About this forum:

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted.
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may sometimes take several days before the response is included in this forum.
Most recent additions are shown first.

Comments from correspondents are shown in BLACK.
Replies by Davis D. Danizier are shown in GREEN.

Notes:
1. While comments in agreement and disagreement are shown, this forum is a commentary on the article by Davis D. Danizier. The editors will try to present a balanced dialogue, but do not claim to be impartial and cannot ensure absolute objectivity.
2. Entries are presented in a dialogue format -- i.e., a series of related entries by a single writer are grouped together, along with Davis D. Danizier's replies to specific comments.
3. The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the contradictions of Paul vs. Jesus (and others, most notably James). Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus (this page)

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: Discussion about Christian Atonement Doctrine - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3daforum.html

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dbforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Dialogue with Gary
Gary writes on 11-28-03:

Criticism of Paul is extremely important, and it seems to come only from persons who have seperated themselves from Christianity to some extent. I consider myself to be a Christian, and I criticize Paul for the reasons which you mention.

DDD reply: Certainly separation from Christianity, or at least Biblical literalism (in the sense of worshipping the specific compendium of ancient writings that were canonized by the Catholic church in the 4th century A.D.), frees one up to be critical of Paul. However it is not necessary to separate oneself from Christianity to be critical of Paul. There is a very excellent website (which I will add to my site as a link next time I update it) which is run by CHRISTIANS who accept the divinity of Jesus as savior, but reject Paul.
Their website about Paul is at:
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/paulvsall.html
The index to their other progressive Christian pages is at:
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/religiousmenu.htm
I strongly suggest you check out this site. I get the feeling that you and Ray Dubuque (the manager of the site) would find a lot of common ground.

G: But it seems strange that you claim Christ is not the savior, while he said he is. This indicates that you have not grasped the depth of his message.

DDD reply: I have great admiration for the teachings of Jesus, which I perceive as having been undermined by Paul. Only a few people, such as yourself and several others, catch this important perspective. I do not, however, find any reason to believe him to be a divine or messianic personage. There are passages attributed to him that could be construed as claims of a messianic role, but they were written many decades after his death, in an age where there were no photos, videos or tape recordings to augment fallible human memory, and only a very few people were even literate enough to document in written histories or records events reasonably soon after they happened. And even if Jesus believed himself to be a savior or messiah, that would neither make it true nor undermine the other aspects of his teachings on personal and social morality which were brilliant. As for a messianic role or role as "savior," I have addressed the reasons I cannot accept that in greater detail in my website on the atonement, at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html

G: He described a path to salvation, as you indicate. He also said the path is hard to find and follow. To a large extent, the path is simply poverty. People do not find and follow poverty as a path, they are born into it.

DDD reply: I do not agree that this is the crux of Jesus' message. The crux of Jesus' teaching, from his first sermon, to repeated reiterations throughout his ministry, to his last public teaching (end of Matthew 25) in which he describes the final judgment and the criteria of salvation make clear that the focal point of everything he taught is universal compassion, expressed actively in deeds or works. Certainly materialism undermines that standard, but it is not necessary to go to the opposite extreme, of poverty. Yes, Jesus clearly spoke with compassion for the poor. But also for the sick, those who were in prison, and for detested foreigners from enemy nations such as Samaria. The common thread is compassion, and not just feeling it, but DOING something about it.

G: What poverty does is to force people to solve problems, and the process overcomes the sin inside of them--at least when they have a moral orientation. In poverty, people can only be effect, not cause. There is no sin in being effect, but it is about impossible to be cause without perpetrating injustices.

DDD reply: Sorry, but I find this to be simplistic and naive, and also not consistent with Jesus' teaching. Poverty can motivate some people to solve problems, but for many others it becomes a barrier, and source of frustration, and possibly even the motivator of sin if it causes them to lie, steal or worse to get out of their situation. One can rise above preoccupation with materialism without becoming poor. But to follow Jesus one would have to be compassionate toward the poor and make efforts to help them (not necessarily just give them fish, but also teaching them how to fish....)

This is a very complex subject, so I'll only say a few words. I have a very large web site on Christian morality linked below.

Gary Novak
Christian Morality
http://nov55.com/rel/contents.html
[Note: it is the policy of this website NOT to include last names of correspondents, however it is included here at the specific request of the writer]

Gary continues on 11-29-03:

I find Ray Dubuque's site to be very informative due to his knowledge of history and theology. But his emphasis is limited to criticism of Paul and conservativism (my preferred spelling). This leaves a lot of philosophical questions about the meaning of religion. The importance of the philosophy is demonstrated in your disagreeing with me on several basic points.

DDD reply: Well, it isn't my point to try and defend everything on Ray's site. Obviously since he is a Christian in the messianic sense, and I'm not, I don't agree with him fully. I will just say that I don't think anyone's site ... Ray's or mine and probably not yours, could possible claim to be so complete as to not leave unanswered a certain number of "philosophical questions about the meaning of religion." And while the one page I noted is about Paul, my sense that the rest of his site was not overwhelmingly so. He covers other issues as well. My point in suggesting his site was because you indicated that you agreed with my identification with Paul's problems, but felt isolated because most of those who say the same thing have strayed from a Christian belief. I was merely trying to show you someone who didn't.

As for your treatise on the nature of sin and how to overcome it, we differ on many key points:

G: I'll try to clarify some points of disagreement. First, for an overview, your emphasis on compassion and disagreement on the significance of poverty indicates that you have not grasped the broadest perspective on religion and life. The purpose of material life is to overcome sin.

DDD reply: I don't agree with this statement. What is your philosophical or moral basis for it? And in making this claim you assume some responsibility for defining exactly what sin is in relation to its role at the centerpiece of material life.

G: After sin is overcome, matter is no longer needed and is abandoned.

DDD reply: I do not agree with this. Life and existence occur in a number of dimensions, including the physical as well as the spiritual. To achieve the highest levels of attainment, one must be able to operate at both levels. With or without sin there would still be a role for physical operation.

G: To understand this, you have to realize what sin is. It originates in subconscious forces which are created through psychological conditioning (which means habits).

DDD reply: You make numerous assertions followed by conclusions based on them, all without any substantiation whatsoever. I don't at all believe that every sin is rooted in habituation. Many errors, especially first-time errors, may not be rooted in habit at all. And they might well be other than subconscious; certainly many evil acts have been committed with a high degree of conscious intent. In other cases, it might be nothing more than carelessness, even if that carelessness (lack of intent) is so thoughtless as to border on a callous wantonness.

G: Humans do not know how to undo psychological conditioning. They try to override it with more conditioning, such as negative reinforcements for smoking. A bitter cigarette tip would be an example.

DDD reply: Without at all having established the causal link between "subconscious" or "psychological conditioning" you now compound your error because your conclusion does not even follow logically from your flawed premise! In fact, we could agree that using a "bitter cigarette tip" is a poor method for overcoming conditioning, though it does succeed for some people. But the fact is that very few people succeed with that method, and that is why it is not the primary method for quitting smoking! In fact, there are many very successful smoking cessation programs, and none of them is based on this technique. Further, smoking itself is not merely tied to "psychological conditioning" but rather is also deeply rooted in physical addiction which must also be addressed. The most successful programs incorporate both psychological re-conditioning (which trained humans actually do understand quite well) along with medical techniques for responding to the biochemistry of physical addiction.

G: But Christ and the spirit world which he is a part of are not quite as dumb as humans; they know how to undo psychological conditioning.

DDD reply: Again, you simply make this assertion of a factual claim with absolutely no factual evidence to support it. I see absolutely no basis on which to conclude that Jesus or unidentified entities of the "spirit world" have such power.

G: The first requirement is control of the environment, since it is environmental influences which control psychological conditioning and its reactions.

DDD reply: So you assert that humans do not understand conditioning processes (contrary to the evidence that many do) and then you, as a human, claim to understand it. Your rationale is not holding up very well here.

G: The environment needed for the deconditioning of sin is described by the general term "poverty."

DDD reply: Again, you make a blanket assertion but offer absolutely no basis on which to back it up.

G: Nowdays, that concept is quite vague.

DDD reply: Well, yes, the term has so many possible connotations that it is quite vague. This is part of your problem in (unsuccessfully) trying to build a causal linkage between "sin" and "poverty."

G: For moral purposes, the powerlessness and vulnerability are major factors involved.

DDD reply: Conditions of "powerlessness and vulnerability" would also apply to alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence or almost any situation in which one is the innocent (not sinful) victim of a crime, though NOT to the perpetrator, who might still actually be quite impoverished himself, which would undermine you claim that poverty is required for overcoming sin. Not only have you failed to support that claim, you have not established the logical basis for it nor have you even shown that it applies to the existence (or overcoming) of sin, nor has your system contemplated the many other conditions of "powerlessness and vulnerability" which do not match your model.

