Did anybody refute A. Victor Garaffa article on Paul?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

When you suggested that my criticisms of Paul would result in the gutting of the whole New Testament, I had said:
"I never said that. I never said we should gut the entire NT."

Alleging that I said something stronger than my actual words is called a "straw man" argument, an argument that is thereby easy to knock down.

While I might probably quibble with the definition of "straw man," for the moment that is unnecessary. I think my point may have been lost on you. You didn't need to say "gut the New Testament," it was the natural conclusion once one applies the methods of dismissal to *all* of the writers. If anything, this might be considered a slippery slope argument, but it is not without basis as I have tried to show repeatedly.

But I do thank you for the time you have taken to convey your thoughts.

You're welcome, and I appreciate you taking the opportunity to expand on this subject.

I realize that believing in any religion takes a certain amount of faith, and my acceptance of the OT as the foundation for the NT is a premise I have chosen to accept on faith (or if one is more cynical, "for the sake of argument"). Given that the OT is accepted as a starting point, it is then reasonable to view the NT in a light wherein it must be consistent with the rules of the established premise. . . the acceptance that the OT is valid.

OK, in this we agree.

So while external consistency with the "real world" makes it tough to verify the events of the Bible, we still expect the events and doctrines to be internally consistent. (We all must agree that even an admittedly fictitious novel must be consistent within its own contrived reality.) Even if we viewed the Bible as blatant fiction, we would still expect it to make sense and be internally consistent.

But see, this is fallacious reasoning, it is an assumption that is not based on fact. Goodness knows I am not versed well enough to speak to the issue, but I have just gotten done reading some posts between bananabrain (our resident Jewish, and by default Old Testament, scholar) and another. Not only does he *acknowledge* inconsistencies in the Old Testament, he embraces them as constructive to his religious teachings, via the Jewish Oral Traditions. Again, I am not versed well enough to speak, but it is very easily shown that there are "inconsistencies" in the Old Testament as well.

And that is the problem I have with Paul and Luke. The books of Acts and the Pauline epistles are not consistent or even cross-referenced with the rest of the NT and they could be read as a new religion without any real basis in the gospels or the OT, because even when Paul quotes from the OT in an attempt to legitimize his new religion, he misquotes those passages from the OT or fails to realize their context is unsupportive of his agenda.

I guess it comes down to literalism as opposed to figuratism. It seems to me, and I may be incorrect, that your attempt is one of reconciling "fact" with texts that may or may not have been meant to be taken literally. Now, I know that at this point I probably seem to be some kind of Paul fan club supporter or something...that is not the reality. I am simply using logic to try to understand what the fuss is all about. So Paul had his faults, don't we all? Can't G-d use him anyway? Indeed, considering where Christianity has been and how far it has come, I think it stands as a testamony to the efforts of Paul and many, many others through the years.

Now, if one wishes to take a literalist tact, then by removing Paul the man we know as Jesus becomes "just another" wise teacher. Nothing special, certainly nothing to start a religion over, or to suffer martyrdom for. Nothing special means gutting the New Testament, because nothing in it is of any particular merit once the dismissals are complete, except perhaps a few platitudes and bumper sticker slogans.

And most believers do not see Paul's theological mistakes because they have already accepted him in advance by faith, and this faith is like a lock nut that keeps them trapped in their belief system. Their faith acts like a "firewall" that preserves their doctrine from any real questioning.

OK, I think I see what you are saying, and to some extent I agree. Some of us still think for ourselves though, and some of that thinking means divorcing ourselves from secular knowledge holding sway over religious knowledge. It is a fine line to walk, but one must choose whether to hold secular scholarship above religious scholarship, or the other way around. A lot of that may be, in my opinion, the internal drive to focus on scholarly development, or spiritual development. One would hope the two are not mutually exclusive, but all too often in my experience they are.

This might be a fine way of life. . . .unless it turns out to be a false belief, and then there might be some wailing and gnashing of teeth on Judgment Day if they were to discover that salvation is based on righteous works and repentance of sin in addition to the blood of Jesus. . . rather than mere mental assent or belief that Jesus died for their sins and no works of repentance are necessary.

But see, this has no bearing on whether or not Paul had anything to do with anything. There are Pauline Christians that believe in both directions you point. Further, what if Paul isn't such a bad guy afterall? That he actually has had G-d's blessings all along. Then what?

