Criticizing Pulling Proof-texts out of Context – 2018-12-13

Continuing to refute the “take down” of a champion of “Israel Only” interpretation of the Bible, I criticized his wrongly pulling his proof-text out of context:

The next hole is that Michael B. presupposes that the IO perspective is correct, and, apparently, assumes that Ray Comfort ALSO shares this view, WITHOUT having established his premise, or making reference to a proof of that theorem. In a court of law, the defense attorney should exclaim, “Objection, you honor: assuming facts not in evidence.”, and the objection should be upheld.

“Then, he goes on to say, ‘In Romans, chapter 9, verses 3 through 4, we see that the covenant and promises were for the fleshly Israel, but Christians believe they are the recipients of those covenants and promises. What do you call someone who tries to claim what is not rightfully theirs? ‘A thief’, he says.”

So, yes, he accurately interprets verse 4, but ignores what seems to me to be very necessary context, in determining whether the claim of Christians to have the right to participate in those is wrong. To wit, first Paul claims that SOME of the intended heirs are disqualified:

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
[skipping Paul’s argument allegorizing a mythical account that the gullible, and the biased for confirmation, hold as HISTORY, and his defense of the right of “God” to chose whom he wishes, and, apparently, change his mind about that]
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So, here we see the Paul believes that believers from among the “gentiles”, the non-Jewish nations, have been granted to share in the covenant and promises.

I’m not going to look it up, right now, but I remember Paul also saying that the non-Jewish Christian believers were “grafted” into Israel…. or was it “into” Abraham? OK… I’ll look it up… yes, in chapter 11:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

So, if Michael B. is going to rely on the theology of Paul, which came out of hallucinations, likely, in the context of ecstatic worship, that “god” revealed the gospel of his Jesus Christ BY GIVING HIM DIVINE UNDERSTANDING of the Torah and Tanach (see below), then he ought not to pick the cherries he likes, but make his pie from all of the fruit.

How Paul says he got his gospel:
1st Corinthians 15:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures…

According to what “scriptures”? To Paul, the Hebrew “Bible” WAS “the scriptures”, and we have no evidence of any Christian writings before Paul’s, so, to him, those are not included. And how does Paul know* that ” Christ died for our sins”, and that “he rose again the third day”? Was it from the newspaper, or TV pundits? No. Was it from the powerful preaching of the apostles before him? No. It was “according to the scriptures”.

He denied getting his gospel from any prior apostle or other preacher:
Galatians 1:
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ….
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood…

Since Paul gives absolutely no historical context for his Jesus Christ, but claims revelation of the meaning of the scriptures, and that he got his gospel by revelation, we can conclude that HIS Jesus Christ is not the “Jesus of Nazareth” in the later composed historical fictions called “gospels”.

Of course, I don’t believe that testimony. I suspect that he engaged in ecstatic worship, and hallucinated. He might have given a personal name to an already personalized, anthropomorphized “Wisdom (Logos) of God”, the worship of which, I am given to understand, centered about Alexandria. Perhaps that name, Yeshua/Joshua/Iesous/Jesus, was already in use for that mystical, mythical, spiritual “being”. We don’t have enough evidence to precisely trace the earliest path of development of the Christian myth.

Hits: 54

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.