G: These conditions (to a large extent) prevent people from sinning (because it takes power to be cause over other persons) and forces them to solve each other's problems.

DDD reply: This is an absurd statement. There is much sin and sinfulness among the poor, as well as others who are powerless and vulnerable.

G: In so doing, they must reverse the forces of corruption inside of themselves. Going through the motions of constructivity reverses the psychological conditioning of sin. You need to know what the characteristics of the subconscious forces are. The most basic force is the desire to dominate.

DDD reply: But this is much more closely affiliated with a lack of compassion than with a lack of poverty. While many wealthy people are certainly evil, sinful and domineering, I know of many who are not. There simply is not a direct causal link, whereas there is clearly a direct link between a lack of compassion and the desire to dominate. People filled with great compassion, whether rich or in poverty, do not dominate others.

G: It is then expressed as elitism, bigotry, jealousy, exploitation and all other attitudes of corruption. These forces gradually fall away, when people in poverty are solving each other's problems. Since this subject is so huge, I'll limit it to that for now, except to say that due to your not understanding the above material you got the role of compassion misinterpreted. Even though compassion is the driving force of morality, it cannot just be turned on for philosophical reasons.

DDD reply: Nor can "poverty" suddenly be "turned on for philosophical reasons." I did not say there is some magic switch by which compassion is turned on or off. But that does not mean that humans cannot learn strategies for setting in motion the conditions that lead to compassionate feelings, and much of this is what Jesus did teach. Even so, if you deny that compassion is the root of morality, then it is not just me you are disputing, but Jesus himself since he repeatedly states that universal compassion, expressed actively in behavior, is the standard by which judgment will occur. While he shows compassion for the poor (as well as those who are sick, in prison, or strangers), and denigrates materialism, it is not poverty that he establishes as the ethical standard, but compassion.

G: The sin has to be overcome, which is a very difficult task, as Christ indicated in so many ways.

DDD reply: And my whole point was that Jesus saw universal compassionate behavior as the key to overcoming sin. My further point was that killing him in a bloody "atonement" does not in any way whatsoever do anything to "overcome" the sins of anyone else, and you have not even made the attempt to show how killing an innocent many in any way atones for, ameliorates or assuages any condition of sinfulness.

Dialogue with Travis
Travis writes on 9-1-03:

As a purely intellectual excersize, what would be the consequences if Lucifer was the entity that St. Paul met on Damasus road?

DDD reply: I really enjoyed your thought-provoking "intellectual excercise." While I don't believe Paul actually had a miraculous enc ounter en route to Damascus, if there were any possibility that he did, your hypothetical scenario is certainly the most likely!

Dialogue with Lorren
Lorren writes on 8-30-03:

Hello, I can't sleep so I'm surfing the web tonight. Perhaps these scriptures will show that Paul was on the same page as Jesus:

DDD reply: Sorry you were having a restless night of sleep. I cited specific examples in which Jesus (later backed up by his brother James in stunning and explicit contradiction to Paul) stated that the basis of salvation was in actions, while Paul specifically states that salvation is based on faith. I have also noted repeatedly that both Paul as well as Jesus/James state the importance of both faith and actions, so your statements that reiterate their agreement on this do not undermine anything I said. The contradictory difference, which you have not addressed, regards which is the basis of salvation.

L: Paul taught the same message of repentance as Jesus taught. And he taught this same message to all people. Paul says in Acts: "I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus." (Acts 20:21)

DDD reply: No surprise here, this is Paul asserting the primacy of faith.

L: Paul taught the same message of repentance as Jesus taught. And he taught this same message to all people. Paul says in Acts: "I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus." (Acts 20:21)
"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)

DDD reply: This statement of the importance of deeds does nothing to contradict what I said. As noted, I have repeatedly observed that Paul preaches the importance of deeds, just as Jesus and James also teach the importance of faith. The contradictory difference regards the basis of salvation. In this statement, Paul extols the importance of deeds, but does not say they are the basis of salvation (and even if he did it would only provide an example of him contradicting himself based on the many other scriptures I had cited). Here he says of the value of deeds exactly what I said: they are important NOT because they are the basis of salvation, but because they are evidence that proves the conversion which, elsewhere, Paul notes as having been based on faith.

L: Jesus requires a little more than my "awkwardly-drawn piece of art":

DDD reply: The reference in my web page was a response to those who dismiss our "deeds" or "works" as being worth nothing more than "filthy rags" to an omnipotent being such as God or Jesus is believed to be by Christians. I was saying that even something of little intrinsic value can be the standard if that is what the standard is set at. Why do Christians accept Paul's assertion that a profession of faith-based conversion is sufficient to be "saved" because Paul claims that as the standard that Jesus set, but won't accept Jesus' own assertions in which he repeatedly states that the standard is works? You then go on to cite a couple of verses from the Sermon on the Mount, which only serve to add further emphasis of the very point I was making (thank you).The reference in my web page was a response to those who dismiss our "deeds" or "works" as being worth nothing more than "filthy rags" to an omnipotent being such as God or Jesus is believed to be by Christians. I was saying that even something of little intrinsic value can be the standard if that is what the standard is set at. Why do Christians accept Paul's assertion that a profession of faith-based conversion is sufficient to be "saved" because Paul claims that as the standard that Jesus set, but won't accept Jesus' own assertions in which he repeatedly states that the standard is works?

L: "...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." (Matt. 5:20)
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt. 5:48)(See later how salvation is God's plan for bringing us to this perfection)

DDD reply: You then go on to cite a couple of verses from the Sermon on the Mount, which only serve to add further emphasis of the very point I was making (thank you).

L: Paul is in complete agreement with Christ's ultimate commandment to love (yes, enemies too) and that this loving is the highest and greatest 'doing' or expression of one's faith, not the source of it: "...he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet', and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighboer as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10)

DDD reply:

L: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Do not take revenge my friends, but leave room for God's wrath...On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:14,17,19,20)

"The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6)

DDD reply: I agree that Paul also extols the virtues of deeds, and certainly of love (no one could read I Cor 13, one of the most inspiring passages on Christian love, and think otherwise). You go on to cite several verses from Paul to back up this point on which we don't even disagree. Once again, the contradictory difference is that Jesus (with James) makes this the standard of salvation and Paul creates a different standard. This is the point you have not addressed. In order to address it you will have to respond to the very specific examples I provided.

L: Don't miss the other 'qualification'--or more correctly--requirement of God's people; personal purity. (Another outward evidence of an inward salvation, not the means of salvation but simply an evidence of it).
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distess and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27)

DDD reply: Your citation of James is puzzling since James agrees with me that Jesus' standard of salvation is works and NOT FAITH alone (though he also emphasizes that, yes, faith is important). Further, while James does note later that it is the standard of salvation, the verse you cite doesn't say that.

L: Does John 3:19 and 20 show that we must 'do' to be saved? Keep reading through vs 21:"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:21)

DDD reply: John is unique among the gospels because he wrote later than the synoptic gospels and was heavily influenced by Paul. My point in referring to this is that even John, with his strong emphasis on faith, never went as far as Paul in saying that salvation is by faith APART FROM works; in his much-quoted reference to salvation for those who believe, he goes on to reiterate that works are needed for salvation in the very same passage; even in the very same paragraph division.

L: God knew when he gave the law--the requirements of God--that we were helpless to keep it's commands. God, after predicting the certainty of Israel's sin and rebellion to his law, said this: "I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised on oath." (Deuteronomy 31:21)
Because God knew that our natural inclination was toward sin and rebellion he prophesied through Moses about the day HE would make us able to serve him. Obedience is simply the evidence of having received this enabling that he grants to us through salvation:

DDD reply: Even so, the standard set by Jesus was based on works (however imperfect or inadequate), and the goal is perfection (Matt 5:48). It doesn't matter whether this is logical or feasible; it is the standard Jesus set and he is the one you claim to worship as savior, not Paul. If it is not logical or feasible, that is another problem for Christians.

L: "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." (Deut. 30:6)
How will he circumcise our hearts to be able to do his will? The prophet Ezekiel prophesies: "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I wil remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws...you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleaness." (Ezekiel 36:25-29)
As the text shows, repentance is the result of God's work in Salvation, not the source of it. Exactly Paul's point--faith (salvation) first, then works.

DDD reply: No, I already noted that Jesus/James and Paul agree on the sequence, first faith then works. That is not the difference. The contradictory difference is the mechanism of salvation: Jesus and James say that faith comes first and is important because it motivates deeds/actions/works, but it is the deeds/actions/works in which the salvation occurs; Paul claims (as you noted) that faith comes first and is the point of salvation, and is then reflected or evidenced in deeds/actions/works. However, it would not matter if Ezekiel had a concept similar to Paul's, though there are a number of important differences that you gloss over as to the mechanism of salvation. The relevant and important point is that JESUS set a different sequence and a different standard and you are choosing Paul's over Jesus'.

