think).  He reports that he always waited until the end
of each picture to paint Jesus' face since he didn't feel
that he could do it appropriately - but when the rest of the
picture was painted, he felt inspired and painted Jesus'
face quickly and without hesitation.  He is convinced that
God led him in his work and I believe that God did.

So, when it comes to standards of quoting, I expect that the
original authors did what was reasonable and correct for them
at the time while God kept them from errors according to what
was considered an error by God.  My own take on this is that
we should judge the correctness of the writing taking into
account what was considered "correct" as opposed to "incorrect"
at the time.  Despite the heavily ingrained belief that we have
today that quoting should be word for word (in context, as well!),
it is not clear that this is the best standard - especially
when truth is not a concern (since it is all truth!)

After all this rambling, I hope I answered your question.

Collis

Yes, you've answered my question, Collis.  I'm happy to see that you don't
hold to the extreme view that every single word in the Bible is inspired
by God.  There's hope for you yet. :-)

Now that you've conceded that the authors of the Bible weren't 100% accurate
when it came to quoting scripture, would you also concede that the authors
may have been expressing their personal opinions when it came to issues
like the role of women in the church?

				-- Bob

  >I'm happy to see that you don't hold to the extreme view 
  >that every single word in the Bible is inspired by God.

But I do.  Sorry for the confusion.  Jesus makes quite clear
that even the slightest stroke of the pen was God-ordained.
Perhaps there's a slight distinction there.
 
  >Now that you've conceded that the authors of the Bible 
  >weren't 100% accurate when it came to quoting scripture

Oh, but they were - and they weren't.  The problem is that the 
definition of 100% accurate has changed.  :-)  Perhaps you
mean to say that I admit that the quotes are not literal
letter for letter quotes.  Indeed, I freely admit that.  However,
accuracy is another matter altogether (for the 1st century
writers). 

  >...would you also concede that the authors may have been 
  >expressing their personal opinions when it came to issues
  >like the role of women in the church?

Of course they were.  Well, maybe they weren't, but I assume
they were.  It's interesting to note that we get our opinions
about Paul from God's writing - which may have been different
than Paul's opinions.  :-)  Of course, it's hard to determine
when that's all we have to go on...

Equally, of course, these opinions were free from any error
(since the Holy Spirit kept them from error as He breathed
out these ideas and or words into the author's mind).  :-)

Collis

Collis,

You must be a prime candidate for being a senior manager, according to the
definition I heard from one of my former managers: a senior manager is
capable of holding two contradictory ideas in his head at the same time,
and firmly believing in them both!

				-- Bob

    re:              <<< Note 637.10 by GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >>>
                                    -< ;-) >-
    
>capable of holding two contradictory ideas in his head at the same time,
>and firmly believing in them both!
    
    I can think of a bunch: God's holiness vs his mercy, Christ being
    absolutely God and absolutely man, our miserable wretchedness as
    sinners and our exaltation above all other creation, or our
    wretchedness as sinners and God's love for us.
    
    8-)
    
    

Indeed, I can see why you (or anyone) could read what
I have said as contradictory.

I will confess again that I do not have the exact meaning
and ramifications of "God-breathed" pinned down.  This is
why you get fluctuating definitions and ramifications of
this.  I'm sorry to report that I don't think I'm about to
fully resolve this any time soon.

Generalities I can deal with consistently.  Specifics in an
area which is not very well defined will lead to the type
of responses you have seen.

I apologize and ask for your understanding of this dilemna.

Collis

OK, Collis.  Just trying to help you along in your search for Truth. :-)

				-- Bob

    "Jesus makes quite clear that even the slightest stroke of the pen
    was God-ordained."
    
    Could you please give me the book/chapter/verse(s) for this?  Thank
    you.
    
    						Ann B.

Re:  .14

Matthew 5:17-20

  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
  Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill
  them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
  not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will
  by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
  accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these
  commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
  least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches
  these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For
  I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
  Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not
  enter the kingdom of heaven."

This is the starting point.

Collis

    re .15

    Matthew 12:1-9 (Jerusalem Bible)

    "At that time Jesus took a walk one sabbath day through the cornfields. 
    His disciples were hungry and began to pick ears of corn and eat them. 
    The Pharisees noticed it and said to him, "Look, your disciples are
    doing something that is forbidden on the sabbath."  But he said to
    them,  "Have you not read what David did when he and his followers were
    hungry--how he went into the house of God and how they ate the loaves
    of offering which neither he nor his followers were allowed to eat, but
    which were for the priests alone?  Or again, have you not read in the
    Law that on the sabbath day the Temple priests break the sabbath
    without being blamed for it?  Now here, I tell you, is something
    greater than the Temple.  And if you had understood the meaning of the
    words: 'What I want is mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have
    condemned the blameless.  For the Son of Man is master of the
    sabbath."

	Amazing!

	16 replies on line and only one directly addresses the base
	note: the rest fell into the hole dug by Collis. I also see
	his response spawned note 47.22 ff which, in turn, *seems*
	to have spawned 639.

	I have a few off-line replies also which are more to the point.

	Collis:

	>Congratulations, this puts you squarely with the majority...

	Your sarcasm is out of place! If It was intended as homour,
	(note 47.25), it boomed and samcks of sarcasm.

	Further: In response to my interpretation of the (in)famous
	"God-breathed" clause (that the writer [of biblical texts] feels
	such a love for God that he feels compelled to articulate it by
	writing it down, you responded:

	>I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to believe it means what
	>it says. :-)  and, later:

	>(not even taking into account his claim of Scripture being God-
	>breathed which you freely admit you ignore).

	In principle, I can forgive anything provided that I can be sure
	that there is no ulterior motive involved. Thus, you may be sure
	of my forgib'veness for your choice of interpretation of the
	"God-breathed" sentence.

	However, I feel quite differently about- what can only be - a
	deliberate misrepresentation of my words. (I can only draw the
	"deliberate" conclusion after reading your notes on scholarship
	in which you advocated careful reading and a logical consideration
	of the evidence) I did NOT, neither freely nor inadvertantly,
	say or imply that I ignore the "God-breathed" assertion by Paul.
	
	What I did do is make very clear how I understand this assertion.
	That we differ is ok. I feel that I see it as it is written. You
	see it otherwise. OK! OK! I forgive you for that. But not for
	misrepresenting me.

	I have trouble reconciling your attitude. On the one hand, you
	do not approve of my (others) seeing this sentence differently
	than you - that much is clear. On the other hand, in your own
	words:
	
	>Most of my serious questions, however, are no longer about the
	>validity of whit it [the bible] says, but rather its meaning
	>and applicability.

	...which I understand to say that you may interpret the text in
	a way such that you can apply it to your life. Fine, if that's
	what you mean, that's ok with me: provided you allow me the same
	license.

	BTW: Most of the scrripture writers are no longer with us so we
	can only interpret their writings. I, however, am still here. If
	you want to know what I meant when I wrote this or that, feel
	free to ask.

	To the base note:  First! Thanks for responding. My comments:

	>I agree with you that Deut. 27:26 refers to the points listed.
	>I also agree that Paul extends this usage (if indeed...) to the
	>full work of the law.
	>Now there are several possible conclusions you can arrive at
	>based on these facts.
	> - Paul misused the Old Testament

	This is the conclusion of Pinchas Lapide - with which I concur.
	Paul wrote "for it is written..." This is patently untrue and
	constitutes, therefore, misuse. Lapide, and most scholars of
	the subject, do not rely on KJV/AV/NIV etc. but on the Hebrew
	texts. His - my - point is that our translations misrepresent
	the facts. QED

	> - Deut. 27:26 may be able to be interpreted in a more flexible
	>   way than we have interpreted it in our translated Bibles
	
	Of course! There are also those who see the Song of Songs as an
	allegory for the supremacy of the mother church and yet other
	who see it as another eschatological mystery. That it just might
	be an erotic poem is foriegn to such interpreters.

	> - other (...)

	Just keep searching, Collis. Maybe you will find an *other* which
	reconciles Paul's words (for it is written) with that which is 
	really written. I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to believe
	it means what it says.  :-)

	>Exactly!!! Moses' words/writings are equated with God's words/
	>writings [sic]. The obvious assumption is that Moses' commands
	>are God's commands. Perhaps you wish to believe thais is another
	>example of Paul's being carried away. Again, I prefer to believe 
	>it means what it says (or in this case, implies).

