When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.

On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.

I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.

Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.

Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,

We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.

Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.

That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!

It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.

There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,

I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.

A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.

There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.

The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.

Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.

But Paul speaks of Abraham as a “righteous” man though Abraham was a sinner.(Romans 3:28, 4:10)

Because of his belief and not what he did. The Jews, on the other hand, believe it is because of what he did (obey).

Thus, an isolated tribal member would not only have to believe in God, but according to John, he would have to believe specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Therefore whether one died as an unrighteous person like that....what was it....tribal isolate who never had a chance to hear and accept the Gospel or as a righteous person like Abraham or Lot, both the righteous and the unrighteous would be resurrected.

Yes, because the Bible says God created man body and soul and not just a soul, so the resurrection is the restoration to life of all created souls by uniing them with their new bodies. However, then, the unrighteous will be sent to eternal lake of fire. The resurrection itself is not slavific.

As Paul said of the child, infant, too young to accept and put faith in Christ, they would be adjudged as their parents were.(1 Cor. 7:14)

How disingenuous! He also says the unbelieving husband, who who's not too young to put his faih in Christ, is sanvtified as wlel (by "osmosis" I guess) because of the believeing wife. So, if both parents are not sanctified, then the child also goes to hell with them, right? That's a new twist. And where does Paul get this novelty?

So, again, what were you saying about me being unfamiliar with?

More misunderstanding of Paul's words. But since it's easier to call what he was inspired to write a “novelty” than to gain a broader familiarity of what the Scriptures teach.....

“Because of his (Abraham's) belief and not what he did.”

Not so. Paul argued the Jews could not claim a righteousness due to performing works of the law (Romans 3:20) since Abraham was declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28), the Mosaic law not yet being in existence.

Abraham had received a promise and because of faith acted, he was to be the father of many nations so in faith he had relations with Sarah though both were beyond the child bearing years. (Romans 4:18-22)
That both Abraham and Sarah acted or had works that demonstrated their faith, their faith leading to works, is the point made at Hebrews 11:8-12.

“Thus, an isolated tribal member would not only have to believe in God, but according to John, he would have to believe specifically in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.”
Being isolated how would he ever have an opportunity to believe anything? Do you propose he is lost because of being born and dying in a time and culture far, far away?

You miss entirely what Jesus said about the resurrection and his being given the power of judging at John 5:27, and that those in the memorial tombs (literally “memorials”) would hear his voice and come out, to either life or judgment. Only then could that hypothetical isolate be called “saved”.

“Yes, because the Bible says God created man body and soul and not just a soul, so the resurrection is the restoration to life of all created souls by uniing them with their new bodies. However, then, the unrighteous will be sent to eternal lake of fire. The resurrection itself is not slavific”

“”Yes, because the Bible says God created man body and soul and not just a soul, so the resurrection is the restoration to life of all created souls by uniing them with their new bodies......”

Wrong. The first mention of “soul” involving man is at Genesis 2:7 and there it says Adam BECAME a nephesh, a “living soul” when having the breath of life blown into him.
Previously animals were also called nephesh, “souls”.(Gen, 1:24)

“....so the resurrection is the restoration to life of all created souls by uniing them with their new bodies”

With some caveats I can agree since there is no real English equivalent for the ideas contained in “nephesh”. “Living creature, personhood, life, possible life” all are inadequate. Even the Almighty Jehovah is called a “nephesh” or soul in the Hebrew Scriptures.

“The resurrection itself is not slavific”
No, it provides opportunity for who have died and are in memory tombs as worth of being giving an opportunity, those called righteous and unrighteous.

I wrote: As Paul said of the child, infant, too young to accept and put faith in Christ, they would be adjudged as their parents were.(1 Cor. 7:14)

“How disingenuous!” You call my comment hypocritical and insincere? How so? How it it not candid, Etc.?

Paul's statement is quite straight forward and simple. The unbelieving parent is considered clean as a parent and marriage mate by virtue of the believing parent so the children are considered clean also.
Thus no believer had excuse to leave an unbelieving mate on the basis of that one’s unbelief.

Novelty? Paul read the Scriptures. He knew what happened to those outside the ark, adults and children, while Noah and family were safe inside. He knew what happened to the cities like Sodom when the inhabitants, children and adults, were destroyed. He could read of Lot's wife and daughters, who, though not called righteous like Lot, could still be saved by following Lot's lead. “disingenuous?” “novelty”? Ridiculous!