L: Where do you think he [Paul] got his teaching from?What's so hard about understanding that a genuine saving faith must, invariably, result in a turning away from sin and turning towards acts of righteousness?

DDD reply: It really wouldn't matter if he got it from Ezekiel or some other writer or made it up himself. The point is that it contradicts the standard given by Jesus, whom he claims to be supporting.

L: To have the one (faith) is to have the other (repentance, obedience). They are inseparable. Paul and James both knew this.

DDD reply: Paul and James (and Jesus) did indeed agree on this sequence, though James' statement about "faith without works" being "dead" suggests he recognizes faith can exist apart from works, (thus not "inseparable") and doesn't seem to think it is worth much when it does. The contradictory difference is in what they said about the mechanism of salvation. Even so, I would disagree with any of them who claimed that faith and works are inseparable; I have known many Christians who were devout and resolute in their faith and belief yet still fell quite short in their behavior. Conversely, I also know many wonderful people who are not Christians (they may be Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or even atheists) yet actively express universal love through compassionate deeds, with no "faith" in Jesus or acceptance of him as savior whatsoever. I do not at all agree with James and Paul that the two are inseparable. And while Jesus and James clearly teach the importance of faith, in the examples of salvation that Jesus gave, he only stated that compassionate love expressed in actions was necessary; while he might have believed that faith helped that process, he did not seem to require it and it does not seem that Jesus would turn away a compassionate Buddhist who lived his or her life in the compassionate service of others.

L: The call to repentance is the call to faith. Paul knows that if you have faith you'll have works, too. Paul and James both knew when Abraham believed, it was inevitable that action would follow thus proving the genuineness of his faith. If all you have is faith alone, then you do not have a real faith. That's all James is trying to say.

DDD reply: That most certainly is NOT "all James is trying to say." He did say that, but you misstate him when you say "that's all" he said. He also went on to explicitly declare that deeds/actions/works are the mechanism of salvation and NOT FAITH only, in a deliberate and direct contradiction to Paul's statements. He not only made his point, but went so far as to use the exact same words as Paul, in the exact same sequence and syntax, using the same scriptural references and examples. This is hardly a coincidence.

L: I want to respond to more, like the 'Law of Moses' and homosexuality sections but I'm ready to get some sleep. I have found that many of the people who struggle with God have a flawed salvation experience, or none at all. They haven't fully accepted the responsibility for their sin and so they short circuit the full joy of God's forgiveness. How meaningful is it to be forgiven for something you feel you aren't guilty of or responsible for? People in this vein of thought are still blaming someone else--or something else--for their sin. They simply have not come into the full grace of salvation yet. How many people do you know that have repented of something they feel isn't their sin? And if you think it isn't sinful how can you ask for and then experience God's forgiveness for it? If David would have been this way we would not have Psalm 51 today.

DDD reply: Repentance means changing the course of behavior from evil to righteous. It does not matter what the motivation is. It might be faith in god or Jesus, or in some other deity or teaching or philosophy, or it might just be the recognition of the importance of compassionate love in human interactions and relationships. Doesn't matter what the cause was. On the other hand, if that faith does NOT lead to compassionate works then it is, as James so eloquently stated, DEAD.

Lorren continues on 8-31-03:

I see now your arguement for the mechanism of faith, what triggers it, where it occurs is the point--not if faith or works are both needed or not (the usual arguement).

DDD reply: You're getting warmer. It was not an "either/or" proposition. I addressed both questions (more below).

L: I have heard that Martin Luther did not even consider that the book of James was worthy to be a part of the Bible.

DDD reply: I have heard the same thing. In addition, a number of evangelical Protestant writers have echoed the same sentiment. Isn't it interesting how quick some people are to just want to throw out the parts of the Bible they find "inconvenient"? ...to pick and choose the parts they will accept from a book they otherwise claim to be the "inerrant/infallible" word of god? And in picking which parts to accept, isn't it funny how they are so quick to take the word of an admitted Christian persecutor over the very brother of Jesus?

L: For those of us who have made peace with God it is easy to still be able to see the value of James's letter because of it's admonition to do--act!. Like all the other letters, the Bible admonishes us to DO! ACT! Does it say that those of us who have both faith and works are wrong? No, because, like you said, James and Paul both know faith and works are both integral parts of a genuine Christian's life.

James says faith alone is not genuine, but neither are works alone, you agree, correct?

DDD reply: James says that faith alone is not genuine; that works are the mechanism of salvation but faith is valuable as a motivator of works. Paul says that works alone are not adequate; that faith is the mechanism of salvation but that works reflect faith. Both men (Paul and James) say that both attributes (faith and works) are of value and importance. There is a difference between being valuable or important and being mandatorily essential. James does acknowledge value in faith, but does not rule out the possibility of salvation by works without it (i.e., suppose someone from a differing religious background such as Hindu or Buddhist lives a life rich in charitable kindness, yet has no faith or belief in Jesus whatsoever), though salvation in such a case might be much more difficult. Paul does acknowledge the value of works, but does not rule out the possibility of salvation by faith without works (i.e., suppose someone accepts Jesus as their saviour and then dies before they can express compassionate works), though such a scenario may be unlikely.

L: I think I understand now that you are simply saying there is a gross contradiction right in the word of God about which one, faith or works, actually secures salvation for a person, correct?

DDD reply: No, I am addressing both points. While James and Paul both acknowledge the value of both works and faith respectively, they place a different weight as to what is essential to salvation. Furthermore, yes, I am also pointing out the gross contradiction between the two men. This is essential in assessing the claims by Christians that the Bible is inerrant and infallible as the "word of god."

L: For us who genuinely believe, who have both faith and works (more and more I pray!), it is a moot matter. The fact remains and the Spirit Himself testifies (as John says) to all who who have believed, that we ARE saved, We've already passed from death to life as Jesus says. We have both faith and deeds. God has forgiven us, cleansed our conscienses of guilt, and equipped us and moved us to perform deeds of righteousness (that Ezekiel thing). God did all that, not me. My responsibilty now is to put one foot in front of the other and DO IT! As an already saved person, what triggered it is really not what we are focusing on now that the matter of salvation is settled. Don't get me wrong, I'm not surrendering my position.

But it's like another arguement in the church--does one receive the Spirit when he is water baptised, or when one believes?

DDD reply: And again, the choice is between Jesus and Paul. It was Jesus who said that one must experience a second birth of water and Paul who dismissed Jesus' pronouncement and said that salvation is by faith. Jesus always seems to go for action and Paul more for passivity.

L: Who cares! Just get the Spirit! That's the point!

DDD reply: Who cares? Well, I might well be inclined to agree with you, but funny how some people do, indeed, care about the requirements specified by the one they claim to be the only begotten SON OF GOD.

L: Before I make any unfair or false guesses, tell me how this affects you personally right now. Does this arguement keep you from having either faith or deeds?

DDD reply: I don't know to what extent you have read my other related web pages. If so, then I think my position would be pretty clear. I was raised as a Christian and was a true believer, strongly involved in teen ministries until I began to find contradictions and flaws in the Christian doctrine, especially regarding the atonement. Today I find the teachings of Jesus regarding universal compassion expressed in action to be the greatest moral philosophy ever taught, but cannot accept the doctrines of Paul regarding salvation by faith, nor Paul's doctrine of salvation by Jesus' atoning sacrifice. If you see my webpage about the atonement [http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html] you will see why I cannot accept this perverse teaching which undermines the true value of what Jesus brought to us. I do not accept Jesus as an atoning sacrifice or messianic savior, but I find him to be one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) moral teachers of all time. I believe I have fully justified the reasons for coming to these conclusions.

Lorren continues on 9-2-03:

I have to admit, I'm having a tough time getting my arms around your argument for what exactly rubs you the wrong way about Jesus/ James works and Paul's faith. You agree they all recognize and speak of the essentials of both, right? The difference being one is more important than the other, right?

DDD reply: I understand how you missed my point the first time. I did make it, but perhaps not so clearly. I am having difficulty understand how you could miss it the second time, though. I thought I reiterated quite specifically exactly where they differed, and it was at two levels.