	So, in this case you believe what it implies, in another case 
	what it says and in another case - maybe - what it might have
	said if...

	No Collis. No!!! Either it means what it says or it is not
	God-breathed.  Again, the point was that these words (of Paul)
	have led to a Christian misconception of Judaism. All your
	polemics are simply fog.

	>I read this as saying Jesus was cursed because he was hung on
	>a tree.

	Exactly: That is what Paul said and he (mis)used Hebrew (his)
	scriptures to illustrate his point. You are one of his victims.
	
	>The curse Jesus took upon himself...
	>[the rest is not relevant, since it foots on this first phrase]

	The whole point is: Jesus did NOT take a curse upon himself. That
	is solely Paul's representation and is false. The text he quotes
	to support this falsehood expresses - clearly enough for most
	(and is supported by millenia of Hebrew tradition) - that God
	feels himself insulted by the sight of creatures of His hand
	hung to rot on a tree.

	>Indeed, many Jews take great exception to Jesus Christ. As
	>1 Cor. 1 points out, Jesus is a stumblin block to Jews. I
	>expect Paul, a man chosen by God to evangelize the Gentiles,
	> would be the same.

	You may well be right in what you say. Confirmation may come
	Jewish fellow noters. I fail to see what this comment has to 
	do with the base note, however. 	 

	>In terms of your claim that these words having no foundation,
	>I think I have found a foundation for the issues you mentioned.
	
	Think again! Or put it to the vote.

	>I also believe that Paul, who many consider the best of the best
	>in his time (perhaps of all time) in his training as a Rabbi,
	>is a person whose knowledge and reasonong should not be questioned
	>lightly (not even..etc [quoted above])

	I believe that notes .0, .1 and this prove that Paul's knolwedge
	and reasoning is NOT being lightly questioned. What is being
	questioned (not lightly) is his agenda.

	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  637.17

    >>Congratulations, this puts you squarely with the majority...

  >Your sarcasm is out of place! 

Sorry to have offended you.  I admit that I still don't see why
there seems to be such offense taken over this off-hand remark.
Perhaps part of the reason is that I rarely take offense at anything
people say to me and so am caught unawares when something I write
strikes such a response as yours.

  >...I did NOT, neither freely nor inadvertantly, say or imply that 
  >I ignore the "God-breathed" assertion by Paul.

You are quite correct.  You simply claim that it does not mean what it appears 
to say.  I am sorry that I characterized your position unfairly and will attempt
to be more accurate in the future.
	
  >I feel that I see it as it is written.

Perhaps I'm the one lost here.  The statement (II Tim 3:16), as far as I can see, 
says nothing about anyone's love for God.  The passage, as best as I can tell,
could have been written either passionately or dispassionately.  But I
won't pursue this any further.  Perhaps you can understand why I viewed your 
interpretation as essentially "ignoring" the verse.

  >...which I understand to say that you may interpret the text in
  >a way such that you can apply it to your life.

Application of the text needs to be totally seperate from the
intepretation of the text.  First interpretation; then application.
When the two are combined, what we often get is poor interpretation
*and* poor application.  

  >Paul wrote "for it is written..." This is patently untrue and
  >constitutes, therefore, misuse. 

  >Lapide, and most scholars of the subject, do not rely on KJV/AV/NIV etc. 
  >but on the Hebrew texts. His - my - point is that our translations 
  >misrepresent the facts. QED

I remain a skeptic of the apparent claim that the Old Testament is
extremely poorly translated in this particular area - so poorly
translated in fact that what Paul claims is written (and is so written
in the NIV) is actually not written.  If you could provide some more
details, then perhaps my skepticism would recede.

     >> - Deut. 27:26 may be able to be interpreted in a more flexible
     >>   way than we have interpreted it in our translated Bibles
	
  >Of course! There are also those who see the Song of Songs as an allegory...

I wasn't suggesting anything as radical as treating it as allegory.

     >> - other (...)

  >Just keep searching, Collis. Maybe you will find an *other* which
  >reconciles Paul's words (for it is written) with that which is 
  >really written. 

Actually, several of the explanations I gave are well within the realm
of possibility in my opinion and I need search no more.

  >I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to believe it means what it 
  >says.  :-)

I didn't know you were willing to.  But by all means, believe that it
means what it says!

    >>Exactly!!! Moses' words/writings are equated with God's words/
    >>writings [sic]. The obvious assumption is that Moses' commands
    >>are God's commands. 

  >So, in this case you believe what it implies, in another case what it says 
  >and in another case - maybe - what it might have said if...

  >No Collis. No!!! 

There is no need to draw a line between what a verse says and what it implies
as if believing one is inconsistent with the other.  I don't know anyone
who interprets who ignores implications.  To suggest that you or I should
doesn't make sense to me.

  >Either it means what it says or it is not God-breathed.  

I'll go along with that.

  >Again, the point was that these words (of Paul) have led to a Christian 
  >misconception of Judaism. 

This may indeed be true which does not necessarily imply that what Paul wrote
was incorrect.  The Roman Catholic Church used the Latin Vulgate as its
authority when it established the principle that the priest MUST drink *all*
of the wine at Communion based on the verse "Drink ye all of it" when, in fact,
the Greek is better translated "All of ye drink it".  I point this out so that
you will not necessarily affix the blame to Paul for misconceptions which we
may hold based on faulty or incomplete understandings of what he was saying.
Misconceptions are common; however the fault is often ours, not the author's.

  >The whole point is: Jesus did NOT take a curse upon himself. 

This is indeed the point.  Can you prove that Jesus did not take
God's curse upon Himself?  Paul claims he did.  The Psalmist (22)
prophecies that He will be forsaken by God.  I'm willing to research
this some more if you think it will be worthwhile because I am
convinced that there are other places in the Bible where this is
discussed as well.  Isaiah 53:4 just came to mind - "yet we considered
him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted".

  >That is solely Paul's representation and is false.

See above.  Even if this were solely Paul's representation, I doubt that
you could prove it false.  How would you go about such a proof?  Perhaps
if there were some claims in the Bible that Jesus would never be cursed
by God.  Other than that, I'm at a loss to figure out how you can KNOW
that this claim is patently untrue.

  >The text he quotes to support this falsehood expresses - clearly enough 
  >for most (and is supported by millenia of Hebrew tradition) - that God
  >feels himself insulted by the sight of creatures of His hand hung to rot on 
  >a tree.

Since I gave an explanation of how this fits in, perhaps you would care
to explain not only why your view is correct, but why my view is
logically incorrect? (for if my view is a logical interpretation, then
you are left with accepting my view as a possibility, if however remote).

  >What is being questioned (not lightly) is his agenda.

He agenda is that you and I should believe in the one who died for
our sins and live our lives in such a way as to glorify our God.

Collis

	Good morning!

	Re: .18 Collis.

	In response to my .17

	>Most scholars of he subject do not rely on KJV/AV/NIV etc.
	 but on the Hebrew texts. His - my - point is that our trans-
	 lations misrepresent the facts.

	You replied:

	>I remain a skeptic of the apparent claim that the Old Testament
	 is poorly translated in this particular area - so poorly trans-
	 lated in fact that what Paul claims is written (and is so
	 written in the NIV) is actually not written. If you could
	 provide..

	Your sceptisism is well taken. I worded this part of my reply
	extremely badly - and subsequently had difficulty in decoding
	my own intended point :-). In fact, our translations are
	pretty close to the Hebrew as given by Lapide (by chance, I
	was given a copy of his book "Paul between Damascus and Qumran,"
	in German, for Easter in which this point is raised in a 
	slightly different context than in the lecture I quoted in .0)

	Lapide uses Hebrew texts since those are the texts which were
	available to Paul in his schooling. It is possible that he also
	accessed Greek translations. Our acces to Paul is through our
	translations which - whether they accurately reflect Paul's
	words or not (this is key to my original intent) - misrepresent
	the facts as they are actually written in the OT.

	Paul certainly did not carry 30 tons of biblical rolls around
	with him on his travels and the telephones were too unreliable
	for him to call his secretary for reference materials, so he
	was largely left to rely on his (Gob-breathed) memory.