I use “unfamiliar” in place of a less polite but more descriptive term.

...your faith is conditional upon faith in those people who introduced your faith to you.

That has not been my experience. I have not had "religious instruction": It was not permitted when I was growing up. (My Dad considered it a form of brainwashing. :^) ) In spite of this, I found God — perhaps it's better to say He found me.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. — Romans 1:20

IOW, I realize that the entire creation is an epiphany of God....

You wrote:

This is also why I keep asking whether the referenced tribal, isolated and separated from the rest, is saved or not. If yes, then what use is faith, when all can live in ignorance and be assured of this “salvation” without having to pull all the requisite strings that faith in any deity demands than to know and risk failing the “test”?

Faith is not "for use"; there are no requisite strings to pull; there is no "test." The conceptual language you use to describe God and faith is woefully inadequate IMHO. I think you may equate faith in God with the performance of regular sectarian religious practices. Such practices can be signs of faith; but they are not faith itself.

There is a difference between "innocent" ignorance, and willful ignorance. In your case, it appears the ignorance is willful. Willful ignorance is the sign of the reprobate mind. A God of justice and love can forgive the former; but not the latter. In short, I do not believe in universal salvation: God judges individual souls, not mankind at large.

What is totally amazing to me is that the Word of God, the Logos, has been "in the world" from the beginning, long predating the Incarnation of Christ. Even the ancients sensed it. Some of my favorite examples:

The Wisdom of Ptahhotep
[Ptahhotep was the vizier of a Fifth Dynasty King, Isesi, his tomb can be found at Saqarra.]
Do not let your heart become proud because of what you know;
Learn from the ignorant as well as the learned man.
There are no limits that have been decreed for art;
There is no artist who attains entire excellence.
A lovely thought is harder to come by than a jewel;
One can find it in the hand of a maid at the grindstone.
Do not let your heart become swollen with pride
In case you may be humbled.
It is true that one may become rich through doing evil,
But the power of Truth and Justice is that they endure
And that a man can say of them: “They are a heritage from my father”.
If you are resolute, acquire a reputation
For knowledge and kindliness.
Follow the dictates of your heart.
Let your face shine during the time that you live…
It is the kindliness of a man that is remembered
During the years that follow …
The Wisdom of Amenemope
[Eighth century BC]
The man who respects the poor is beloved of God.
Be not covetous of wealth.
You can swallow down a fat morsel,
But you may vomit it up,
And be emptier than you were before…
Better a single bushel bestowed by God
Than five thousand ill-gotten…
When you hear things spoken that are of good or evil report,
Reject the latter, as though it had never come to your ears.
Keep a sweet word ever on your tongue.
Never allow a division to sunder what you say from what is in your heart.
Do not say: “I have found a powerful patron…
Now I can play a dirty trick on someone I dislike”.
No, remember that you do not know what is in the mind of God,
And that you cannot know what may happen tomorrow.
Rest still in God’s arms
And your silence will confound your enemies.
Man is the clay and straw, and God is the builder,
Daily he destroys and daily he recreates…

God is not only the creator and sustainer of the physical world; without Him, the moral universe would be inconceivable. Yet as we see in these ancient texts, man has long sensed the moral law, even before Christ came to fulfill it. I believe the moral law is "'written into human hearts." If a man then denies it, he is nabal, a fool — guilty of willful ignorance, of a reprobate mind....

In conclusion, just a thought from William James, the great psychologist, philosopher — and pragmatist (who was certainly not a religious enthusiast!):

We and God have business with each other, and in opening ourselves to his influence our deepest destiny is fulfilled. The universe ... takes a turn genuinely for the worse or for the better in proportion as each one of us fulfills or evades God's demands.

Oh, and one more thought, from T. S. Eliot (Murder in the Cathedral):

We do not know very much of the future
Except that from generation to generation
The same things happen again and again.
Men learn little from others' experience.
But in the life of one man, never
The same time returns. Sever
The cord, shed the scale. Only
The fool, fixed in his folly, may think
He can turn the wheel on which he turns.

Thanks for your reply!

Paul argued the Jews could not claim a righteousness due to performing works of the law (Romans 3:20) since Abraham was declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28), the Mosaic law not yet being in existence.

Nice try, and James 2 reads:

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So, I suppose it depends which mortal you are willing to believe...