First: Paul and James contradict as to the mechanism of salvation. One says it is faith and not works, the other says it is works and not faith. No matter how you slice it, this is a direct contradiction on a fundamental point of Christian theology, which undermines the belief in the Bible as being inerrant or infallible, and calls into question the extent to which Paul otherwise contradicts or disagrees with Jesus, which I explored even further in my website. You seem to dismiss this as being trivial or inconsequential, or just a matter of one being more important than the other while both are essential. I do not agree that this is a trivial point, nor do I agree that it is just a matter of degree, as I noted in my second point, which I thought was made quite clear but you don't seem to have gotten at all:

Second: it is NOT just a matter of degree. Paul and James are NOT both saying that both faith and works are REQUIRED. Paul and James do both assert that both faith and works are good things. Paul asserts that faith is the basis of justification, not works, but that works are valuable (not required) as evidence of that faith. James asserts that works/deeds/actions are the basis of justification, not faith, but that faith is valuable (not required) as a motivator of those works/deeds/actions. I gave examples of both. I'll repeat the examples from my last message verbatim: "James does acknowledge value in faith, but does not rule out the possibility of salvation by works without it (i.e., suppose someone from a differing religious background such as Hindu or Buddhist lives a life rich in charitable kindness, yet has no faith or belief in Jesus whatsoever), though salvation in such a case might be much more difficult. Paul does acknowledge the value of works, but does not rule out the possibility of salvation by faith without works (i.e., suppose someone accepts Jesus as their saviour and then dies before they can express compassionate works), though such a scenario may be unlikely."

Exactly what part of this did you find difficult to understand?

L: It sounded from your last e-mail there's more to it for you than which one acually secured salvation. I personally don't see a contradiction. TRUE faith results in deeds. TRUE deeds are impossible without TRUE faith.

DDD reply: Certainly this is a hybrid conclusion that could rationally be drawn to reconcile the two views, however it is not what either Paul or James actually said, and does not erase the direct and absolute contradiction. The contradiction is as to which is the mechanism of salvation, not a trivial theological point, AND as to which of faith and works is REQUIRED and which is merely advantageous.

L: The pursuit of GENUINE Holy Spirit deeds will invariably lead you to dependance on a TRUE faith. Do you think James is saying otherwise? Even if deeds are the ultimate source of salvation ,James recognizes the faith that is behind it (James 2:18): "...I will SHOW YOU MY FAITH by what I do". Does he advocate that works alone procure salvation? He does not.

If you do think James is advocating a salvation by works alone, then you missed a very important point he makes:

"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:26). Did you catch it? "As the body without the spirit is dead..." The body (works) are dead without the spirit (faith). Works are dead no matter how good the deed is if it is without the Spirit, God's spirit. Meditate on that.

DDD reply: No, I am not the one who has missed James point. You have not only missed it, you have turned it upside down from what he actually said. You quote him correctly: ""As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." But you have reversed the symbolism of what is the body and what is the spirit. You say the body symbolizes works and the spirit symbolizes faith. You have it exactly backward. Look at his metaphor: body without spirit is dead; faith without works is dead. In the sentence structure of his metaphor, body is replaced with faith and spirit is replaced with works. Like most Christians, you have completely reversed James' statement, and remember that he is defending his brother, Jesus. It is not that "Works are dead no matter how good the deed is" but that, as he actually says, faith is dead if it is without works. But noting his actual symbolism, not your reversal, a spirit can live without a body, but a body cannot live without a spirit. While he finds the body (works) to be of value, they are not essential. Similarly, in each of the cases that I cited from Jesus' teachings, he shows salvation by WORKS rooted in the active expression of compassion. While Jesus often extols the virtue and practical value of faith, he does not make it a requirement; he never rules out the possibility that a compassionate Buddhist or Hindu would be accepted into the kingdom of compassionate joy. Exactly the point I made.
Meditate on that.

L: It actually hurts my mind to think so deeply into the matter.

DDD reply: Perhaps that explains how you miss my statements, misread scripture, and transform James' metaphor into the exact opposite of what it says.

L: It is so clear to me.

DDD reply: And to MILLIONS of others who substitute their own clarity for the plain, clear teachings of Jesus and James which have been subverted and reversed by Paul.

L: The "believing" that James says the demons have in James 2:19 is NOT the "believing" or faith that Paul says is the basis of salvation in his letters.

DDD reply: That is a distinction YOU have added to scripture, not one that James makes. In fact, James is talking about exactly the same belief. The tone of this passage is that faith or belief alone is NOT ENOUGH, and shows that even the demons have such belief and they are not justified. If he was merely making a distinct but interesting theological point he wouldn't have chosen this context to make it. The fact that he makes it here, without any other point of distinction, means that he is saying exactly what I have quoted from him without amending or "editing" his text, as you need to do to make it come out the way you want it to since you don't seem willing to accept it the way it is actually written.

L: This may be where you are going astray. It is completely one thing to believe in the existence of God and quite another to trust or believe God for your eternal security. Do demons, who obviously know God exists, trust Him for eternal salvation? Paul talks about those kind of people, who know there is a God and the truthfulness of his message but who do not respond to his invitation of salvation (faith and repentance as Jesus, Paul, and James all talk about) in Romans 1:19-32.

DDD reply: So Paul contradicts James (and Jesus) yet again. This merely confirms my point.

L: This is what condemns everyone else who has chosen another way to please the Father--Buddists, etc....They have not accepted the way that God has told us by which we must be saved.

DDD reply: That is what Paul says. It is not what Jesus or James say. In fact, this conclusion directly contradicts the words of Jesus and James that I have referred to. When Jesus teaches, in his last public sermon (Matt. 25:31-46) about the salvation for those who showed compassionate behavior toward the "least of these" he did not exclude those who did not express faith in him, possibly not ever having even heard of him!

L: They have the knowledge of it, they understand it, but they simply have rejected it. They have gone the way of Cain, who knew what to do, but for whatever reason rejected it and insisted on his own way and fell under the judgement of God. "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right (bring the right sacrifice) will you not be accepted?" God says to Cain (Genesis 4:6).

DDD reply: I am not angry. I am not sad or downcast. And please note that God was talking to Cain here, who murdered his brother. I have not murdered or in any way harmed my brother or anyone else. However I do know of some "saved Christians" who have committed murders and other acts that might be considered, shall we say, less than compassionate, and now, I don't think their profession of salvation will make up for their vicious lack of compassion (see Matthew 7:21-27).

L: Of what I've seen now you may be guilty of at least two things:You simply do not want to believe or...You have not "rightly divided the word of God", taking all the things that are said about these things in to consideration to develop the complete picture of the knowledge of God's plan.

DDD reply: You are not in a position to judge me. I did not write to you, you found my site and initiated contact with me, which I welcome. But you don't know me, or how I live, or what I do. I understand that you have this judgmental preconception that anyone who has thoughtfully rejected the Christian mythology must be a murderer, rapist, or at least angry and downcast, but that is your fallible conclusion.

You are right that I do not "divide" the scriptures. I take them all, the good with the bad. Your problem is that you want to "divide" them until you pick and choose the ones that support your conclusions. But the reason there are thousands of sects and denominations is that the Bible is so riddled with contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies, that however much value it contains (and it has much) and however much historical and anthropological value it provides (and it provides much), no specific unambiguous statement of morality or theology can be clearly divined from it when taken in its entirety.

You are wrong to say that I "simply do not want to believe" when you know nothing of the torment I wrestled with when I first began to doubt. But no matter how difficult or painful, I held on to the moral courage to follow the truth wherever it led. And NOW that I no longer am burdened by having to accept the Bible in its entirety as "God's inerrant/infallible word," NOW I can "divide" and freely pick those parts that I find uplifting, spiritually enlightening and morally instructive (primarily the words of Jesus and his allies) and reject those who are harsh, mean spirited, cruel and who oppose what Jesus taught.

L: If you are guilty of the first one, there is nothing I can do to help you except pray that God peirces your soul with the courage and conviction to surrender your life totally to him in faith and repentance, otherwise... "If we DELIBERATELY keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."(Heb. 10:26)

DDD reply: Uh oh, here we go with the old cosmic threat. I have news for you, the Koran, the Moslems' Holy Book (which I have read) makes the same threat against Christians. I am no more intimidated by such Christian threats than they (or I) are intimidated by the Moslems.

Dialogue with James and Renee
James and Renee write on 6-2-03:

I read your critique of Paul vs. Jesus/James.

Very interesting. Do you keep the 4th commandment? Keeping the Sabbath holy (Fri evening to Sat. evening). Do you tithe, not only the whole tithe that belongs to the Levites, but also the tithe used to fill the storehouse and to eat.

DDD reply: I am no longer a Christian, so I am not personally concerned with strict obedience to the Law of Moses. My point, however, is that Jesus did teach this, and Paul taught the opposite, as per the specific references I cited. Even though this might be one of the instances in which I agree with Paul over Jesus, the fact remains of the contradictory difference between Jesus and Paul on this as well as the other points that I cited, particularly with regard to faith and works. The fact that most Christians today do NOT adhere to all these legal strictures evidences my claim that modern Christianity consists of followers of PAUL, NOT JESUS. They should be called "Paulians," not "Christians."