	When he wrote "for it is written..." in the two passages I
	quoted in the base-note, he either:

	- made a genuine error or
	- he deliberately misquoted scriptures.

	  .. because, what he said is written is not written.

	I checked my bibles last night: A KJV 1954, a NIV 1988,
	a Douay (English) 1961, a German catholic bible, 1952, a copy
	of an original Lutheran bible and a "distorted" Lutheran bible
	of 1966. (published dates, not translations). All are worded
	essentially the same as my KJV quotes of .0 which leads me
	to conclude that the Hebrew texts of Paul's scholarship are
	fairly and faithfully reproduced.

	I rule out the possibility that Paul made a genuine error. The
	texts he referenced are too central to Jewish thought to
	be misquoted by one of his scholarhip. Neither are they texts
	which sit up and beg for interpretation: they are clear enough
	as they stand.

	I can only conclude, therefore, that Paul deliberately mis-
	quoted scripture.

	>This is indeed the point. Can you prove that Jesus did not
	>take God's curse upon himself? Paul claims he did.

	I cannot prove that Jesus did not take God's curse upon himself
	any more than you can prove that he did. (Please note that I do
	not accept circular references as valid proof). I do, however,
	claim that in the texts we are referring to in this topic, there is
	proof that this particular claim by Paul was based on a false
	reading of the OT texts quoted.

	>His agenda is that you and I should believe in the one who
	>died for our sins and live our lives in such a way as to
	>glorify our God.

	At last we agree: that *was* Paul's agenda. We probably would
	not agree on his means, though.

	I would like to take the discussion of the God-breathed text -
	and your comments a little further but I will look for a more
	appropriate topic.

	Greetings, Derek.

Hi Derek,

Let's visit this quote once again.  Perhaps it will be
possible to find a specific point of difference.

The quote you supplied was:

  >Cursed is every one that continueth not in all
  >things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The quote in the NIV is, 

  "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this 
  law by carrying them out."

Personally, I believe that they express essentiallly the same 
thought (which is that anyone who doesn't follow the law will
be cursed).  Do you agree or disagree?

Next, we have the issue of the context.  Paul is claiming a
general principle whereas the verse in Deuteronomy is (apparently)
specific to the specific commands immediately preceeding this
claim.  Now, as someone who was spent much time studying the
Bible (remembering such references as he who is guilty of breaking
any part of the law is guilty of breaking the entire law), I
believe that the principle indicated by Paul in this quote is
a well-known and accepted Biblical principle.  Do you agree?

Finally, we get to applicability.  Is it reasonable for Paul to
take a law based on a specific circumstance and to quote it as
referring to a general principle.  I expect that this is where
we disagree.  Let's look closely at the passage.

Paul is discussing justification by faith versus justification by
law.  Specifically, he quotes Genesis 15:6, "He believed God, and
it was credited to him as righteousness."  Then he looks at the
converse in verse 10 saying, "All who rely on observing the law
are under a curse..."  Assuming we've agreed that this is indeed
a Biblical principle, this is a fair statement for Paul to make.
However, then he continues with the quote aspect, "...for it is
written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything
written in the Book of the Law.'"

Now, the most common way to interpret this would be to consider
that he is quoting a statement of the general principle.  When we
look at the reference, we find that this is apparently not the case.
Are there other alternatives to understanding this quote?  Let me
present two, either of which in my opinion satisfactorily explains
this quote.

  1)  Paul is quoting an *example* to back up his *principle*.  This
      fits all the facts and the only question is whether or not this
      can be done with the way the 1st century Greek is phrased and
      in the 1st century style of writing.  I would submit that
      neither of us can categorically deny that this was Paul's
      intention or that this was possible in a first century document
      and, therefore, must accept this as a possible explanation.

  2)  Paul is taking a quote from a context where it has limited
      meaning and showing that it does indeed have a broad application.
      This, I expect, is a more controversial interpretation.  Is it
      legitimate for Biblical authors to do this?

      Since there are other examples of Biblical authors doing this
      (and since God's Word is true), my answer is a simple "yes".  I
      expect your answer is quite likely different.  But at least we'll
      have gotten to the point where we know exactly where we disagree
      and why (which I consider quite useful and productive).

Collis

  >I cannot prove that Jesus did not take God's curse upon himself
  >any more than you can prove that he did.

It seems presumptous to me for you to claim (given the above
statement) that Jesus did not take God's curse upon himself.

  >(Please note that I do not accept circular references as valid
  >proof).

I did supply two non-Pauline references which tend to support
this claim (although they are by no means definitive).  There
are a multitude of other verses which also tend to support this
claim (admittedly some of them Pauline).  There is no need to
rely on circular reasoning in order to show this point.  You
are probably referencing my claim that we should believe what
Paul wrote unless we have strong reason to doubt it.  This is
not so much a matter of circular reasoning but rather a common
principle of interpretation (which is not at all confined to
Biblical interpretation).

Collis

    Collis or Derek,

    What's the point of all this?

    (1) that Derek Button is a world-class Bible scholar?

    (2) that Paul commits the sin of deception in Gal 3?

    (3) that English language translators of the Bible commit the sin of
    deception in mistranslating Gal 3?

    What's the bottom line?

What's the point of anything?

Personally, I think that this is great value in diligently
seeking the truth.  I particularly think that there is
great value in determining whether or not the Bible that
we have is trustworthy.  This is one of the reasons I spend
a lot of time looking into issues that question the Bible's
trustworthiness.  Some of these remain unresolved in my
mind.  Others, such as this one, do not.

I encourage others to delve into these issues as well.  They
may not reach the same conclusions I have reached, but I
believe they will be better off if they have a foundation for
their beliefs than if they simply believe something because
someone else told them.

The ultimate point is to glorify God.  I believe that it
glorifies God when it can be explained how the Scriptures
fit together.  Certainly Jesus spent significant time explaining
the Scriptures (although I am be no means attempting to equate
my efforts and abilities with His).  Others do this all the
time in various forms such as preparing and participating in
Bible studies, research and writing commentaries, etc.

Collis

	Good morning!

	.22 Sweeny.

	>What's the point of all this?

	I made a genuine attempt to provoke a discussion of Christian
	perspectives in a conference called Christian Perspectives.
	Did I miss anything? Or do you think you're in Stamp Collecting?

	>(1) that DB is a world-class Bible scholar.
	
	Rubbish! I don't even come up to my son's knee-caps. Fairly familiar
	with the texts of both testaments is the furthest I would go.
	
	>(2) that Paul commits the sin of deception in Gal 3?

	Closer! In my base note, I did not accuse him but invited comments
	on his fervour apparently leading him beyond the truth. I used Gal.
	3 as an example.

	>(3) that English language translators of the Bible commit the sin
	of deception in mistranslating Gal. 3?

	Not my point in this particular base-note. And I hold sin to be sin
	only when committed deliberately. Also, I would not limit a dis-
	cussion of translation either to English or to Gal. 3. The
	Septaugint, for example. However, that's not the point.

	You may have helped the discussion by contributing to it. You do
	not help it by simply making noises.

	On the other hand, I thank you for delivering proof that others
	are still reading this topic. It awakens hope that *contributions*
	may yet come from others.

	Greetings, Derek.

	Hello Collis!

	Re .20

	>Let's visit this quote again. Perhaps it will be possible to find
	>a specific point of difference.

	I like the approach. I would prefer "agreement" to "difference".

	Our NIV versions differ! I have a 1988 NIV (OT+NT), a 1973 NT-only
	and the On Line Bible versions. All give:
	"Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do *everything written*
	in the book of the law." (My emphasis). All X-refer to the Deutronomy
	passage cited. This wording is obviously stronger than yours and is
	closer to the KJV and Douay versions.

	>Personally, I believe that they express essentially the same
	>thought...

	Agreed.

	>...(which is that anyone who doesn't follow the law will be
	>cursed). Do you agree or disagree?

	Disagree! Not "will be" but "is" cursed. Not "follow the law" but
	"follow all of the law."

	>Next we have the issue of context. Paul is claiming a general
	>principle...

	Paul is stating (what he holds to be) fact.