One thing is certain: the OT God did not ask people to believe in him. He told, he commanded people to obey him, not out love but of out fear, because he is the LORD, and he calls the shots. And the Bible is full of instances where readers are told that they will be JUDGED for their deeds, not their faith.

By being rewarded for their obedience strengthened their faith. The more their works pleased God the more rewards they received and the more they believed. Paul got it backwards.

Being isolated how would he ever have an opportunity to believe anything? Do you propose he is lost because of being born and dying in a time and culture far, far away?

That's the gist, hence the great commission...

You miss entirely what Jesus said about the resurrection and his being given the power of judging at John 5:27

John 5:27 differs form Matthew 25, where you are judged for what you have done in his name, and certainly from Hebrews where it is said that man is a/appointed to die only once and then the judgment. You are judged after death.

Wrong. The first mention of “soul” involving man is at Genesis 2:7 and there it says Adam BECAME a nephesh, a “living soul” when having the breath of life blown into him.

Nepehsh means breath. And what is breath in Greek? Pneuma. And what is pneuma translated as? Spirit (or soul), the power that quickens the body. So, man is a body with a spirit, a life force. When a man dies, it is believed his spirit remains; the body falls apart. At the Judgment Day, the spirits are reunited with new bodies and the condemned are sent into the fire. But the judgment has already been made at their death.

No, it provides opportunity for who have died and are in memory tombs as worth of being giving an opportunity, those called righteous and unrighteous

That is not the Chirtain belief as far as I know. At least i never head it when I was a practicing Orthodox Christian. It sounds a lot like the "Purgatory".

That is something Paul invented. Wouldn't be the first thing.

Novelty? Paul read the Scriptures

You mean the Tanakh, aka the Old Testament? Wherein the OT does it say that an unbelieving spouse is saved by the faith of the believeing spouse, and so are the children??? Whatscirptuire did Paul quote from?

And, did God spare Lot's wife because Lot was a believer?

“So, I suppose it depends which mortal you are willing to believe...”

You miss entirely the basis and logic of Paul's argument to the Romans, and to the Galatians, that the law covenant condemned the Israelites because they could not keep it. So Christians would be declared righteous, not due to works of law, but of faith and that faith was evidenced by their actions,

Paul and James were in agreement...faith was demonstrated by action, Paul lists the many examples of faith demonstrated by actions in Hebrews chapter 11 and James says faith without works, not works of the Mosaic Law, but the doing instead just saying, works is dead.

“Paul got it backwards.”

Like Christ got it backwards?

“By being rewarded for their obedience strengthened their faith. The more their works pleased God the more rewards they received and the more they believed.”

kosta has it backwards.

Let's see what else is here....

“John 5:27 differs form Matthew 25, where you are judged for what you have done in his name, and certainly from Hebrews where it is said that man is a/appointed to die only once and then the judgment. You are judged after death.”

Differs? how?

“You are judged after death.”

Then what was the purpose of the resurrection Jesus spoke of at John 5:27-29?

You say, “That is not the Chirtain belief as far as I know. At least i never head it when I was a practicing Orthodox Christian. It sounds a lot like the “Purgatory”.

Nothing like a purging or ‘Purgatory’. But perhaps you weren't properly instructed and that accounts for the difficulty you're having with understanding what the Bible teaches...well that and a professed agnosticism and

“That is something Paul invented. Wouldn't be the first thing.” Oh really?

“Nepehsh means breath. And what is breath in Greek? Pneuma. And what is pneuma translated as? Spirit (or soul), the power that quickens the body. So, man is a body with a spirit, a life force.”

Ahhh....not quite. Nephesh, soul is the Greek psykhe, spirit is pneuma, and the two are not treated as the same in the Scriptures. (Heb. 4:12) Unless you understand that difference then what the Scriptures say will not be clear.

What did those folks teach you anyway? What?

“You mean the Tanakh, aka the Old Testament? Wherein the OT does it say that an unbelieving spouse is saved by the faith of the believeing spouse, and so are the children??? Whatscirptuire did Paul quote from?

And, did God spare Lot's wife because Lot was a believer?”

Paul said those examples I cited were written down to provide a lesson to later generations. But a specific Scripture? No, nor did he need to.

God did spare Lot's wife. She was warned and left a city God was preparing to destroy.
She was spared as long as she followed where Lot lead. When she didn't....she retained salt badly.

Saved is your term not mine. Paul said sanctified or made clean in relation the other mate.

