Is Paul the anti-christ?

[famdigy]

I did some quick research just now on the translation you were using. It’s the New American Standard Bible, and it’s a literal, word-for-word translation. So it often sacrifices clarity and meaning for the sake of literalness.

Thanks, but first you said it was selective quoting and a bad translation. This would mean that the following versions of the bible are “bad translations” because all of them quote what Paul said word-for-word.

King James Version
New International Version
Contemporary English Version
21st Century King James Version

My second question, on what grounds do the other authors interpret what Paul really meant to say? how do we know what he really meant as opposed to what he really said.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

The key is reading the verse in context.

 

[famdigy]

The key is reading the verse in context.

you mean creative interpretation

 

[dolphinlove]

Dolphine,
Does Christianity accept “taking in by deceit” as a means of “ministering,” and propagandizing?
if the answer is no, how do you explain Paul’s statement: “But be it so, I did not burden you: being crafty, I took you in by deceit.”

ill get to Paul in a moment, but it was muhammad that was either decieved by the devil or made up his religion and decieved now over a billion people.
Did you read the parts around the statement as well instead of taking it out of context?
That will give you the answer, by taking it out of context, your making something into what it is not. Once again, this is a muslims fave pasttime, taking things out of text

 

[SalomeBintullah]

Thanks, but first you said it was selective quoting and a bad translation. This would mean that the following versions of the bible are “bad translations” because all of them quote what Paul said word-for-word.

King James Version
New International Version
Contemporary English Version
21st Century King James Version

My second question, on what grounds do the other authors interpret what Paul really meant to say? how do we know what he really meant as opposed to what he really said.

Well, the King James Version is definitely a bad translation. I said it was selective quoting because you took the verse out of context and mistook it to mean something completely the opposite. And I still stand by my statement that that was not a good translation. The sentence structure was torture.

We can know what Paul really meant by looking at the verse in the context of the verses around it. Even better, read the entire letter. As for how do we know to interpret what Paul really meant - again, context.

 

[famdigy]

Here is your answer Famdigy…
He has recourse here again to language applied to his opponents earlier:
“cunning” (⇒ 2 Cor 11:3),
“deceit” (⇒ 2 Cor 11:13),
“got the better of you” (⇒ 2 Cor 11:20),
“take advantage” (⇒ 2 Cor 2:11).

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839

Sorry Jakasaki, I looked at the individual quotes and it still doesn’t add up.
You are interpreting what he says and the justification for doing so is still not clear to me.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

you mean creative interpretation

Personally, I think creative interpretation is taking the verse out of context. That way, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Here’s an example that might help. I’m an anthropology minor, and just took an archaeology class this past semester. In archaeology, you have to record the context in which you find an artifact. If you don’t, it’s basically useless to you. You can’t interpret it. And believe me, archaeologists have come up with some pretty weird interpretations of artifacts that have been taken out of context.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

Famdigy, here is an article from This Rock magazine that talks about both letters to the Corinthians. It might help you.

 

[jakasaki]

OK Fam - here are all of the Greek verses from different Greek Bibles. If anyone reads Greek on here, maybe they will tell you what the right word is…

ἔστω δέ, ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς· ἀλλὰ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον.

Ἔστω δέ, ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς· ἀλλὰ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον.

εστω δε εγω ου κατεβαρησα υμας αλλ υπαρχων πανουργος δολω υμας ελαβον

ἔστω δέ, ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς, ἀλλ’ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον.

ἔστω δέ ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς· ἀλλ’ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον

Anyway, No Paul is NOT the anti-christ -

 

[dolphinlove]

Famdigy, here is an article from This Rock magazine that talks about both letters to the Corinthians. It might help you.

unfortunately, with muslims, they like to take things out of context and ride with them, no matter what the surrounding paragraphs say, they will concentrate on that one that looks bad without the rest of it, no matter what we say.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

unfortunately, with muslims, they like to take things out of context and ride with them, no matter what the surrounding paragraphs say, they will concentrate on that one that looks bad without the rest of it, no matter what we say.

Well, it never hurts to try, anyway. Perhaps someone reading this thread will get something out of it. And anyway, I like to debate.

 

[jakasaki]

Sorry Jakasaki, I looked at the individual quotes and it still doesn’t add up.
You are interpreting what he says and the justification for doing so is still not clear to me.

The principal divisions of the Second Letter to the Corinthians are the following:

I. Address (⇒ 2 Cor 1:1-11)

II. The Crisis between Paul and the Corinthians (⇒ 2 Cor 1:12-⇒ 7:16)
A. Past Relationships (⇒ 2 Cor 1:12-⇒ 2:13)
B. Paul’s Ministry (⇒ 2 Cor 2:14-⇒ 7:4)
C. Resolution of the Crisis (⇒ 2 Cor 7:5-16)

III. The Collection for Jerusalem (⇒ 2 Cor 8:1-⇒ 9:15)

IV. Paul’s Defense of His Ministry (⇒ 2 Cor 10:1-⇒ 13:10)

V. Conclusion (⇒ 2 Cor 13:11-13)

And once again, NO Paul is NOT the anti-christ

 

[GodIsGracious]

you mean creative interpretation

I’ll say you’ve done some creative interpretation.