I still think, feel, believe and conduct my affairs in this life under the impression that what we believe is not nearly as important as what we do with what we believe. I still fail to see how undermining other's beliefs in is any way for the better. When we stand before G-d on judgement day and He asks us "what did you do for me?" Is our answer to be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread Your Word to the Gentiles." "OK, how many hungry did you feed? How many naked did you clothe? How many grieving did you console?"

Suddenly, scholarship just doesn't seem so important after considering that. It is a nice exercise, it keeps the mind agile. But like the Buddhist lesson of looking at the finger instead of looking at the moon to which it is pointed, we can get lost quibbling over the meanings, what i's are dotted and which are not, and how to hold our tongue "just right" when we say grace. These are unimportant, G-d isn't going to care one way or the other.

Of course, I can't speak for G-d. I could be mistaken. But I know He knows my heart, and He knows I love Him. And whether or not Jesus even walked the face of the planet, or whether his disciples stole his body from the tomb and revived him and wisked him off to France with Mary Magdalene as wife, or whether the words attributed to him are even his, or whether Jesus is even his real name; all of these are red herrings from a religious point of view. The point is the lessons...what do we learn, what do we take away, what do we do with them? Do we tear them apart, or do we take them to heart and guide our lives by the lessons taught? If the latter, then the former is unimportant, and has no bearing or meaning. It is inconsequential. Now, if the former, then the lessons are lost, one is looking at the finger, not the moon. One has taken their eyes off of the prize, speaking from the point of religious scholarship.

And if Paul was the false apostle Jesus condemned in Rev 2:2, he will not be present at the pearly gates to argue in behalf of those who think they are saved by faith alone "lest anyone should boast".

Yet, if Paul is deemed a "good and faithful servant," what will his detractors have to say? In that sense, I think Cyberpi has a good point, there is too much focus on assassinating Paul's character, and loosing sight of the spiritual value of the lessons. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is destroying the message because of the messenger.

I have no illusions of convincing anyone on this subject. But locknut I ain't, I am a viable free thinker, beholding to no one but G-d. There are times I wonder about the Jesus question, and in the end, I think it is unimportant. Certainly not worth going through life judging other's characters. I am not appointed judge in this life. I gotta figure out if the lessons are worth the effort, or if I need to find an alternate path. The alternate paths I have considered are not all that different at their core, so I might as well stay where I am comfortable, and take certain things on faith.

 

[Excaliburton]

But see, this is fallacious reasoning, it is an assumption that is not based on fact. Goodness knows I am not versed well enough to speak to the issue, but I have just gotten done reading some posts between bananabrain (our resident Jewish, and by default Old Testament, scholar) and another. Not only does he *acknowledge* inconsistencies in the Old Testament, he embraces them as constructive to his religious teachings, via the Jewish Oral Traditions. Again, I am not versed well enough to speak, but it is very easily shown that there are "inconsistencies" in the Old Testament as well.

Unlike the blind faith that most religions are based upon, having an assumption is not fallacious reasoning as long as it is overtly identified as a tentative assumption or a premise.
The assumption that the OT is true is just that, an assumption, and I do not claim to be able to conclusively prove that everything in the OT is true without a time machine. But as long as we view the veracity of the OT as an assumption rather than an established fact, we can proceed to discuss the implications of the OT on the veracity of the NT since the NT claims to derive its authority from the OT.

And unless one can resolve the inconsistencies in the Bible, one must admit we are merely believing in an elaborate fairytale, but I am not surprised to hear that rabbinic "logic" attempts to evade that conclusion. As a footnote, please note that the Karaites oppose this rabbinic "reasoning". See http://www.light-of-israel.org/what_is_the_torah.shtml

When we stand before G-d on judgement day and He asks us "what did you do for me?" Is our answer to be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread Your Word to the Gentiles." "OK, how many hungry did you feed? How many naked did you clothe? How many grieving did you console?"

My answer would be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread a FALSE GOSPEL to the Gentiles." And I studied Your Word so I could recognize Paul was the false apostle Jesus predicted in John 5:43 and fulfilled in Rev 2:2 at the church of Ephesians that correctly rejected Paul.