Among Paul's examples of faith was Rahab, who by her faith and actions had her whole family spared though nothing is said of their faith.
Paul was not offering up some “novelty”.

“So, I suppose it depends which mortal you are willing to believe...”

“Paul got it backwards.”

Like Christ got it backwards?

“By being rewarded for their obedience strengthened their faith. The more their works pleased God the more rewards they received and the more they believed.”

kosta has it backwards.

Let's see what else is here....

Differs? how?

“You are judged after death.”

Then what was the purpose of the resurrection Jesus spoke of at John 5:27-29?

You say, “That is not the Chirtain belief as far as I know. At least i never head it when I was a practicing Orthodox Christian. It sounds a lot like the “Purgatory”.

“That is something Paul invented. Wouldn't be the first thing.” Oh really?

“Nepehsh means breath. And what is breath in Greek? Pneuma. And what is pneuma translated as? Spirit (or soul), the power that quickens the body. So, man is a body with a spirit, a life force.”

What did those folks teach you anyway? What?

And, did God spare Lot's wife because Lot was a believer?”

Paul said those examples I cited were written down to provide a lesson to later generations. But a specific Scripture? No, nor did he need to.

God did spare Lot's wife. She was warned and left a city God was preparing to destroy.
She was spared as long as she followed where Lot lead. When she didn't....she retained salt badly.

Saved is your term not mine. Paul said sanctified or made clean in relation the other mate.

Among Paul's examples of faith was Rahab, who by her faith and actions had her whole family spared though nothing is said of their faith.
Paul was not offering up some “novelty”.

You miss entirely the basis and logic of Paul's argument to the Romans, and to the Galatians, that the law covenant condemned the Israelites because they could not keep it. S

Only God could keep it perfectly. Men are not expected to be perfect. The Hebrew God expects them, however, to honestly try even if they honestly fail. The intention is what counts. Paul, if he were a Jewish scholar (which the Jewish Encyclopedia says he was definitely not) would have known that.

Christians would be declared righteous, not due to works of law, but of faith and that faith was evidenced by their actions,

And that is a Pauline innovation. The Law was never intended for the Gentiles, so that part was never in question. The OT takes care of the Gentiles' obligations in terms of the seven Noahide Laws, and that's the only obligation the Gentiles have towards the God of Israel. They have no other role as far this God is concerned, unlike the Jewish people who are charged with God's obligations.

Paul and James were in agreement

Clearly not. That would be obvious even to someone with a basic reading comprehension skill. It takes an active attempt to deny the obvious to say they were in agreement, when they are clearly saying two different things.

.faith was demonstrated by action, Paul lists the many examples of faith demonstrated by actions in Hebrews chapter 11

Hebrews was not written by Paul.

and James says faith without works, not works of the Mosaic Law, but the doing instead just saying, works is dead.

James is saying that works of obedience to God lead to and strengthen your faith. That's like night and day from what Paul is saying. Exactly the opposite in fact.

kosta: “Paul got it backwards.”

cyc: Like Christ got it backwards?

Paul is Christ?

kosta: “You are judged after death.”

cyc: Then what was the purpose of the resurrection Jesus spoke of at John 5:27-29?

Hebrews and John are at odds (what else is new?). Hebrews says your are judged after death and says nothing of any second chance. If God wanted everyone to hear his message he would have done so, don't you think? In fact, Hebrew 8:10-11 uses Jeremiah 31 to state exactly that, except the promise was mad only to the House of Israel.

The koine Greek word for breath is both psyche and pheuma(tikos). The two concepts are completely related, as far as meaning soul, spirit, living force, life, etc. in English.

kosta: And, did God spare Lot's wife because Lot was a believer?”

Paul said those examples I cited were written down to provide a lesson to later generations. But a specific Scripture? No, nor did he need to.

I guess he didn't need to because....to you, Paul = Christ? No wonder. Oh, I forgot, Christ is not your God, so he might as well be equal to Paul! Okay.

God did spare Lot's wife. She was warned and left a city God was preparing to destroy. She was spared as long as she followed where Lot lead. When she didn't....she retained salt badly.

So, let me get this right: as long as the unbelieving spouse is doing monkey-do what the believing spouse does, with no faith whatsoever, that spouse gets saved? And Paul just pulled that "rule" out of nowhere because he could, right? And you believe him? Why?

At any rate, there is at least one good biblical example that a believer's spouse doesn;t get saved.