J&R: Do you observe all the legal requirements because scripture says to break any part is to be guilty of all. The Ten Commandments are only one part of The Law.

DDD reply: Could you please cite the specific passage of scripture (chapter and verse) that says that? Not doubting you, but just like to check the original sources for myself (you'll note that EVERY time I make a claim about what is in the Bible, I always provide the exact source). In any case, such a doctrine would simply be absurd, like saying that breaking any part of the Penal Code is guilty of breaking the entire Penal Code. Any rational person would recognize a difference between being cited for playing your music too loud and being arrested as a serial murder/rapist.

J&R: The Law and Prophets Jesus said was summed up in Loving God with heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself. The law is not a list it is the law of love written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Just a thought.

DDD reply: While I'm sure Jesus and the preceding patriarchs would hope that the law would be written lovingly in our hearts, the fact still remains that it also included a specific list, written in the old parchments of Hebrew legalisms.

James and Renee continue on 6-3-03:

Yes you are right about strictly showing the source since this is a rather technical argument.

James 2:8 ¶ If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

You see The Law is not something you can take piecemeal. It stands as a whole. God said if you fail to keep all of the law you are a transgressor.

DDD reply: Thank you for providing the scriptural reference previously mentioned. While I disagree with James' claim that any slightest infraction of law violates all aspects of the law (most rational people can distinguish between small violations and more serious ones), this does nothing to resolve the contradiction I cited between Paul and Jesus (backed up by his brother, James). In fact, it supports my position. Whereas Paul argues that the Law has been fulfilled, James is arguing for the continuation of the Law (as Jesus also did in Matt 5:18 -- that not one dot or iota [jot nor tittle] of the Law would change until "ALL THINGS" had been fulfilled, yet many things such as the end times prophecies, final judgment, and many others were NOT YET fulfilled at the time Paul declared the Law to be "fulfilled"). Not only is he arguing for its continuation, but for a rather extreme view of it -- i.e., that the slightest deviation from any part of the law violates the entire law! In the main issue of dispute about "faith" and "works" I think Jesus and James make the stronger points against Paul's opposing view; in regards to the merits of the rather harsh Law of Moses, I think Paul makes the better case that we don't need its rigid strictures. But these are just my opinions, and as a non-Christian they are quite irrelevant. What IS relevant, however, is that in both of these instances, Paul and Jesus/James are in direct contradiction. This is my point, and this is what you have failed to address.

J&R: When God gave the command to Adam they had two options follow or die (the soul that sinneth it shall die). Samson, never cut your hair, follow or fail. Scripture proofs are Deu 27:10 ad nauseum. Moses repeatedly states that if you don't keep the whole law you will be cursed horribly. Keep the whole law and you will be blessed.

DDD reply: This line of reasoning fails on two grounds:
First, the failure to distinguish between serious offenses and minor offenses. Sorry, but any law that fails to distinguish in degree between speeding and a serial murder/rapist just can't be taken seriously.
Second, in regards to the fall of Adam and Eve, the injustice in believing that their transgression can in any way be passed down to their descendants who are not the ones who committed their sins. To be born in sin because of what an ancestor, not yourself, did is repugnant to any concept of Justice. In fairness, not all sects of Christianity believe that, so this point only applies to those who take that position.

J&R: Remember the covenant God made with Abraham? Gen 15. The law never did away with it. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. The Pharasees were immaculate in their observance of the law, even adding fence laws to be certain they never even came close to breaking the sacred law. They were fanatical because they understood the law. It was merciless. Break one part and you have all the curses. Yet Jesus said, "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharasees you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven". The righteousness he spoke of was the righteousness Abraham attained by faith; the righteousness that we are offered in the same way.

DDD reply: Again, this is part of the specific CONTRADICTION between Paul and James. You interpret this as Paul does in Romans 4:3. However James 2:23 refers to this exact verse and then goes on to a conclusion that Abraham's salvation was based on his actions, not his faith alone. Since Genesis 15:6 does refer to belief specifically and not actions, Paul might have the stronger position in citing this reference. But that isn't my point. My point is that Paul and James CONTRADICT each other, and this is what you have not addressed.

Dialogue with Will
Will writes on 5-27-03:

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that faith or belief is static.

DDD reply: I do not agree that my "entire argument" is based on this premise, however this will be addressed further in the substance of the points you raised.

W: Perhaps this is a limitation of the English language in that it requires you to think in terms of an action and an actor. For instance, in English, lightning strikes, however in certain Native American languages the expression for the concept of lightning means "lightning strikes" because lightning isn't lightning if it isn't striking.

DDD reply: This is a syntactical component in how various parts of speech are handled differently in different languages. Even in a language which combines both the verb and noun dimensions of the morpheme, if one wanted to discuss separately the verb and noun aspects of lightning striking it could be done. One could distinguish the physical structure of the electric current from the process or function of the movement of that current, notwithstanding the interrelation of matter (physical) and energy (action) pointed out by Einstein, perhaps intuitively understood by speakers of such languages.

W: In the same way faith is not faith unless it is expressed in some way. Having faith is an active thing. It is believing.

DDD reply: This, of course, is the very point that James raises when he rebuts and contradicts Paul's very different statement. Paul says that justification is by faith AND NOT WORKS (Rom. 3:28); James not only says the exact opposite, that justification is by WORKS AND NOT FAITH ONLY (James 2:24, using exactly the same words in exactly the same syntactical structure and surrounded with exactly the same example and scriptural reference) but goes on to make the same point you do: "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith BY my works" (James 2:18).

James clearly agrees with you that faith cannot be extant apart from works. But still, the subjects can be discussed distinctly, and in fact they are in these passages. You build your point around a "maybe" -- "maybe" the syntax of Paul's language "could have" reflected the inseparability of faith and works. But the fact that Paul can even mention FAITH WITHOUT WORKS shows that, contrary to your assumptions about what may have been in the syntax of his language, he was quite able to separate and distinguish them. And even though James may have agreed with you in concept, the fact that he, too, can make the opposite argument, yet discuss the essence of faith apart from its functionality, shows that he is also quite capable of, and in fact does, distinguish between the two.

More to the point: I did not discuss whether or not faith as an essence can be addressed separate from faith in its functional manifestation. I had no intention of discussing whether Paul or James makes the better point. My point was not about which of them was right, but the fact of their contradiction. And that FACT remains very much unchallenged by your point: whether or not faith can rationally be divided into a distinction of its essence from its function, both Paul and James discussed it in those terms. And their conclusions were directly and explicitly contradictory to each other. Both of them acknowledge that both faith and works are important. Paul says that the agent of justification is FAITH and NOT WORKS, but elsewhere talks about the importance of works which manifest faith. James says that the agent of justification is WORKS and NOT FAITH, but in this very passage notes the importance of faith which motivates those good works. The point remains that as to the nature of justification, they are in complete contradiction.

W: In the same way that having love is expressed in loving. You don't seem to show the same difficulty with love since you quote the encounter of Jesus with the lawyer from Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37 as an example of works based salvation, "This DO and you will live" (verse 28, your emphasis).

DDD reply: Yes, it is the same concept exactly. But *I* am not the one having "difficulty" with it, since I am merely citing others' discussion of it. In this case, Jesus did not distinguish between the essence of love and its manifestation in behavioral action. As I pointed out, this is completely contradictory to Paul, who did. Jesus clearly stated, repeatedly, that salvation was based on ACTIVE expression of universal compassionate love.

W: But what is it that Jesus tells the lawyer to do? "LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself." You accept that to love requires an expression, the expression is not the feeling, but the expression is a manifestation of the feeling. Is it possible to perform what some might interpret as a loving act toward someone you are indifferent to, or even hate? Of course. It is not the performance that engenders love but the love that engenders performance.

DDD reply: Here you (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresent scripture. In Matthew, the lawyer asks Jesus what is the great commandment in the law. Jesus answers, but he is not teaching something new. Since the lawyer, presumably knowledgeable about the law, has asked about the law, Jesus answers not for himself, but from the law, to demonstrate his mastery of it, citing Deut 6:5 to love god and Lev 18:19 to love your neighbor as yourself. In Luke it is backwards (though I haven't actually cited this as a contradiction). The lawyer asks what is the great commandment in the law. Jesus asks him how he reads the law, and he is the one who provides the same Old Testament references. In either case, it is not Jesus' teaching, but a citation from the Old Testament Law. In both cases, Jesus says "this DO and you shall live" showing that salvation is based on the behavioral manifestation (action), which directly contradicts Paul.