	>... whereas the verse in Deut. is (apparently) specific to the 
	>specific commands immediately preceding the claim.

	You are free to insist on "apparently" but please read Lev. 6:1-7
	or 7:11 as similar examples of an alternate usage.

	>Now, as someone who has spent much time studying the Bible 
	>(remembering such references as he who is guilty of breaking any
	>part of the law is guilty of breaking the entire law), I believe
	>that the principle indicated by Paul in this quote is a well-known
	>and accepted Biblical principle. Do you agree?

	No!
	To the best of my knowledge, this "principle" is stated only once
	in the entire canon. We may agree that it is well known (today) but
	I personally doubt that Paul knew it. That would open a new debate
	on who wrote first: Paul? Or (his best friend :-) ) James? And, how
	widely James' first epistle was known.
	The Hebrew Bible is is bursting at the seams with forgiveness for
	transgressions of the law. Ps. 86:?, Jer.31:34, and at least 20 times
	in the book of Leviticus. Finally, in Eccl. 7:20, it is conceded
	that: "there is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right
	and never sins." A principle which, I submit, is even better known,
	and more general, than James'.

	>Finally, we get to the applicability. Is it reasonable for Paul to
	>take a law based on a specific circumstance and to quote it as 
	>referring to a general principle. I expect that this is where we
	>disagree.

	This is (also) where we disagree! Since the "general principle"
	is demonstrably not general, we reach an impasse.

	>Assuming we've agreed that this is indeed a Biblical principle,
	>this is a fair statement for Paul to make.

	We do not agree!
	Our agreement (or lack of it) is irrelevant to Paul's agenda.
	And my point is that Paul stated: "for it is written..." which 
	Paul *must* have known to be untrue. Paul, "a Hebrew of Hebrews;
	in regard of the law, a Pharisee." Paul, "I am a Jew... Under
	Gamaliel I was thouroughly trained in the law of our fathers and
	was as zealous for God as any of you are today."

	If you genuinely believe that this Paul did not know that "it is
	*not* written..." then we must agree to differ.

	For the second quote: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"
	your undestanding may be influenced by the NIV text. The Hebrew
	text uses "kilelath" which translates to "vilification". Paul uses
	the Greek "talah" which means "accursed" or "execrable".

	Try substituting "vilification" for "cursed" in any english text
	you may have.

	I submit:

	- Paul's quote is *not* written [in the scriptures]
	- Paul must have known this
	- Paul reversed the object in Deut. 21:23 by making the hanged
	  to be accursed instead of God being vilified.

	I believe that Hebrew tradition supports this view.

	I think that we must agree to differ, Collis.  I have enjoyed
	our discussion so far. It would be good to hear from others on
	the subject.

	Greetings, Derek.

    	Sorry, Collis! It's me again.
    
    	re: .23
    
    	>It seems presumptious for you to claim (given the above statement
    	> [I cannot prove that Jesus did not take God's curse upon
    	> himself]) that Jesus did not take God's curse upon himself.
    
    	Indeed, that would be presumptious.  However, my claim is that
    	he did not do so *in the context of the passages* I quoted in the
    	base-note. For the record, I *do* believe that Jesus did not take
    	God's curse upon himself: but I cannot prove it. It involves a
    	leap of faith. I just happen to have leaped in another direction.
                                
    	Re circular references:
    	>you are probably referencing my claim that we should believe what
    	>Paul wrote unless we have strong reason to doubt it.
    
    	Nope! I was not referencing anything. I was just trying to save
    	you the effort of saying something like: "the Bible claims to be
    	true; therefore the Bible is true."  I do not *know* if you would
    	have said that or not. I do know that we have leaped in opposite
    	directions previously (see above) when logic carries us no further
    	and a leap of faith is required.  :-)
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  637.25

  >I like the approach. I would prefer "agreement" to "difference".

I expect we'll find lots of places for agreement.  I hope to get to
the point where we may only have one (or possibly a couple) places
of differences that will be well-defined.

  >Our NIV versions differ! 

Sorry, I typed in what was in .0 for the NT quote and did not check it
in my NIV.  Indeed, the word "all" is part of the quote in the Greek.

     >>Next we have the issue of context. Paul is claiming a general
     >>principle...

  >Paul is stating (what he holds to be) fact.

This is an interpretive statement just as mine is an interpretive
statement.  Either or both could be true.  If you narrow down what
Paul is saying at this point, then you may indeed find irreconcilable
differences which may simply be a result of defining too narrowly
what Paul was saying.  That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

  >You are free to insist on "apparently" but please read Lev. 6:1-7
  >or 7:11 as similar examples of an alternate usage.

I only say "apparently" because I haven't researched this very well.
I am quite willing for the sake of discussion to accept this as true.

     >>Now, as someone who has spent much time studying the Bible 
     >>(remembering such references as he who is guilty of breaking any
     >>part of the law is guilty of breaking the entire law), I believe
     >>that the principle indicated by Paul in this quote is a well-known
     >>and accepted Biblical principle. Do you agree?

  >No!

  >To the best of my knowledge, this "principle" is stated only once
  >in the entire canon. 

I agree to spend the time to research this and show why I believe
that this was a Scriptural principle at the time when Paul wrote.
By the way, it doesn't even have to be a Scriptural principle at
that particular time for Paul to make it one, but I am convinced
that it was.

     >>Finally, we get to the applicability. Is it reasonable for Paul to
     >>take a law based on a specific circumstance and to quote it as 
     >>referring to a general principle. I expect that this is where we
     >>disagree.

  >This is (also) where we disagree! Since the "general principle"
  >is demonstrably not general, we reach an impasse.

You can still comment on the hypothetical (from your view) situation.

  >I submit:

  > - Paul's quote is *not* written [in the scriptures]

Well, you agreed with me that they express essentially the same
thought.  You also, however, are saying that his quote is not
written in Scripture.  Evidently, there is some detail in the
reference which causes you to claim this.  Is it the presence of
the word "all" in Galations and the lack of this word in
Deutoronomy that forces the distinction?  In other words, if there
was a reasonable way to explain the word "all" in the quote, would
you then say that Paul is not necessarily lying?  Or is there
another specific issue which must be resolved as well?

Collis

Re:  637.26
    
     >>It seems presumptious for you to claim (given the above statement
     >> [I cannot prove that Jesus did not take God's curse upon
     >> himself]) that Jesus did not take God's curse upon himself.
    
  >However, my claim is that he [Jesus, I presume] did not do so [
  >[take God's curse upon himself, I presume] *in the context of 
  >the passages* I quoted in the base-note. 

It seems to me that this is irrelevant.  In my original explanation
of the passage, Paul is explaining that Jesus did indeed take God's
curse upon Himself and showed why God could have cursed Jesus.  What
prevents Paul from making such a claim when neither you nor I know
what God did (outside of God's revelation)?  I understand that the
theology is different from yours, but Paul is not claiming that the
Old Testament reference that he quotes is directly responsible for
Jesus taking God's curse upon Himself (at least as I understand it),
so we in fact agree on that point and disagree on where that leads
us (if, in fact, I have understood you correctly).

By the way, I noticed that you made no comment on several other
references I supplied which support Paul's claim that Jesus was
cursed by God.

To summarize, Paul is not saying that Jesus took a curse upon himself
because of what he quoted.  I agree with you completely there.  Paul
is saying that God cursed him and that a justification for this curse
is because Jesus was hung on a tree.  It is this second issue (which
I don't believe you have addressed) which is the point of difference
as we agree on the first issue. 

  >I was just trying to save you the effort of saying something like: 
  >"the Bible claims to be true; therefore the Bible is true."

Actually such claims, which are clearly not final proof, have quite
a bit of inherent usefulness.  If, at some point, we can satisfy
the assumptions, then this now becomes a reliable step of logic to
make.  Also, there are negative inferences which can be drawn (and
it is this aspect that I generally see ignored when people wish to
believe/disbelieve selected parts of the Bible and not deal the many
claims/assumptions throughout the Bible that unanimously claim
its truth).

Collis

	Hello Patrick!

	I want to apologise for my first reply to your .22 . When I
	wrote it, I was angry and fell into the trap of sarcasm to "put
	you down."  My anger blinded me to the actual point I (now)
	see that you were trying to make.