Saved is your term not mine. Paul said sanctified or made clean in relation the other mate.

"Clean" as in what sense? How much more hateful can religion get by calling "dirty" or "unclean" those who don't buy into some ordinary mortals tale?

Among Paul's examples of faith was Rahab, who by her faith and actions had her whole family spared though nothing is said of their faith.
Paul was not offering up some “novelty”.

Picky, picky, selectively blind...and Job's family was wiped out. But not to worry, God gave him a new a set at the end...they are easily replaceable.

“Men are not expected to be perfect”

Jesus said they were. (Matt. 5:48)

“Paul, if he were a Jewish scholar (which the Jewish Encyclopedia says he was definitely not) would have known that”

The Jewish Encyclopedia commenting on Paul? Maybe they have some Talmudic tales to share too.

I wrote: Christians would be declared righteous, not due to works of law, but of faith and that faith was evidenced by their actions.

“And that is a Pauline innovation”.

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone
(James 2:17)

Paul and James were in agreement. A Christian must not only believe but act on that belief.

“not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Romans 2:13)

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” (James 1:22)

James and Paul do agree.

James said that to break the Law in any point was to break the whole Law. (James 2:10) Who said intentions are what counts?

See?

“The OT takes care of the Gentiles’ obligations in terms of the seven Noahide Laws, and that's the only obligation the Gentiles have towards the God of Israel. They have no other role as far this God is concerned, unlike the Jewish people who are charged with God's obligations.”

Nope. The illustration Jesus spoke at Matthew chapter 21 shows how that apostate Jewish nation was no longer going to be a nation, “a people for God's name.”
Harlots and tax collectors were going ahead of it's religious leaders into the Kingdom. (Matt. 21:31)

Finally as Jesus foretold Jerusalem was destroyed,
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.
Behold your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matt. 27:37, 38)

In summing up Jesus said that kingdom was being taken away the apostate Jewish nation and given to a nation producing it's fruits. (Matt. 21:43)
Those religious leaders understood the illustration (Matt. 21:43)

What does The Jewish Encyclopedia say about Jesus’ illustration?

James spoke of that nation to whom the kingdom of God would be given, a people for His name taken from the Gentiles.
(Acts 15:14)

“If God wanted everyone to hear his message he would have done so, don't you think?”

“Hebrew 8:10-11 uses Jeremiah 31 to state exactly that, except the promise was mad only to the House of Israel.”

“The Great Commission”? He did want all to hear the message, don't you think? and for those who didn't have opportunity? The resurrection of the both “the righteous and unrighteous”

‘The House of Israel’ would be those God recognized as such not by where they were born or their parentage. (Gal. 3:26-29) Who is a Jew from God's viewpoint? (Romans 2:28, 29)

“Hebrews and John are at odds (what else is new?).”
Both Paul and John received a revelation from Christ so did Christ have it backwards?

“Hebrews was not written by Paul” There is no better candidate for it's author.

I'll say again that ‘You miss entirely the basis and logic of Paul's argument to the Romans, and to the Galatians, that the law covenant condemned the Israelites because they could not keep it’.

In Romans chapter three Paul clearly says the Jews had a great privilege in receiving the Law but it was not the keeping of law that imparted righteousness as their fleshly forefathers treatment by God demonstrated. (Romans chapter four)
Those Roman Christians who were born into the Jewish nation had no reason to be self righteous on that account in relation the Roman Christians who were from the Gentiles.
As shown in Paul's words to the Galatians:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:28,29)

“The koine Greek word for breath is both psyche and pheuma(tikos). The two concepts are completely related, as far as meaning soul, spirit, living force, life, etc. in English.”

Related but not the same. They are not interchangeable. The way the terms soul and spirit are used are used would reveal that.

“Clean” as in what sense? How much more hateful can religion get by calling “dirty” or “unclean” those who don't buy into some ordinary mortals tale?”

If you read the OT and pay some attention you would see the concept of cleanness and uncleanness quite often discussed, being holy and sanctified versus profane, etc.

“So, let me get this right: as long as the unbelieving spouse is doing monkey-do what the believing spouse does, with no faith whatsoever, that spouse gets saved? And Paul just pulled that “rule” out of nowhere because he could, right? And you believe him? Why?”

You haven't gotten anything right yet but have at it!

“And you believe him? Why?”

Paul had the testimony of Christ and those who knew Christ.

kosta, your religious training may have been extensive but your Biblical training appears to be about nothing, perhaps even a hindrance to understanding the Scriptures.