W: So it is with faith. Faith requires that we behave faithfully but it is the faith that opens the door to salvation. This is not a simple application of some new teaching that by our will we can be righteous if we do enough good deeds. This is the total submission of our will to the will of the Father in FAITH, which will produce good deeds. So the good deeds are an expression of an existing faith in the same way that good deeds are an expression of an existing love. You agree that James accepts this principle when you say that James suggests "that we demonstrate our faith - if it is genuine - BY our works or deeds." What are we demonstrating? Our faith.

DDD reply: Your dispute is not with me, or James or Jesus, but with Paul who clearly does make this distinction.

W: Your illustration about a child's artistic offering is sweet but off the point. God is not an aloof or preoccupied parent surprised by the spontaneous offerings of his children. God is desirous of our love.

DDD reply: My comment is off point about being aloof or surprised, but not off the point I was actually making. My point was that whether or not our puny actions are "filthy rags" to god, they are the price stated by Jesus for salvation. Evangelicals say he requires "acceptance" or "belief" or "faith" -- but in Matt 7:21-23 he makes it very clear that such are NOT the terms he has said (believers might even assert that he anticipates Paul's teaching in these verses), and that universal compassionate love expressed in action is clearly the standard he has set.

W: A more accurate example would be that of a parent calling for a child to come to them and the child running in the opposite direction. Would a parent sincerely and genuinely cherish such disobedience? No. Would they stop loving the child? Of course not. In our case the child in question isn't just running away from it's parent, it's running into a busy street! Or how about this? How long would a marriage last if at the height of intimacy your spouse consistently called you by someone else's name? Or just called you, "Human." Yet how often do people say, "We all worship the same God, whatever you personally call him." God asks for more than our deeds. He asks for our hearts and minds.

DDD reply: My example, on point, was NOT about disobedience, but sufficiency of actions to satisfy Jesus' standard, as distinguished from being rejected as "filthy rags." And my point was that, however inadequate our actions may be, they are the standard Jesus unambiguously sets. Your example is a completely different point. However, your point clearly agrees with that of Jesus and James, that action is necessary for salvation. If the child merely accepts the parent's admonition and even believes it, but does not act on it and change the direction he is running in, he will die. If he accepts, believes AND ACTS ON IT, he will be saved. Congratulations. Unlike many of my correspondents, at least in the contradictory disagreement, you agree with Jesus and his brother James, instead of Paul. But you fail completely to address the FACT that Paul completely and utterly contradicts Jesus and James.

W: Twice in Matthew's Gospel account Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their blind adherence to the works of the law with a verse from Hosea.
For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6 as referenced in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7
Matt 25:31-45 does indeed lay out the rewards of the righteous (the sheep) and the condemnation of the wicked (the goats) but it does not explicitly say that the sheep are not sheep because of faith. In John's Gospel account, Jesus explains the works of God this way.
28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." John 6:28-29

DDD reply: Jesus often quotes from the Old Testament, and demonstrates his mastery of it. I agree that the references in Matt 9:13 and 12:7 include language from Hosea 6:6. And Jesus uses these references to lead into passages where he does, indeed, rebuke the Pharisees for their blind adherence to the works of the law. He clearly supports the Law, and even says in Matt 5:18 that not one dot or iota (jot or tittle) will be changed in the Law. His rebuke of the Pharisees was not for following the Law, but for making a mockery of it in following it to such a ridiculously extreme level that they completely emasculate its real intent or "spirit." The key (correct) word in your statement was that Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for BLIND adherence to the works of the law. Jesus does not tell the lawyer, or his followers in Matt 25, that salvation is based on BLIND acceptance or BLIND obedience. He talks about ACTION rooted in vibrant, dynamic, living LOVE, as universal compassion expressed in deeds. If this is the closest you can come to claiming Jesus taught salvation other than by actions, then you are proving my point. And even if you could find such an example, all you would be doing is providing me with another example of a contradiction in which Jesus himself is inconsistent, since the examples I cited clearly and unambiguously DO state that salvation is based on actions.

W: You quote the latter part of John 3, verses 19-21, but neglect John 3:18
18"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Who then are those who do the truth and come to the light (verse 21)? They are those who believe in Him. Belief, faith first, manifestations of that faith, deeds, second. Paul does not contradict this as I will show you.

DDD reply: John was written after Paul, and many believe he was a follower of Paul. The tone and content of John are very different from those of the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke). Even so, while John does talk more about faith and belief, he never says that they are APART FROM WORKS as Paul does. In each of these passages, John talks about both faith and works. And again, even if he did mean belief apart from works, which he does not say, all it would do would be to broaden the contradiction and give Paul an ally: John. It would do nothing to soften the contradiction with Jesus as portrayed in the synoptics, and the contradiction with his brother, James.

W: Romans 3:28 : "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW."
In focusing on this one verse (Roman 3:28) you ignore the entirety of Romans chapter 2 in which Paul argues the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

DDD reply: I do not ignore it. I do not find it relevant to the specific point of Paul's direct and explicit contradiction with Jesus and James. The fact that he also has some points (perhaps even most points) of agreement does not erase other points where they disagree ... and contradict.

W: In effect what he has said is that even strict adherence to the letter of the law will not justify a man who has no faith (Romans 3:20). This is not incongruous with the teachings of Jesus who, as you say, saved, "his rare words of harshness and anger for the Pharisees and Saducees -- the pompous, self-righteous administrators of the established religious orthodoxy." It was these Pharisees and Saducees, who strictly performed the deeds of the law, of whom Jesus says, referencing Isaiah 29:13, This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. (Mark 7:6 and also Matthew 15:8). It is obvious that Paul expects the believer to "back up" his faith with deeds, as evidenced in the very verse you mistakenly interpret to be a contradiction with the teaching of Jesus with regard to sinners, 1 Corinthians 5:11.

DDD reply: I never said Paul disdained good works. On the contrary, I have repeatedly and emphatically noted that, elsewhere, he endorsed good works, just as James also embraces faith. As I said before, both Paul and James extol both works and faith. The difference is that Paul says the mechanism of justification is FAITH AND NOT WORKS and James says the mechanism of justification is WORKS AND NOT FAITH ONLY. Both men embrace both dimensions. The key and contradictory difference is in the manner of their operation of justification.

W: And in Matthew 18:15-17 [Jesus' teaching] is not in contradiction to but complete agreement with James.

DDD reply: Uhm, Will, you're losing your focus here. Matt 18:15-17 is quoting JESUS. My whole point is that Jesus and James are, as you note, in complete agreement. It is Paul they BOTH disagree with, and your statement above just backs me up! Thank you for that.

W: They argue the middle ground from both sides, but you ignore the context of the letters.

DDD reply: Baloney. I examine these letters in great depth with close attention to context, including a very detailed syntactical analysis. Not only is the specific statement about the mechanism of justification a direct contradiction, but I also examine the context, including illustrative examples and scriptural references to confirm that the more one looks at context, the more clear the contradiction becomes. It is clear that James is specifically rebutting Paul. It would be far beyond any scope of "coincidence" to have exactly the same words (from the original source texts) in exactly the same syntactical construction, with the same examples and the same scriptural references ... but with opposing conclusions.

W: As I said before, Paul is arguing against those who would keep the Gentiles out of the kingdom of heaven by making them fulfill the requirements of the law first (circumcision). James is warning against those who claim to have faith but do not do the things that faith should prompt them to do, in other words, those who are not walking according to the Spirit. Paul says don't trust in empty works. James says don't trust in empty faith. Both men see faith as the precursor. James sees works as proof of faith, therefore faith must come first. Paul sees the life of the faithful as filled with good works, but it is the faith that is central.

DDD reply: For the third time: both men embrace both works and faith. The contradictory difference is in the mechanism of justification.

W: If I am a moderate and argue a point with both radicals (far left) and reactionaries (far right) it may appear to each of these parties that my arguments against each of their positions are contradictory when, in fact, they are not, they are simply in the middle; to the left of the reactionaries, but to the right of the radicals. In arguing that these two points are contradictory you fallaciously ignore the fact that faith is by its very nature active. A true and vital faith will inform everything that you do.

DDD reply: I don't agree. If I am a moderate, middle-of-the-road American and I argue against left-wing socialism and also against right-wing unregulated economic anarchy, I will make exactly the same, not contradictory, points in supporting the benefits of a middle ground that has proven to be economically successful. My arguments against left-wing extremism will address the specifics of socialism, and my arguments against right-wing extremism will address the specifics of extreme deregulation, but they will be different, not contradictory. Again, the arguments for my own position will be the same for both. In the case of Paul and James, at some points in their writings they do present their cases differently to differing audiences, but on the point of the relationship of faith and works to justification, they have opposite and contradictory conclusions. One says that justification is based on faith but not works (but works are important because they reflect faith) and the other says that justification is based on works and not faith (but faith is important because it motivates those works).