	Apparently, the course of this topic is deviating from some
	- to me - unknown rules.  As you know, this is my first attempt
	to take part in CP (apart from a couple of insignificant by-lines 
	to other topics) and am apparently violating some unknown principle.
	As I said in my personal intro (3.107 I think): I am neither
	qualified nor worthy to partcipate in CP. Despite this, I was made to
	feel welcome by some of your fellow noters. It is not my intention
	to abuse this hospitality.

	Please, here, in open forum, tell me where I went wrong and, in the
	meantime, accept my apology for my sarcasm.

	I will discontinue the discussion (with Collis) until I know your
	response.

	Greetings, Derek.

    Derek,
    
    	Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see where you've violated any
    conference "rule."  One of the things which causes some to feel
    uncomfortable here is the relative absence of rules.  To some, instead
    of freedom and personal responsibility, the absence of enforced
    orthodoxy creates a feeling of chaos, even anarchy.
    
    Carry on,
    Richard
    

    	Thanks Richard.  I'll wait a little, however, until Patrick sets
    	out his point of view (or until I become convinced he does not 
    	intend to reply).
    
    	I need a short break anyway: to give time for some of the fog to
    	clear   :-)
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    What point of view is there to set out?
    
    The meaning of Gal 3:10-14 is clear to me: Jesus has made salvation
    available to the Gentiles.

	Hello Patrick!
	
	Re: .32:  So why didn't you just say that in your previous
	comment instead of making snotty-nosed, snide remarks?
	And I hope your fellow noters will forgive me for transgressing
	the borders of normal good manners. I was making a genuine
	attempt to CONTRIBUTE to this conference. It was - in a manner
	of speaking, a virgin birth. Your type of interruption seems to
	me to be an effort to abort the foetus of a "newcomer" whose
	main-line opinions do not accord with your own.
	"Frighten him off; he could disturb my illusions." Huh?
	
	Flame off.

	Hello Collis!

	Re: .28

	>>However, my calim is that he [Jesus] did not do so [take God's
	>>curse upon himself] *in the context of the passages* I quoted in
	>>the base-note.

	 >It seems to me that this is irrelevant. ...

	It seem to me that you are being a teeny bit arrogant here.
	Since this is *precisely* the point of my base-note: to invite
	comments on the claim by Paul that IT IS WRITTEN that:

	- Jesus took the curse of God upon himself.
	  (Gal. 3:13 vis-a-vis Deut. 21:23)

	- Cursed is everyone ... ALL the book of the law.
	  (Gal. 3:10 vis-a-vis Deut. 27:26)

	I showed that such claims are NOT written and invited comments
	on Paul's apparent zeal carrying him "onto thin ice." In clear
	text: did Paul deliberately lie? was he less wll schooled in the
	law than he claimed? or was he simply over-eager to make a point?

	This being the point of my base-note, your claim that it is
	irrelevant in irreverent.

	>In my original explanation of the passage, Paul is explaining
	>that Jesus did indeed take God's curse upon himself.

	Nobody - as far as I can see - is denying that: except that
	"maintaining" would be more accurate than "explaining".

	>I understand that the theology is different from yours, but
	>Paul is not claiming that the Old Testament reference that he
	>quotes is directly responsible for Jesus taking the curse upon
	>Himself.

	That would be an absurd claim in any theology. No passage in the
	Hebrew scripture can be *held responsible* for any subsequent
	event, no matter how accurately it may presage the event. But I
	think you did not intend to be taken quite so literally.

	In fact, Paul does not give X-references: "For it is written in
	Deut. 27:26..." But he does say: "For it is written" and all
	X-reference works that I have seen relate the Galatian quotes
	to the Deutronomy quotes as I have given them. And, even if they
	did not do so, the words Paul quoted are *not* written (except by
	him/his scribe in the Galatian letter: which is a circular
	reference).

	>By the way, I noticed that you made no comment on several other
	>references I supplied which support Paul's claim that Jesus was
	>cursed by God.

	Astute observance! If you want to discuss whether or not Jesus
	was cursed by God, start your own topic. *This* topic relates to
	Paul's claim that "it is written.." and uses two Hebrew texts
	which patently do not say what Paul claims them to say. In this
	context (underlined, bold and italicized) your references are
	irrelevant.

	>To summarize, Paul is not saying that Jesus took a curse upon
	>himself because of what he quoted.

	In the strict meaning of this sentence, we agree. He used those
	texts as proof not as causal indicators.

	>Paul is saying that God cursed him [Jesus, I presume :-) ] and
	>that a justification for this curse is because Jesus was hung
	>on a tree. It is this second issue (which I don't believe you
	>have addressed) which is the point of difference as we agree on
	>the first issue.

	If you think that I have not addressed this second issus I would
	invite you to (re)read the following (I have provided the opening
	words of the relevant passages to cut your search time).

	Base-note: The second quote is clearly Deut. 21:23...  
	Reply .17: Exactly: That is what Paul said and he ...
	Reply .19: I cannot prove that Jesus did not take ...
	Reply .25: For the second quote: "Cursed is everyone...
	
	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  637.33

        >>>However, my claim is that he [Jesus] did not do so [take God's
        >>>curse upon himself] *in the context of the passages* I quoted in
        >>>the base-note.

     >>It seems to me that this is irrelevant. ...

  >It seem to me that you are being a teeny bit arrogant here.
  >Since this is *precisely* the point of my base-note: to invite
  >comments on the claim by Paul that IT IS WRITTEN that:

  >- Jesus took the curse of God upon himself.
  >  (Gal. 3:13 vis-a-vis Deut. 21:23)

  >- Cursed is everyone ... ALL the book of the law.
  >  (Gal. 3:10 vis-a-vis Deut. 27:26)

I'm sorry, I had no intention of being arrogant.  What I am attempting
to say is that (as I understand this passage of Scripture) Paul is
NOT claiming what you believe he IS claiming.  Specifically, he is
NOT claiming that Jesus took the curse of God upon himself BECAUSE
he was hung from a tree.  Now perhaps I still do not have clear in
my mind what you have said.  What you wrote in .0 was

  >>Paul is appearing to say that, because Jesus died on the cross
  >>(read *tree*) he nullified the curse of God by taking it upon
  >>himself: a curse which was never intended.

Again, this is NOT what Paul is saying as I understand it.  If you
insist that this is the proper interpretation of this passage and that
it is wrong, it is clear that this discussion will never get anywhere.
However, I have twice provided an *alternate* explanation of the passage
which you have not commented upon (that I remember) and which does not
provide any of the difficulty in interpretation and reconciliation with
the Old Testament quote which your interpretation has.  

So far, your comments on what I have written have come from the 
viewpoint that your interpretation is the correct (and perhaps only)
one for this passage.  I will in fact agree with you that there could be
a misrepresentation of the Old Testament if your interpretation is indeed
the correct one.  Perhaps now we can move on to an interpretation which
does not provide such difficulties.

  >This being the point of my base-note, your claim that it is
  >irrelevant in irreverent.

I said it was irrelevant because, in my interpretation, it is irrelevant.
It is only relevant in your interpretation (which I had disputed and
indicated was not the best interpretation).

  >No passage in the Hebrew scripture can be *held responsible* for any 
  >subsequent event, no matter how accurately it may presage the event. 
  >But I think you did not intend to be taken quite so literally.

I have a different take on that.  Since God wrote the Bible and since
God is true to His Word, any prophecy in Scripture is attributable to
God and God (through Scripture) can be and is held responsible.  Scripture
is simply God's written Word and is true, trustworthy, perfect, etc.

  >And, even if they did not do so, the words Paul quoted are *not* 
  >written (except by him/his scribe in the Galatian letter: which is 
  >a circular reference).

Please be very specific with me about the difference so that I can
address is.  Are you referring to the word "all" that is in the quote
but not in the original reference?  Are there other differences that
need to be accounted for?  If so, what are they?  I find it hard to
respond to the general claims but relatively easy to respond to the
specific claims.

  >If you want to discuss whether or not Jesus was cursed by God, start 
  >your own topic. *This* topic relates to Paul's claim that "it is 
  >written.."