“And you believe him? Why?” And you don't. Why?

Breaking it up into smaller segmetns...

[“Men are not expected to be perfect”] Jesus said they were. (Matt. 5:48)

Either there is a reading comprehension problem with you or you are just plain disingenuous. The paragraph that contains Matthew 5:48 is all about love, not works. And, more importantly, verse 5:48 in the future tense, i.e. "you shall be perfect..."

So, yes, one day mankind will be perfect (in love), as God the Father is perfect in his, Judaism never expected anyone to keep the Law perfectly, let alone "fulfill" that which is eternal! But Judaism does expect an observant individual to try honestly to keep it perfectly. It's what's in the heart (the intent) that matters.

The Jewish Encyclopedia commenting on Paul? Maybe they have some Talmudic tales to share too.

How could I imagine that the Jews might know something about Judaism? What was I thinking? Only Paul knew Judaism...right?

Paul and James were in agreement. A Christian must not only believe but act on that belief.

They are in complete disagreement which comes first.

James said that to break the Law in any point was to break the whole Law. (James 2:10)

Of course...

Who said intentions are what counts?

Judaism does. Transgressions committed unwittingly were atoned differently from those committed intentionally or negligently.

The illustration Jesus spoke at Matthew chapter 21 shows how that apostate Jewish nation was no longer going to be a nation, “a people for God's name.”

I don't see any reference to apostate Jewish nation no longer being "a people of God" in Matthew 21.

Harlots and tax collectors were going ahead of it's religious leaders into the Kingdom. (Matt. 21:31)

Good grief, you really do have reading comprehension problems! Tax collectors and harlots were also Jews! Since when does a profession determine "Jewishness"? Jesus was simply saying that tax collectors and prostitutes were better Jews than the crowd he was addressing because they believed John (the Baptist).

Finally as Jesus foretold Jerusalem was destroyed

Did he? How can you foretell something that has already happened?!? You mean would be destroyed? Well, is't still standing. :)

In summing up Jesus said that kingdom was being taken away the apostate Jewish nation and given to a nation producing it's fruits. (Matt. 21:43)

He wasn't talking about the Jewish nation but of apostate individuals, more specifically the chief priests. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew and at odds with the Temple authorities (who were Sadducees). Sort of like Calvinists and Catholics today, ready to torch each other at first sight.

Context, cyc, historical context, helps a great deal in understanding the Bible. Cherry-picking verses and paragraphs because they support your preconcieved notions is a sure way to misunderstand what is being said.

What does The Jewish Encyclopedia say about Jesus’ illustration?

I am not sure it does.

James spoke of that nation to whom the kingdom of God would be given, a people for His name taken from the Gentiles. (Acts 15:14)

And just which or whose nation would that be?

“The Great Commission”? He did want all to hear the message, don't you think? and for those who didn't have opportunity? The resurrection of the both “the righteous and unrighteous”

All the Jews, sure. Jesus made it very clear that he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel. He was referring to the Jewish diaspora, dispersed in the "world" which in those days was a very limited concept.

‘The House of Israel’ would be those God recognized as such not by where they were born or their parentage. (Gal. 3:26-29) Who is a Jew from God's viewpoint? (Romans 2:28, 29)

No it isn't. The House of Israel was the northern Jewish Kingdom (Judah being the southern) in the days of Jeremiah, when he wrote about it the new Covenant (Jer 31). The northern kingdom as destroyed (because of their apostasy) and its inhabitants scattered, Paul's innovations notwithstanding.

Both Paul and John received a revelation from Christ so did Christ have it backwards?

That may be what you believe, but you have no proof of that. Just because 1 billion Muslims in this world believe in some rock doesn't mean it's true.

[Hebrews was not written by Paul” ] There is no better candidate for it's author.

Well, by far most Bible scholars disagree.

I'll say again that ‘You miss entirely the basis and logic of Paul's argument to the Romans, and to the Galatians, that the law covenant condemned the Israelites because they could not keep it’.

Paul says a lot of things, mainly to convince his audience (by his own admission). His interpretation of the Law is quite blatantly faulty and hardly reflective of a Jewish "scholar" . Here are some of many examples where Paul contradicts the Torah.

Yeah, and Paul also wrote that he was "all things to all men" as long as they bought his story. He changed his story as he saw fit, by "inspiration" of course/s.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.