But whether you believe Paul was a false apostle or whether you think he was just misunderstood or mistranslated, his perceived doctrine has contributed to a dispensational theology and to a climate in which sin and crime abound in the modern world.. . because if people believe their salvation is based on faith alone aside from works, there is no motivation to abstain from sin or crime. And I can tell you from personal experience that many "Christians" cannot be trusted to behave honestly because they think their faith alone gives them a free pass to heaven, irrespective of their bad works towards their fellow man. Their bumper stickers shout they are not perfect, just forgiven. Don't be too sure of that! Though you may not achieve perfection, you should at least try, as Jesus had urged.

 

[InLove]

Excaliburton,

I am going to interrupt again just long enough to tell you and anyone reading this thread that what I read of the record of Jesus' words is that He said He would send a Comforter. I cannot prove to you that He actually said this. But in my spirit is testimony and proof that He did just that. You can call it delusion if you like, but I know what I know. And from what I read, Paul knew it, too.

I will leave you alone about it now.

I wish you peace.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Quahom1]

Unlike the blind faith that most religions are based upon, having an assumption is not fallacious reasoning as long as it is overtly identified as a tentative assumption or a premise.
The assumption that the OT is true is just that, an assumption, and I do not claim to be able to conclusively prove that everything in the OT is true without a time machine. But as long as we view the veracity of the OT as an assumption rather than an established fact, we can proceed to discuss the implications of the OT on the veracity of the NT since the NT claims to derive its authority from the OT.

And unless one can resolve the inconsistencies in the Bible, one must admit we are merely believing in an elaborate fairytale, but I am not surprised to hear that rabbinic "logic" attempts to evade that conclusion. As a footnote, please note that the Karaites oppose this rabbinic "reasoning". See http://www.light-of-israel.org/what_is_the_torah.shtml

Then, what are you doing here? Attempting to recruit others to you side of cynisism? I fail to understand where your going with this line of reasoning.

Just because you don't accept, what others are not allowed to accept either? Hmmm.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!

It seems some of my compatriots are a bit unsettled with contrasting points of view. In fairness, I think anybody tends to cringe with matters that threaten their beliefs. It is a normal state of existence.

Having said this, I wish to proceed, with the understanding that I am trying to discuss this in as much of a neutral attitude of scholarship as I am able to muster. Your point of view does not threaten my faith walk, nor my outlook. Most of the material I have already considered quite some time ago.

Unlike the blind faith that most religions are based upon, having an assumption is not fallacious reasoning as long as it is overtly identified as a tentative assumption or a premise.
The assumption that the OT is true is just that, an assumption, and I do not claim to be able to conclusively prove that everything in the OT is true without a time machine. But as long as we view the veracity of the OT as an assumption rather than an established fact, we can proceed to discuss the implications of the OT on the veracity of the NT since the NT claims to derive its authority from the OT.

However, this line of reasoning creates a irrational dichotomy. Correct me if I am mistaken...It seems the entire basis of dismissing Paul is based on "fact," historical, scriptural and / or otherwise. Yet now it is claimed that the veracity of the Old Testament, on which the New Testament is based, is an assumption, a premise. Ergo, not a fact. So, in effect, the argument seems to me to be using a tentative assumption to dismiss a fact. This is that to which I tried to point earlier...all one needs to do is carry the argument to its rightful end, and the whole comes tumbling down. Better to spend one's time going fishing...

And unless one can resolve the inconsistencies in the Bible, one must admit we are merely believing in an elaborate fairytale,

Indeed, that is the *specific* argument of atheism.

but I am not surprised to hear that rabbinic "logic" attempts to evade that conclusion. As a footnote, please note that the Karaites oppose this rabbinic "reasoning". See http://www.light-of-israel.org/what_is_the_torah.shtml

I have no issue with the Karaites, or any others. Frankly, I know next to nothing about them, beyond what bananabrain has provided on this site. His view is none too flattering. What I understand is that they are a fringe element, hardly representative of Judaism as a whole (or even a significant portion). Hate to say it, but it would be like using a fringe element of Christianity (say, maybe David Koresh's group, or some like) to define Christianity.

As for "rabbinic logic," personally I find it refreshing, to hear someone make a conscious, deliberate choice not to subordinate their spiritual practice to secular philosophy. That is a trend I see, of which I often find myself guilty. I am quite content discussing pre-historic humanity and the ramifications to religious development...until the science deliberately threatens my faith, at which point my spiritual development definitely overrides my intellectual development, and my spiritual practice trumps my intellectual pursuits.

Again, discussions such as this are nice, they keep the mind engaged and active. But the bottom line is Judgement Day...what will we say when G-d asks us what we have done for Him?