There is no need for a seperate topic.  We have agreed already that
it is possible for Jesus to have been cursed by God and that therefore
this is not one of the issues in the quote you provided.

     >>To summarize, Paul is not saying that Jesus took a curse upon
     >>himself because of what he quoted.

  >In the strict meaning of this sentence, we agree. He used those
  >texts as proof not as causal indicators.

NO!  This is NOT what I've been saying.  He is showing how God
is *justified* in cursing Jesus.  This is the interpretation I had
from the start of reading the passage - an interpretation which
complete negates (I believe) all of the objections which you have 
presented about Paul's use of this Old Testament quote.  

Again, if you insist that your interpretation is the correct one, then
you may indeed have a case for misuse of the Old Testament.  However,
this is not a fair methodology.  You need to consider other
interpretations and their problems, if any.  You have not in any way
rebutted my interpretation as accurate or shown any problems with using
this Old Testament quote with my interpretation.  Until you do, I expect
we will spin our wheels. 

  >If you think that I have not addressed this second issue I would
  >invite you to (re)read the following (I have provided the opening
  >words of the relevant passages to cut your search time).

.17
  >Exactly: That is what Paul said and he (mis)used Hebrew (his)
  >scriptures to illustrate his point. You are one of his victims.

.19
  >I cannot prove that Jesus did not take God's curse upon himself
  >any more than you can prove that he did. (Please note that I do
  >not accept circular references as valid proof). I do, however,
  >claim that in the texts we are referring to in this topic, there is
  >proof that this particular claim by Paul was based on a false
  >reading of the OT texts quoted.

Are you claiming that God does NOT curse those who are hung on a tree?
If God does curse those who are hung on a tree and Jesus was hung on
a tree, then I find it hard to understand why this quote is 
inappropriate - unless, of course, you are claiming that Paul is saying
more than this with his quote (a claim I would dispute).

.25
  >For the second quote: "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"
  >your understanding may be influenced by the NIV text. The Hebrew
  >text uses "kilelath" which translates to "vilification". Paul uses
  >the Greek "talah" which means "accursed" or "execrable".
	
In summary, these three references in your note do not discuss the
whether or not God is *justified* in cursing Jesus because He hung
on a tree - the very point that I believe Paul was making.

Derek, I see what you are saying.  I disagree with your interpretation.
Please see what I'm saying from my viewpoint so that our discussion
can amicably and fruitfully be pursued.

Collis

	Good morning Collis!

	Up front, I would like to say that I am, genuinely, trying to 
	understand your viewpoint. I do know that you consider the biblical
	texts to be inerrent and (beacause) God-breathed.  I know, also,
	my view of this is different.

	I also know that this difference can be both a catalyst to discussion
	as well as a hindrance to finding agreement.  However, I have always
	held the view that such a difference should not be an impediment to
	understanding.  With this "basis concept" I have been seriously
	trying to understand your position.

	I think that we can agree on a few points:

	- Neither of us is on a "conversion trip": you are not trying to 
	  convert me; I am not trying to convert you.

	- Neither of us intends to hurt the other. Thus, when I said that
	  I found this-or-that a little arrogant, I stated a fact of my
	  own feelings, not of your intentions. You are not responsible
	  for what I feel and, therefore, have no need to apologise. I
	  suspect that we agree on this.

	- Neither of us can PROVE any of the points under discussion to
	  be "right" or "wrong": we can, at best, present our points of
	  view and point to "evidence" supporting those points.

	- We further agree that Paul's text reads: Christ has redeemed us
	  from the curse of the law, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, Cursed is every
	  one who hangeth on a tree:

	- Also, we agree that he wrote: FOR IT IS WRITTEN, Cursed is every
	  one that continueth not in ALL things which are written in the 
	  book of the law to do them.

	- Additionally, we agree that we see these texts differently. This
	  was obvious from the outset - otherwise we would be either both of
	  us Christian or both of us non-Christian (probably).

	(I'm trying to set this out in a logical sequence so that we can,
	at the end of the day, add to our list of points of agreement).

	I now want to address the THEME of our discussion for, I believe,
	this is where out first point of divergence is to be found.

	In the base-note, I quoted the Galatian texts and the x-referenced
	Deuteronomy texts.  Let's start with the one about hanging on a
	tree (Deut. 21:23).

	We disagree on the interpretation/translation-veracity of this
	passage. I - and Pinchas Lapida, and a host of Jewish scholars
	as well as well-founded Rabbinic tradition - see the word "cursed"
	as a wrong translation: It should be "vilification."  My point
	was - and is - that, given this: Paul's claim THAT IT IS WRITTEN
	is false. Given Paul's (self-acclaimed) credentials this would,
	in turn, amount to a misuse of Hebrew scriptures.

	WE AGREE that, if you do not accept the "vilification" translation,
	you will maintain that Paul was correct in stating IT IS WRITTEN.

	If you can nod to this statement, we have reached understanding.

	Please note: The question of whether or not Christ *really* took
	the curse of God upon himself is not relevant *in this context*:
	although I fully accept that, in another context, it is of paramount
	importance. I also acknowledge that, on this point, we would
	also disagree.  I *think* that you have been discussing on the
	basis of this point. If this is so, our understanding has deepened.

	Again: my second pair of quotes revolve around Paul's claim that
	IT IS WRITTEN... : and, again, if you agree with me that the
	Deutronomy text *only* refers to the preceding verses then we would
	be compelled to agree that Paul erred for, in that case, it could not
	be claimed that "it is written".

	We both agree that Paul *extended* the meaning of this (Deut.) verse.
	We do not agree on the legitimacy of that extension. 
	The texts you referred me to were interesting, (Ps.22 and Isiah 53:4)
	but I honestly do not see their relevance to this discussion. Worse!
	Until I read them, I thought I understood where you were coming
	from; after reading, them, I was confused. Hence my reference to
	"fog" in an earlier reply. I would be interested in your view of
	these texts in the context of our present level of understanding.

	I hope that this sets the record straight. I have been bothered
	for some time that we were moving apart and, as contrary as our
	views may be, I see no reason why a relationship should suffer.

	Greetings, Derek.

	PS: If Patrick is still in here I would like to offer him my
	hand. As I wrote the beginning of this reply, (where I wrote that
	Collis is not responsible for *my* feelings) I realised that, in your
	case, I had not held to this principle.
	
	PPS: That's not an apology; it's a confession!  ;-)

	Greeting (again), Derek.	

    I yield any interpretation that you want to place to Gal 3:13 as long
    as you don't impute deception to Paul in writing it.
    
    What's important here (Gal 3 and context) to is that
    
    (1) all have sinned before God
    (2) the death of Jesus was a sacrifice for the sins of the world
    (3) "all who believe are blessed" (Gal 3:9)
    (4) the Gentiles are not bound to observe Jewish law

    Hello Patrick!
    
    Thanks for your reply.
    
    I agree: the 4 points you listed are precisely the message Paul was
    trying to put over. I do not necessarily agree with them, but that is
    quite a different ball game.
    
    Deception is a strong word. I opened the discussion that, in their
    fervour, the Biblical writers walked on thin ice: meaning that they
    tended to interpret Hebrew scriptures rather liberally.
    
    Perhaps we come a step closer if you can accept this formulation.
    
    Hey! Don't yield, man! You're riding a strong horse: take him over
    the jumps and I wish you a safe landing.
    
    Greetings, Derek. 

Thanks for your well-thought out response, Derek.  I will
address this in more detail later.

Quickly, I disagree with your first point about the relevance
of the translation.  It's fine with me if you want to translate
it "vilification".  It is still not a misuse of the text.  I
have not yet made myself clear to you as to why I claim this.
I will attempt again, later.

On the second issue, the difference is certainly the word "all".
The question here is the standard to which you are holding Paul
after he writes "for it is written".  Your claim is that since
the word all is not in the verse and since the immediate context
does not support such an interpretation, then it is a clear misuse
of the word "all".  I would tend to agree by today's standards.

However, it is not as simple as that.  Is it acceptable to
summarize teaching in the Old Testament and that claim "it is
written"?  Your answer is apparently "no".  My answer (and the
answer of some Biblical scholars) is "sometimes".  This is where
the relevance of other texts in the Old Testament come in.