Before you go accusing anyone of being the antichrist by using bible passages, use the correct bible first.The King James Version is a poor translation and in many places WRONG.

Use an approved CATHOLIC bible. The King James version is NOT a Catholic bible.

BTW, quit coming in here and quit trying to disprove Catholicism. You only make yourself out to be the DECEIVER JUST LIKE MUHOMMED that you are.

 

[famdigy]

The principal divisions of the Second Letter to the Corinthians are the following:

I. Address (⇒ 2 Cor 1:1-11)

II. The Crisis between Paul and the Corinthians (⇒ 2 Cor 1:12-⇒ 7:16)
A. Past Relationships (⇒ 2 Cor 1:12-⇒ 2:13)
B. Paul’s Ministry (⇒ 2 Cor 2:14-⇒ 7:4)
C. Resolution of the Crisis (⇒ 2 Cor 7:5-16)

III. The Collection for Jerusalem (⇒ 2 Cor 8:1-⇒ 9:15)

IV. Paul’s Defense of His Ministry (⇒ 2 Cor 10:1-⇒ 13:10)

V. Conclusion (⇒ 2 Cor 13:11-13)

And once again, NO Paul is NOT the anti-christ

It’s very strange that a person has be subjected to these drawn out elaborate explanations just to understand a simple statement. Perhaps the Bible is not so simple to understand.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

I’ve found a resource that has a list of many different translations of this verse. It also has a list of commentary on the verse. They all agree that Paul is refuting an accusation against himself.

 

[jakasaki]

Famdigy - the information I posted is from the Vatican Bible - but here is a good one you should use:

catholic.org/bible/

 

[SalomeBintullah]

It’s very strange that a person has be subjected to these drawn out elaborate explanations just to understand a simple statement. Perhaps the Bible is not so simple to understand.

Catholics definitely maintain that the Bible is not always easy to understand. It makes sense, if you remember that it was written by people in a different time period, in a different part of the world, in a different culture, and that their audience was people in that time period and region and culture. Even translations of secular modern literature often have footnotes and study guides to go along with them.

 

[jakasaki]

It’s very strange that a person has be subjected to these drawn out elaborate explanations just to understand a simple statement. Perhaps the Bible is not so simple to understand.

No Famidigy- it’s quite simple. You took one line out of the 2 Cor, a specific verse and you expect to understand it.

You must start with the first letters - 1 Cor - read all of them and make your way into the
2nd letters. The Bible is easy to read and it flows beautifully.

But you must start at the begining of something and not towards the end to understand what Paul is writting about.

When you pick up a book to read it, any book, you don’t start at 3/4 way of the book do you?

 

[famdigy]

Catholics definitely maintain that the Bible is not always easy to understand. It makes sense, if you remember that it was written by people in a different time period, in a different part of the world, in a different culture, and that their audience was people in that time period and region and culture. Even translations of secular modern literature often have footnotes and study guides to go along with them.

I agree, and the footnotes, and study guides need to make sense, otherwise they are put to question. For instance, you say that Paul was refuting the Corinthians, yet there is nothing in the passage itself to suggest he is refuting their claim. And the commentaries well they don’t shed any light, on explaining step-by-step how paul’s comment is meant to refute.

Instead of explaining the verses, the commentary of this verse is a diatribe about good men.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
12:11-21 We owe it to good men, to stand up in the defence of their reputation; and we are under special obligations to those from whom we have received benefit, especially spiritual benefit, to own them as instruments in God’s hand of good to us. Here is an account of the apostle’s behaviour and kind intentions; in which see the character of a faithful minister of the gospel. This was his great aim and design, to do good. Here are noticed several sins commonly found among professors of religion. Falls and misdeeds are humbling to a minister; and God sometimes takes this way to humble those who might be tempted to be lifted up. These vast verses show to what excesses the false teachers had drawn aside their deluded followers. How grievous it is that such evils should be found among professors of the gospel! Yet thus it is, and has been too often, and it was so even in the days of the apostles.

The commentary below makes a blanket statement “is hereby anticipated and refuted”, it is a presumption of the commentator rather than an explanation.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
16. I did not burden you-The “I” in the Greek is emphatic. A possible insinuation of the Corinthians is hereby anticipated and refuted: “But, you may say, granted that I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you (in my net) with guile”; namely, made a gain of you by means of others (1Th 2:3).

 

[godhavemercy]

It’s very strange that a person has be subjected to these drawn out elaborate explanations just to understand a simple statement. Perhaps the Bible is not so simple to understand.

The Bible is very easy to understand if you have an open mind and willing to understand.

Also The Bible could easily be taken out of context if you cut and paste and make it suitable to your badgering.