My answer would be, "Well, Lord, I argued against that traitorous kook who spread a FALSE GOSPEL to the Gentiles." And I studied Your Word so I could recognize Paul was the false apostle Jesus predicted in John 5:43 and fulfilled in Rev 2:2 at the church of Ephesians that correctly rejected Paul.

That's fine, if that is what you believe...now, what do you do with what you believe?

But whether you believe Paul was a false apostle or whether you think he was just misunderstood or mistranslated, his perceived doctrine has contributed to a dispensational theology and to a climate in which sin and crime abound in the modern world.. . because if people believe their salvation is based on faith alone aside from works, there is no motivation to abstain from sin or crime. And I can tell you from personal experience that many "Christians" cannot be trusted to behave honestly because they think their faith alone gives them a free pass to heaven, irrespective of their bad works towards their fellow man. Their bumper stickers shout they are not perfect, just forgiven. Don't be too sure of that! Though you may not achieve perfection, you should at least try, as Jesus had urged.

In all gentleness, look, mistranslation is part of being human. I haven't met a person yet who has it all figured out, and those that are convinced they do have it all figured out, scare the living sh*t outta me. I haven't got it all figured out, and I don't pretend I do. I've put a lot of effort into trying to figure it out...yet the more I learn, the more I realize how clueless I am.

Paul was a human being living in extraordinary times. Maybe he was "right" in the eyes of G-d, maybe he wasn't. If he wasn't, then Christianity is the biggest hoax to ever hit civilization. The success of Christianity is either a testament to G-d's personal choices in management, or a testament to Lucifer's power of usurpation (is that a word?). So either I, and the countless millions before me, are on a path that is acceptable in G-d's eyes (I will not say the *only* path), or all of us countless millions are destined to be firewood in the biggest bonfire the universe has ever known. And that's just the Christians! (I will not even ask of Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc...)

Even so, I have yet to hear a detractor of Paul describe the world "as it should be" without Paul. The entirety of the message is the undermining of Paul's testamony and activities. Allow me a simple question, and a simple answer (in fairness, it is a trick question).

How does an anti-Pauline Christian note, mark and observe Easter?

 

[InLove]

It seems some of my compatriots are a bit unsettled with contrasting points of view. In fairness, I think anybody tends to cringe with matters that threaten their beliefs. It is a normal state of existence.

Having said this, I wish to proceed, with the understanding that I am trying to discuss this in as much of a neutral attitude of scholarship as I am able to muster. Your point of view does not threaten my faith walk, nor my outlook.
Most of the material I have already considered quite some time ago.

Hi juan--I appreciate your efforts and your point of view. I think you have made a great deal of sense. I do enjoy the conversation, actually, and I did not mean to give the impression that I feel threatened by any of this. And I look forward to your continued dialog with Excaliburton. I think our friend would be very surprised at how open-minded I really am. It's just that this particular subject is, I admit, one of my pet peeves. I know that not everyone would agree with me, but I think that far too much has already been excluded from the Chistian canon. Anti-Paulinists want to tear down even more. So many Christians seem to have such a hard time seeing others included in God's love, and I am not blaming them. But, in my opinion, there is too much division already, and it is not the fault of Paul.

But whether you believe Paul was a false apostle or whether you think he was just misunderstood or mistranslated, his perceived doctrine has contributed to a dispensational theology and to a climate in which sin and crime abound in the modern world.. . because if people believe their salvation is based on faith alone aside from works, there is no motivation to abstain from sin or crime. And I can tell you from personal experience that many "Christians" cannot be trusted to behave honestly because they think their faith alone gives them a free pass to heaven, irrespective of their bad works towards their fellow man. Their bumper stickers shout they are not perfect, just forgiven. Don't be too sure of that! Though you may not achieve perfection, you should at least try, as Jesus had urged.

I said I was going to leave you alone, didn't I? Well, I just can't until I address the above. I guess I cannot speak for every Christian, but I am certain that I speak for many when I say that you do not understand what happens when faith in Christ results in the work of the Spirit inside of a person. There is no "free pass" the way you describe it. If a person has the same Spirit of God inside them as Christ did--and that is the promise--then that faith produces the desire and the ability to produce good works. Maybe you have met people who misuse the label "Christian", or have not learned yet how faith and works go together, just like James and Paul.