You are looking at the "for it is written" in a very narrow
(albeit common) way.  I suggest that this narrowness is not necessarily
indicated by the phrase.

Collis

	Hello Collis!

	>Quickly, I disagree with your first point about the relevance of
	>the translation. It's fine with me if you want to translate it
	>"vilification".

	My first point rested on the *accuracy* of the translation rather
	than the relevance. Of course, the *consequence* of an inaccurate
	translation is relevant and I introduced the following point with
	"given this" (i.e. an inaccurate translation) to illustrate that I
	see the symptom as illustrative of the illness, not in isolation.

	If you substitue the word "vilification" for "cursed" in the Deut.
	text, you will understand where I'm coming from. It turns the object
	of the sentence away from the hanged man (as Paul has it) to God (as
	I believe the original text intended).
	
	Similarly, Paul's use of the word "all" distorts the sense of the
	Deuteronomy text. You argue that this is legitimate. I see things
	differently.

	>You are looking at the "for it is written" in a very narrow (albeit
	>common) way. I suggest that this narrowness is not necessarily
	>indicated by the phrase.

	The words "for it is written" are not open to interpretation. We 
	could spend hours discussing "in His own image He made them.."
	"all scripture is God-breathed.." and years on the book of
	Revelations; but the phrase "for it is written" is clear, non
	ambiguous and wrong. As far as "today's standards" are concerned,
	my reading of history suggests that the Judaic reading of the
	Hebrew texts were far more rigorous then than our is now. They even
	went as far as numbering every word in their canon to prevent its
	being (further) corrupted by Christians.

	How often have I read in your replies to other topics: "Give me
	chapter and verse" or "where are your sources?"  Why do I feel
	like a kettle that has been called black by the pot?

	I think that our discussion has reached a plateau: We are not likely
	to draw any closer on this subject in this world. Nevertheless, I
	have immensely enjoyed the experience of sharing my first CP topic
	with you. I am enriched.

	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  637.39

  >My first point rested on the *accuracy* of the translation rather
  >than the relevance.

Thanks for that explanation.  I now understand better what you were
trying to say.

  >Similarly, Paul's use of the word "all" distorts the sense of the
  >Deuteronomy text. You argue that this is legitimate. I see things differently.

I do indeed claim that this can be legitimate.  Remember as well that it
is we who are forcing this reference to the Deuteronomy passage which may not
have been (quite) what Paul had in mind when he wrote this.  (In fact, from what 
you have said, Paul could not mean what you are claiming he meant unless, of
course, he was into bald-faced lying - a contention which you accept but
which is so incompatible with Paul's character and servitude that I reject
it out of hand.)

  >The words "for it is written" are not open to interpretation. 

  >...but the phrase "for it is written" is clear, non ambiguous...

So you have claimed.  I have claimed otherwise.  Neither of us has
presented any objective evidence that backs up our claims.  The Bible
itself shows numerous instances where "for it is written" does NOT
show an exact quote or even a message that the author originally
intended.  This would tend to support my view (unless you wish to claim
that these various 1st century authors did not write in a characteristic
1st century style in this regard).

  >How often have I read in your replies to other topics: "Give me chapter and 
  >verse" or "where are your sources?"  

Not as often as I suspect you think.

  >Why do I feel like a kettle that has been called black by the pot?

Perhaps because your interpretations and assumptions differ?

Since we have concentrated on discussing the texts, I'm not sure why you think
that I have been unfair in my handling of the discussion.  Did you wish to
see an inerrantist take the phrase "for it is written" to mean that
something was previously literally written, despite what I've been taught about
its first century usage?  Sorry to disappoint you (but I'm not a literalist :-) ).

  >I think that our discussion has reached a plateau: We are not likely
  >to draw any closer on this subject in this world.

I think we have indeed reached a point where the issues have been adequately
explored in this forum.  If either of us wanted to do research on the use of
"for it is written" in first century documents, I expect we could move closer
to agreement.  I am rather content to accept what I was taught about this 
(particularly since the Bible reflects what I was taught) and I expect you are 
content to believe that this must reflect an exact (or near exact) quote and
any other usage is wrong.

  >Nevertheless, I have immensely enjoyed the experience of sharing my first CP 
  >topic with you. I am enriched.

I, too, have enjoyed discussing this with you.  Thank you.

Collis

    Collis,

    In reply 637.9 you declared, "Jesus makes quite clear that even the
    slightest stroke of the pen was God-ordained."

    When I asked you in reply .13 for the source of your claim, you
    quoted Matthew 5:17-20.  Here are verses 18 and 19, which are the
    (presumably) pertinent ones:

    	"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
    	not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
    	will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
    	is accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of
    	these commandments and teaches others to do the same will
    	be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever
    	practices and teaches these commands will be called great
    	in the kingdom of heaven."

    I do not have to be the one to tell you that ~The Laws in the Torah are
    all valid.~, which is what the above verses state, is far different
    from your initial claim that ~Every word in the entire Bible is
    God-ordained.~  Your claim is not supported by your citation.

    In fact, reply .14 demonstrates that the claim that Jesus made was
    empty, for he broke the not-so-least of these commandments and taught
    others to do the same.

    You yourself contradict your own claim, in your most recent reply.
    You wrote, "The Bible itself shows numerous instances where "for it
    is written" does NOT show an exact quote or even a message that the
    author originally intended."  In other words, you have stated that the
    Bible is inaccurate about itself, and that you accept this.
    
    						Ann B.

Re:  637.41

    >>In reply 637.9 you declared, "Jesus makes quite clear that even the
    >>slightest stroke of the pen was God-ordained."

    >>"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
    >>not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
    >>will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
    >>is accomplished.  

It is true that the quote from the Bible is not exactly what I said.
However, I think it is equally true that the step from one to the
other is not a long step especially given the audience that Jesus
was speaking to, the assumptions and background they all shared, and
the many numerous other places in the Bible where Jesus and the prophets
place God as the author of Scripture.

  >I do not have to be the one to tell you that ~The Laws in the Torah are
  >all valid.~, which is what the above verses state, is far different
  >from your initial claim that ~Every word in the entire Bible is
  >God-ordained.~  Your claim is not supported by your citation.

I agree with you that the full scope of the claim "every word in the
entire Bible is God-ordained" is not supported in this one citation.
If you wish to see the full scope of this claim supported, we would do
well to look at hundreds/thousands of verses that support this claim
on every level - and then decide whether to accept or reject it.

  >In fact, reply .14 demonstrates that the claim that Jesus made was
  >empty, for he broke the not-so-least of these commandments and taught
  >others to do the same.

You're really on a roll.  :-)

Please tell me what commandment Jesus broke?  Feel free to use the
exact words in the Bible to support your point.

Please tell me what commandment Jesus taught others to break?  Again,
feel free to use the words from the Bible to make your point.

  >You yourself contradict your own claim, in your most recent reply.
  >You wrote, "The Bible itself shows numerous instances where "for it
  >is written" does NOT show an exact quote or even a message that the
  >author originally intended."  In other words, you have stated that the
  >Bible is inaccurate about itself, and that you accept this.
    
It is you who are claiming that this is improper.  I have never made
such a claim.  In fact, I claim the opposite - that this is perfectly
proper and does not necessarily show any inaccuracy at all.  I'll be so
bold as to say that absolutely no 1st century proof has been offered 
up in this conference to show that this usage is improper.  I expect
that none ever will be.  The only semi-authoritative evidence that
anyone has brought to the issue is hearsay that I got from a professor
(New Testament scholar) while attending seminary that this type of
usage was common in the first century.  That's it.  Beyond that we do
not move because no one wishes to pursue the issue to get more facts
(which is fine, don't get me wrong).  But, since we *REALIZE* that the
issue is currently *UNRESOLVABLE* because we aren't going to put forth
the effort to get more facts, please spare me the conclusions based on
inference.  If you wish to supply some facts, I for one would be most
appreciative.

Collis

    "However, I think it is equally true that the step from one to the
    other is not a long step especially given ..."
    
    I think it is an infinitely long step, one that Jesus would never
    have made.  You have put words into Jesus's mouth.
    
    "Please tell me what commandment Jesus broke?"
    