W (in response to the portion of the web page criticizing the unfairness of Paul's doctrine of "original sin" and holding descendents responsible for the sins of their ancestors): We all have the ability to do evil. We also have laws to protect us from those who choose to indulge that ability. Are those laws unjust? Should we not have punished David Berkowitz on the grounds that he was born with the capability to be a serial killer? What about Ted Bundy? Or a host of others? Likewise God has rules which we regularly break, but, through Jesus, he has made a way for us to be reconciled to Himself.

DDD reply: And how does killing an innocent man in any way reconicle the guilty persons to God? I address this issue in much greater depth on my "Atonement" web page: http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html. David Berkowitz and the others cited were not punished for any inborn propensity toward murder. They were punished for actually putting it into action. So let me ask you: let's say Berkowitz (or any of the others) has a son and transmits some kind of inclination toward violence to this child, but the child acts with great determination to keep it under control and never acts upon it. Would it be just to punish him because of his father? Or does he gain special merit for rising above his demons and mastering them? And if he does act on them, it would be just to punish him for what he does, not for what he inherits from his father.

W: I agree. This is a point you should take up with all of those people who are trying to shift responsibility for their own bad behavior to bad upbringing, poor economic circumstances, or a host of other externals.

DDD reply: Well, you are shifting the discussion to public policy rather than moral responsibility, but once again your point is counterproductive. There is a difference between saying that people should not be punished for their parents' sins, and recognizing that sinful parents often have additional victims in the form of the innocent children born to them who are raised without good and decent moral training. There is a big difference between saying that an innocent child should not be punished for the parents' sins, and recognizing that the innocent child DOES get (wrongly) punished by growing up in that environment and then trying to intervene in that process and provide the child victim with a better, more nurturing environment.

W (in response to the portion of the web page regarding Paul's doctrine of a blood atonement of Jesus to pay for others' sins): You have made a leap of topic here from mankind's sinfulness to atonement.

DDD reply: And due to the depth of importance of the subject of atonement to Christian theology and worldview, I have addressed it separately and in greater depth. If you wish to pursue a discussion of atonement, to which I would be very amenable, I suggest that you read my position in greater depth on the web page devoted to that subject, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html so that you will be familiar with my position in this regard and I won't have to repeat a lot of the stuff from that page.

W: The idea of a sacrifice for multiple people's sin is laid out in Leviticus.

DDD reply: And it was just as ridiculous when written in Leviticus as when expanded by Paul. It is important to note, however, that the Levitical references to sacrificial offerings are penance offerings. They are gestures of contrition and obedience, and not at all analogous to the literal transference of human sins to a sinless scapegoat in the form of nailing an innocent man to a cross.

Will continues on 5-28-03:

You have raised, or re-iterated some good points of debate, an honestly, we could debate the minutia until Christ returns, or the cows come home if you prefer.

DDD reply: While many of the HUNDREDS of direct Bible contradictions I provided as a link from my contradictions website (http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html) are, indeed, trivial examples of minutiae, many others are not. In the present case, I have a hard time with the conclusion that the theology of justification or salvation is "minutiae."

W: However, you have not responded to the central point of my response with regard to James and Paul, which is that they are arguing the same middle point against those who represent opposite extremes.

DDD reply: I did respond to this point at two levels:
1. I do not agree with your main premise that they are arguing the same middle point against opposite extremes. While they find much common ground in their beliefs, and even regarding the fact that both faith and works are important, they take completely opposite and contradictory positions as to which is the mechanism of salvation and which is merely an important contributing element. This is hardly "arguing the same middle point." They argue completely opposite and contradicting positions on a key principle of Christian theology.
2. Even if this were one of the many positions on which they share common ground, that would be irrelevant to the specific point of direct, explicit and unambiguous contradiction which I have cited in great depth, and which you are still unable to respond to the substance of.

W: Paul and James knew each other. They even butted heads at the Council of Jerusalem over this very issue and the council (including Peter and James) decided in Paul's favor.

DDD reply: "Butting heads" over an issue that requires the council to decide in favor of one or the other clearly suggests that they had some point of disagreement. What I'm saying is that this disagreement is the basis for their differing views and, when each man puts those differing (opposing) views into print, and they end up getting compiled into a single volume (the Bible), that explains the origins of this contradiction.

W: If James' intent was to refute Paul, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he would have mentioned Paul in his letter.

DDD reply: Well, sure, it is not "beyond the realm of possibility" for him to do a lot of things that he didn't do. He could have mentioned Paul by name, but he didn't. So what? There are all kinds of reasons why he might have chosen not to do so. Perhaps he wanted to show that, despite their differences, he still gives respectful treatment to Paul and when writing to disagree avoids mentioning him by name. Perhaps he wanted to keep an image of unity among the early church leadership, so addressed the disagreement at the level of ideas, not personalities. Perhaps I am wrong and he is not actually rebutting Paul directly, but just coincidentally uses the same words, in the same syntactical structure, with the same example of Abraham and Isaac and the same scriptural reference, while coming to a directly opposite conclusion. All these factors suggest to me the probability that he was responding to Paul's earlier writing. IT DOESN'T MATTER why he didn't mention Paul, or even if he is not actually writing in response to Paul at all. The point is that this glaring, direct contradiction on a major point of theology exists, and you are finding all kinds of ways to address everything but the 900-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of your tabernacle.

W: Since a definative date for James' epistle is not known it would be hard to place it in the context of Paul's letters, but since Paul makes no bones about having an issue with Peter (Gal 2:11), it is likely that Paul would have mentioned James in the debate if they (he and James) were arguing. On the contrary, also in Galations (2:9), James, Peter, and John extend the "right hand of fellowship" to Paul and Barnabas, recognizing the grace given to them.

DDD reply: I have several scholarly works on the origins of the New Testament from Ph.D.'s representing various seminaries who seem to be in substantial agreement that Paul is one of the earliest New Testament writers and James comes later, so I am concluding that James wrote some time after Paul. Again, this is not a terribly important point. It would make no difference whether Paul is rebutting James or James is rebutting Paul. The contradiction is what is relevant, and what you have not addressed at all.

W: [You said]: "You build your point around a 'maybe' -- 'maybe' the syntax of Paul's language 'could have' reflected the inseparability of faith and works. But the fact that Paul can even mention FAITH WITHOUT WORKS shows that, contrary to your assumptions about what may have been in the syntax of his language, he was quite able to separate and distinguish them." The point I was making is that for Paul, and also for Jesus, it is the heart state, the motivation, that is important to salvation.

DDD reply: But that is not what is being discussed at the point of the contradiction I am citing. The point in contradictory dispute is the mechanism of salvation, and here Paul and James clearly come to opposing conclusions.

W: As I said, it is possible to do good and "loving" works for someone you detest.

DDD reply: And Jesus and James would conclude that this reflects favorably on your salvation, while Paul would not.

W: Those works, or any other cannot get you into heaven (earn salvation) without the proper motivation, faith. Jesus' parable about the vineyard owner and the workers in Matthew 20, where the workers all receive the same wage regardless of what time they show up in the field, points to this. A deathbed conversion is as valid as Mother Teresa's for the securing of salvation despite the fact that the only act performed by the former was the "act" of belief.

DDD reply: I doubt that Jesus or James would say that good works "earn" salvation, which is probably impossible for humans to "earn." Merit is not the issue; compliance with the standard is. Jesus and James assert that standard to be rooted in works while Paul does not. In Matthew 25, Jesus doesn't say that those who fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, cared for the sick or visited the prisoner had to love them. In this singular passage in which Jesus, in the last public teaching of his ministry, describes the final judgment, he does not even mention motivation, only that the good works are done. In your statement above, you are in disagreement with Jesus' final clarification on salvation of Matt. 25.

W: If I inadvertantly "misrepresented" scripture by placing quotes around "LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself," I apoligize.

DDD reply: No, that wasn't the point of the misrepresentation. You made a relatively minor error, not critical to the point. You said that JESUS said "LOVE the Lord your God....," whereas actually it was the lawyer, quoting from Old Testament Law, and Jesus merely affirmed that he was correct.

W: However, you simply repeat your quote of Jesus, "DO this and you shall live," without acknowledging that what Jesus is telling the lawyer to DO is love. That love may, and should, manifest itself in works but since we're splitting syntactical hairs, Jesus calls the lawyer to an attitude, an emotion.

DDD reply: My point is that whether love is separate from action but made manifest through it, or integral to the action itself, Jesus' point is about the active expression of it. Love is more than a feeling, but to Jesus, when it is the mechanism of salvation, it has to find expression in ACTION. In this case, Jesus goes on to describe love not only as a feeling, but the example he gives (parable of the Good Samaritan) shows that love expressed actively. Likewise, in his final teaching at Matt. 25, his examples of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, etc., are not merely the feeling of love but the expression of it in ACTIVE (behavioral) form. Whether the feeling can be separated from the actions, or whether it can be discussed as a separate subject in analytical discussion is not relevant here. Jesus does not make the distinction. In contrast, Paul and James, in their respective discussions of faith and works, do discuss them separately. Again, both men agree that both characteristics are important. But they contradictorily disagree on which is the agent of justification and which is an important accompaniment (either to motivate or manifest).