You tell me (well, not directly, of course--but me and people like me) that I should not be sure that I am forgiven. You say I should at least try to be good. Well, I do. But I figure it is better to try and do that within the promise that Jesus Christ gave me--trust in Him, and good fruits will follow. And I have been at it for a while.

I don't usually just keep harping on something this way. But you are keep insisting that Paul was evil, and even though I respect your right to believe so surely whatever you believe, I find that I must speak up, over and over. Not for my sake, but for the sake of others.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[inhumility]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/
There is the link.

Thank you for providing the link.I have read almost half of the article .Could somebody please give information about life history of Mr.A. Victor Garaffa .
The article often refers to Peake's Commentary on the Bible , The Interpreter's Bible ,Gospel of Jesus, Jerusalem Church,and certain theologians or interpreter's. if somebody could give more information about these books, terminology.
There was a reference in the article of a Book named ' Jacob ' in the NT, I could not find any book by this name in "New International Version".Has it some other name?
Thanks

 

[Excaliburton]

Hi juan--I appreciate your efforts and your point of view. I think you have made a great deal of sense. I do enjoy the conversation, actually, and I did not mean to give the impression that I feel threatened by any of this. And I look forward to your continued dialog with Excaliburton. I think our friend would be very surprised at how open-minded I really am. It's just that this particular subject is, I admit, one of my pet peeves. I know that not everyone would agree with me, but I think that far too much has already been excluded from the Christian canon. Anti-Paulinists want to tear down even more. So many Christians seem to have such a hard time seeing others included in God's love, and I am not blaming them. But, in my opinion, there is too much division already, and it is not the fault of Paul.



I said I was going to leave you alone, didn't I? Well, I just can't until I address the above. I guess I cannot speak for every Christian, but I am certain that I speak for many when I say that you do not understand what happens when faith in Christ results in the work of the Spirit inside of a person. There is no "free pass" the way you describe it. If a person has the same Spirit of God inside them as Christ did--and that is the promise--then that faith produces the desire and the ability to produce good works. Maybe you have met people who misuse the label "Christian", or have not learned yet how faith and works go together, just like James and Paul.

You tell me (well, not directly, of course--but me and people like me) that I should not be sure that I am forgiven. You say I should at least try to be good. Well, I do. But I figure it is better to try and do that within the promise that Jesus Christ gave me--trust in Him, and good fruits will follow. And I have been at it for a while.

I don't usually just keep harping on something this way. But you are keep insisting that Paul was evil, and even though I respect your right to believe so surely whatever you believe, I find that I must speak up, over and over. Not for my sake, but for the sake of others.

InPeace,
InLove

I never meant to imply that all or even most Christians feel that sin is permissible since they are saved by faith alone, as Paul insists and James disputes. But many Christians in my community feel that good works are optional or actually irrelevant. And they also say there is no longer any such thing as sin because the law has been abolished. . .and without the law there is no such thing as sin.

And then there are other Christians who just think they are unable to control their sins (contradicting Deu 30 8:20). They think people are intrinsically sinful and degenerate, so why even try to stop sinning. Besides, they say, "God loves sinners"!!!! Sigh!

 

[Quahom1]

I never meant to imply that all or even most Christians feel that sin is permissible since they are saved by faith alone, as Paul insists and James disputes. But many Christians in my community feel that good works are optional or actually irrelevant. And they also say there is no longer any such thing as sin because the law has been abolished. . .and without the law there is no such thing as sin.

And then there are other Christians who just think they are unable to control their sins (contradicting Deu 30 8:20). They think people are intrinsically sinful and degenerate, so why even try to stop sinning. Besides, they say, "God loves sinners"!!!! Sigh!

Don't know what Christian community you are in, but I doubt I would recognise it if I stepped in for a visit.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Excaliburton!
I am actually very pleased to see you have not given up on this discussion.

I never meant to imply that all or even most Christians feel that sin is permissible since they are saved by faith alone, as Paul insists and James disputes. But many Christians in my community feel that good works are optional or actually irrelevant. And they also say there is no longer any such thing as sin because the law has been abolished. . .and without the law there is no such thing as sin.

And then there are other Christians who just think they are unable to control their sins (contradicting Deu 30 8:20). They think people are intrinsically sinful and degenerate, so why even try to stop sinning. Besides, they say, "God loves sinners"!!!! Sigh!