    I'm sorry, I shouldn't have written `reply .14'; it is reply .16:
    "Matthew 12:1-9 (Jerusalem Bible)

    "At that time Jesus took a walk one sabbath day through the cornfields. 
    His disciples were hungry and began to pick ears of corn and eat them. 
    The Pharisees noticed it and said to him, "Look, your disciples are
    doing something that is forbidden on the sabbath."  ..."
    
    The commandments are "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.", 
    (Gathering food on the Sabbath is explicitly forbidden.) "The first of
    the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the
    Lord your God.",  (They ate them.), "Thou shalt not steal." (It wasn't
    even their grain!), and there are probably others among the six
    hundred and mumble commandments.
    
    "It is you who are claiming that this is improper."
    
    No, that is not true.  I am claiming that it makes you inconsistant.
    I have no objection to you saying that not every statement in the
    Bible is literally true, BUT that one should take *G*R*E*A*T* care not
    to sweep too much into the allegorical category.  I think that's what
    you really mean, and that's fine.
    
    After all, who *cares* that I Samuel 13:1 has lost a numeral or two?
    Is there any significance (except to archaeologists) that the lists
    of cities captured by the United Kingdoms under David are mutually
    contradictory?  (I could go on.)
    
    						Ann B.

Since Jesus is part of the Godhead that wrote the Bible and
the Bible does indeed say this, then your assertion that Jesus
would never say this is not very convincing.

But please, be specific in your criticism.  Exactly what makes
this step so infinately long?  The presumption that God has
responsible for Scripture?  But this was the assumption of both
the teachers of the Law, Jesus and the prophets who wrote
Scripture.  The presumption that the text being discussed
was the Old Testament?  The Law was often used as a synonym
both for a portion of the Old Testament as well as for the
entire Old Testament.  What presumption is such a long step?

Note that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ate (or
harvested) the grain.  In fact, the implication is exactly 
the opposite.

The presumption that the disciples were stealing is simply
that - a presumption.  Since they were apparently not accused
of stealing by those who confronted them (who wanted very
much to accuse them of things), it is doubtful that they
were stealing.

How do you respond to Jesus' rational about David?  Do you
accept that the Law perhaps should not be interpreted as strictly
as the Pharisees attempted to interpret it?  That God never
meant the Law to restrain us but rather to free us (although
we need it for both)?

  >I have no objection to you saying that not every statement in the
  >Bible is literally true, BUT that one should take *G*R*E*A*T* care not
  >to sweep too much into the allegorical category.  I think that's what
  >you really mean, and that's fine.

Perhaps this is the problem.  I refrain from making claims about things
being literally true both because they are usually incorrect and also
because people misunderstand them when they actually are correct.
Please don't confuse me with a literalist!

  >After all, who *cares* that I Samuel 13:1 has lost a numeral or two?

Transcription errors certainly happen.  The fact that with over 5,000
manuscript fragments, there are no two exactly the same is ample evidence
of that.

  >Is there any significance (except to archaeologists) that the lists
  >of cities captured by the United Kingdoms under David are mutually
  >contradictory?  (I could go on.)

Ah, claims, claims.  Indeed, Gleason Archer addresses practically every
one of these claims against inerrancy in his book.

Collis
    
    

	Getting back to Paul and his epistle to the Galations:

	In 3:16 he writes:

	"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not,
	And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
	Christ."

	In this, Paul is clearly referring to the Genesis 22:17 text where
	one reads:

	"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
	multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, ansd as the sand
	which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate
	of his enemies; (and 18.)  And in thy seed shall all the nations
	of the earth be blessed; because thou has obeyed my voice.
	(This follows the story of the offering of Isaac)."

	That Paul has *deliberately* changed the sense of the original is
	clear (he himself differentiates between singular and plural) and,
	when the Hebrew original uses the term "sera Abraham" it is even
	clearer that ALL of Abraham's seed, not only Jesus is meant.

	Peter disagrees with Paul in Acts 3:25 when addressing the Jewish
	community in Jerusalem, he says:

	"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God
	made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall
	all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

	I *seem* to read confirmation for this, too, in another text:
	
	"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
	children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called."

	This is from Romans 9:7. (Is this another Pauline somersault?)

	Comments?

	Greetings, Derek.	

Re:  637.45

Hi Derek,

  >"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
  >multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand
  >which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate
  >of his enemies; (and 18.)  And in thy seed shall all the nations
  >of the earth be blessed; because thou has obeyed my voice.
  >(This follows the story of the offering of Isaac)."

  >That Paul has *deliberately* changed the sense of the original is
  >clear (he himself differentiates between singular and plural) 

You've totally lost me.  Every reference to seed in the original 
appears to be in the singular.  It is true that the seed will be
multiplied, but seed itself is still singular.  In exactly what way
has Paul changed the meaning?

  >...when the Hebrew original uses the term "sera Abraham" it is even
  >clearer that ALL of Abraham's seed, not only Jesus is meant.

Why?  Please be specific.  What is evidently quite clear to you is
quite a mystery to me.  I certainly understand how it could be
interpreted as you suggest.  The problem is, I also understand why
it can be interpreted as Paul suggests (which you are telling me
is clearly not a possibility).  Perhaps if you can explain why the
word "seed" (which is singular as Paul notes) must be interpreted
in a plural sense?

  >Peter disagrees with Paul in Acts 3:25 when addressing the Jewish
  >community in Jerusalem, he says:

  >"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God
  >made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall
  >all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

Does this not mean that all of these people being addressed have been
blessed by Jesus?  In fact, as I look at the context, this is by far
the most likely interpretation of this statement.  It is actually a
confirmation of Paul's point.

  >I *seem* to read confirmation for this, too, in another text:
	
  >"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
  >children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called." [Romans 9:7]

This is a bit of a stretch.  The context is determining who is truly
a Jew.  God said that Abraham's offspring would be reckened through
the son Isaac, not the son Ishmael.  As best I can tell, it has only
a marginal relationship to the point under discussion.  Perhaps you
can explain why you think this is particularly relevant.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    You seem to believe that since the Law of Israel is part of the Bible,
    and since Jesus said something approving about the Law, that he must
    therefore have said something approving about the entire Bible.
    
    Wrong.
    
    Think of the Law as the vowels and the Bible as the whole alphabet.
    Can all the claims about the vowels be generalized to all the letters
    of the alphabet?  No.  This is what you are trying to do.
    
    Worse, you appear to be operating under the assumption that all of
    the Law is included in the Bible.  I would like to correct that belief.
    (Whether or not you hold it, *some* reader does.)  There are two parts
    to the Law:  The Written Law, which is found in the Bible, and the
    Oral Law, which (obviously) is not.  Jesus was speaking of both of them.
    
    So, the Law and the Bible are intersecting sets.  Logically, you can
    not generalize from the attributes of one to the attributes of the
    other.  (You can generalize from the attributes of the intersection,
    but no farther.)  Nor do you want to.  Trust me.  The Law intersects
    with many things, from the Code of Hammurapi to the Koran, and not
    all are items that you would wish to endorse as "God-ordained".
    
    		*		*		*		*
    
    You also know, without me telling you, that Matthew 12:1-3 does
    show the disciples of Jesus breaking several commandments, and that
    your claim that "they were apparently not accused of stealing by
    those who confronted them ... it is doubtful that they were stealing."
    is an `argument from silence', a morally bankrupt argument.  It is
    also quite specious, due to the conspicuous break between verses
    8 and 9.
    
    If you wish to make the premise "All of the Bible is God-ordained."
    part of your religion, go right ahead.  However, I recommend that
    you treat it as a true premise, and not try to claim it as a
    conclusion.  It makes a fine, unanswerable premise, and you will do
    much better to treat it so.
    
    This is the end of my discussion on this sub-topic.
    
    							Ann B.

 Which commandments were they breaking?  Deuteronomy 23:25 indicates they were
 not stealing "When thou comest into the standing corn of they neighbour, then 
 thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle
 unto thy neighboour's standing corn".  The previous verse talks about taking a
 neighbors grapes but not putting them in any vessel.

 It is my understanding that it was a custom for farmers to have a section of
 their crops near a route of travel whereby hungry travelers could eat.  Certain
 tly this is not stealing, nor could it be considered harvesting as they were 
 not taking any with them.  



 Jim