I understand to what you are pointing, but as I said about misinterpretation, it is part of being human. Personally, I can see a number of translations coming from the saying "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." There are those as you suggest that seem to use something like this to excuse untoward behavior, but they are not the be all and end all. Frankly, I think it is an immature understanding of the statement. Whereas I use it to mean that even though I may try, *very hard*, to be perfect, I will fall short. Thankfully my Savior is there to lift me up, teach me what I need to learn, and move on with my life. Perhaps that is an awful lot to read into a few words, but it is how I use that phrase, and I do use that phrase a lot.

It never ceases to amaze me the spectrum of interpretations that come from the teachings of Jesus. On the one hand, it demonstrates the power of individuality and the desire to throw off yokes of bondage. On the other hand, it creates a quagmire of conflict that leaves newbies and outsiders (and not a few insiders) scratching their heads wondering what all the fuss is about.

I am familiar with those to whom you point, and frankly I chalk it up to inexperience and immaturity. Earthly age has no bearing, there are 90+ year olds who still eat pablum. Guess what?, we gotta love 'em anyway. (and that's Jesus, not Paul.)

BTW, the question still stands. The answer really is crucial to which direction you are pointed:

"How does an anti-Pauline Christian note, mark and observe Easter?"

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, inhumility!

Thank you for providing the link.I have read almost half of the article .Could somebody please give information about life history of Mr.A. Victor Garaffa .
The article often refers to Peake's Commentary on the Bible , The Interpreter's Bible ,Gospel of Jesus, Jerusalem Church,and certain theologians or interpreter's. if somebody could give more information about these books, terminology.
There was a reference in the article of a Book named ' Jacob ' in the NT, I could not find any book by this name in "New International Version".Has it some other name?
Thanks

I am concerned your questions may become buried. They are valid questions. I have heard of Peake's commentary, but I know nothing about it. I know nothing of the other books and scholars mentioned. I have not heard of a "book of Jacob," certainly not in the Bible. I wonder if the book of James is what was intended? Otherwise, the story of Jacob is in the latter part of the book of Genesis as I recall.

Perhaps someone else can help you with this.

 

[inhumility]

Kindest Regards, inhumility!

I am concerned your questions may become buried. They are valid questions. I have heard of Peake's commentary, but I know nothing about it. I know nothing of the other books and scholars mentioned. I have not heard of a "book of Jacob," certainly not in the Bible. I wonder if the book of James is what was intended? Otherwise, the story of Jacob is in the latter part of the book of Genesis as I recall.

Perhaps someone else can help you with this.

Thank you

 

[inhumility]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/
There is the link.

Dor!
Hi
Sir
I acknowledge you being well-versed in Bible.
I have read Bible in my local language.There is a verse in Bible,which if translated from my local language to English would be something like thus:
Father (My Father) who is in heaven (sky) hears me (accepts my prayers).
There is no seach facility in my local language.Would you kindly provide the reference in English Bible?
Thank you

 

[Dor]

First thought would be....
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Matthew 6:9-15[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' 14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.[/FONT]
But I am not sure that is the one you were wanting?

 

[Quahom1]

Dor!
Hi
Sir
I acknowledge you being well-versed in Bible.
I have read Bible in my local language.There is a verse in Bible,which if translated from my local language to English would be something like thus:
Father (My Father) who is in heaven (sky) hears me (accepts my prayers).
There is no seach facility in my local language.Would you kindly provide the reference in English Bible?
Thank you

Which chapter and what language?

 

[Dor]

Thanks Q I didnt think to ask that.

 

[inhumility]

First thought would be....
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Matthew 6:9-15[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' 14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.[/FONT]
But I am not sure that is the one you were wanting?

Thanks sir,but this is not the verse I am looking for.The words of the verse are fresh in my mind but I cannot trace it in English Bible, most probably it was in the Gospels.Sorry to trouble you.
Thanks again.

 

[Dor]

Thanks sir,but this is not the verse I am looking for.The words of the verse are fresh in my mind but I cannot trace it in English Bible, most probably it was in the Gospels.Sorry to trouble you.
Thanks again.

Not a trouble can you remember the book or chapter or even a bit more of the verse.

 

[juantoo3]

Bump in honor of Mr. Garaffa's return.

 

[Dream]

I never saw that 'General articles' section before. I just looked over Mr. Garaffa's summary at the end of his article. I wonder whether his conclusions have changed since he posted it?