W: By lifting this verse(Romans 3:28), this point, out of the rest of the letter you are guilty of the same error of proof-texting that many evangelicals fall into in promoting single scriptures out of context to make often faulty conclusions.

DDD reply: Your first e-mail suggested a fairly thorough reading of my website, however this statement undermines it. A careful reading would note that I hardly "lifted" this one verse out of the rest of the letter. I discuss elements from other chapters, the accompanying examples, scriptures, detailed contextual analysis. I would hardly characterize this as lifting a single verse out of the context of the letter as a whole. On the contrary, I believe I have very accurately represented Paul's viewpoint, taken as a whole, as I have also done with James. You merely accuse me of taking this out of context, without a single piece of elaboration to support your claim, notwithstanding the extensive discussion I present on my web page which addresses context.

W: All of the Gospels were written after Paul, with the possible exception of Mark, who was a follower and travelling companion of Paul, as was Luke. As for many believeing that John was a follower of Paul, many people believe that the world is flat too.

DDD reply: Yes, Mark was the first of the gospels, and one of the earliest writings. It was the model for Matthew and Luke, who added additional depth and insight. There seems to have been another source text, too, for elements shared between Matthew and Luke but which are not found in Mark, and this phantom, missing gospel, whose existence is inferred from its derivatives, is often referred to as "Q." It seems, however, that Matthew and Luke were not familiar with each other's works. The completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus, the completely differing nativity accounts, and many other differences suggest that they wrote completely independent of each other. Considering that Luke and Mark were associates of Paul, it is amazing that their accounts reflect the teachings of Jesus that conflict with Paul, and shows that the understanding of Jesus' teachings by those early contemporaries was fairly consistent, and even though they did not recognize Paul's contradiction (well, other than James and perhaps Matthew who was a contemporary and close associate of James), the manner in which they report Jesus' teachings is consistent with that contradiction.

W: It is far more widely accepted that the writer of the Gospel of John was John the apostle, who was part of Jesus' inner circle along with Peter, and John's brother, James.

DDD reply: Most research places the writing of the book of John as being among the latest of New Testament writings. The claim that "John" was John the Apostle is widely held in evangelical circles, but not among more scholarly seminarians, among whom the authorship of John is the most obscure and least well documented.

W: [You said]: "David Berkowitz and the others cited were not punished for any inborn propensity toward murder. They were punished for actually putting it into action." And so are we. All have sinned as stated in the references I used before.

DDD reply: I have no problem with remedial attention for the correction of our own sins (for an infinitely wise eternal father, that would not necessarily always have to be punishment). My problem was with the inherited aspect of sin, which I find to be a completely morally repugnant concept, which I discuss in much greater depth on my atonement web page (http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html). The emphasis in my statement which you quote should not be on the word "punished" but on the fact that they actually expressed any propensity toward evil they might have in deeds or works. Again, it is the works or deeds, whether compassionate or evil, that are the key.

W: As I said before, while Adam's original sin caused a change in mankind's spiritual nature, we are guilty of our own sins.

DDD reply: But some religions actually believe we are born in sin, not merely the propensity toward it but the guilt for it, even though we haven't actually done anything yet. I find this to be morally repugnant. If you don't share that belief, and many denominations do not, then I'm addressing that point to you.

W: [You said]: "And it was just as ridiculous when written in Leviticus as when expanded by Paul. It is important to note, however, that the Levitical references to sacrificial offerings are penance offerings. They are gestures of contrition and obedience, and not at all analogous to the literal transference of human sins to a sinless scapegoat in the form of nailing an innocent man to a cross." Why not? If they are not analogous to the literal transference, they are at the very least sacramental. That is to say, outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace.

DDD reply: There is NOTHING in Leviticus that supports the idea of a literal, vicarious sin transference such as supposedly occurs in the crucifixion of Jesus. All sacrifices are offerings to God, whether for thanks giving, celebration, symbols of obedience, demonstrations of contrition or remorse, even for sin, part of ritual worship ceremonies, etc. They are OFFERINGS. There is NEVER any mention of sin transference in an offering. The closest that Leviticus ever comes to sin transference, and this is purely symbolic, not literal, is the "scapegoat" (Leviticus 16:7-10). But a careful reading of this passage shows little relevance to Jesus' sacrificial sin transference. Note that Jesus is always called the "Lamb of God" (a sacrifice) instead of the "Scapegoat". Jesus himself makes a big distinction between lambs (or sheep) and goats (read Matt 25:31-45). Lambs represent salvation; goats represent damnation. Jesus called himself the LAMB, NOT the GOAT. In that way, perhaps, he is clearly rejecting the idea of sin transference represented by the scapegoat; however in fairness to the Old Testament Jews it should also be noted that the scapegoat was purely symbolic; it was never taken as a literal concept of sin transference. As described in Leviticus 16:7-10: Two goats were offered: one to the Lord as a sacrifice and the OTHER as a "scapegoat" on whom all the sins were symbolically attached and who was sent out into the wilderness. The scapegoat, the SYMBOLIC (not literal) representation of substitutional sin transference, was NOT the sacrificial offering. In any case, the fact that the Christians, who developed from Judaism, would bring forth symbology from Jewish traditions, is understandable but does not justify the concept of using a scapegoat, no matter how much the Jewish symbolic concept differed from Paul's concept of substitutional sin transference. Today the concept of a "scapegoat" is ridiculed as an example of injustice.

W: You say that [atoning sin transference is] ridiculous. I say you're wrong. I have read your paper on atonement but it has not convinced me.

DDD reply: With respect for the measured, thoughtful tone of your discussion, saying "I'm right, you're wrong" is hardly substantial. I put my discussion of atonement out on the table. If all you can say is "you're wrong" but you can't find a single example of one point that you can rebut, I'm assuming that it is because you could not find any specific error, which I'll take as a reluctant, backdoor endorsement :-)

Dialogue with Greg
Greg writes on 2-23-03:

Hello, I want to start out by saying that I would think that a man with your amount of knowledge would be able to see the truth of Jesus Christ being the one and only way to heaven. If you pass up this gift, you will spend eternity in hell.

DDD reply: It seems that you are unable to respond to a single one of the substantive points I raised, so you are going to resort to cheap threats. I have a friend who is a Moslem. He says that if I don't accept Mohammed as a prophet and the Koran as God's word that I "will spend eternity in hell." I have a Mormon friend who says the same thing about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Since neither my Moslem friend nor my Mormon friend NOR YOU can offer substantive justification for why I should change my life and accept your beliefs, why should I accept any of you. As to your threats, I also do not believe in the ancient deities of the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans, but I am not the least bit intimidated by fears of Zeus or Thor hurling lightning bolts at me. Your shallow threats are the kind of substitute religionists always resort to when they can't support their position rationally.

G: I mean do you really have anything to lose?

DDD reply: Sure. I'd have to give up lots of time to go to all your meetings. I'd have to give up lots of money to build religious buildings and pay the salaries of ministers. I would have to give up my self respect for being intimidated by fear to accept something I know isn't really true.

G: If you don't follow and trust in the Lord then you will go to hell no matter what because we are all sinners and we all fall short of the glory of God. I would also like to mention that the reason your friends' mormon and moslem books are similar to the bible is because they base their beliefs on the bible. Joseph Smith wrote the book of mormon in the 1800's and many parts of the book are taken directly from previously written books.

DDD reply: I agree with that, though there are also other substantial reasons for finding fault with them, too.

G: The bible is original.

DDD reply: This is true. So is Shakespeare. So is Karl Marx. Some original works are wonderful and important, some are important but not so wonderful. That doesn't mean they are the Word of God. I have stated that the Bible, UNLIKE THE KORAN AND BOOK OF MORMON, is of legitimate origins in the fullness of the antiquity and authorship it claims. It is the record of ancient peoples, doing their best to explain a universe they did not understand, and presenting the mythology they came up with to help with those explanations.

G: Just because you were confused about some of the things Paul is saying, doesn't mean they are contradictions...

DDD reply: I was not at all confused about the contradictions Paul has against both Jesus and James. UNLIKE YOU, I supported my position with specific examples and in-depth analysis. You did not even try to support your position. You just say I'm wrong but can't find any reason to back it up.

G: it just means that you don't fully understand what he is saying and you need to look into it further.

DDD reply: I have looked into the matter in great depth and have presented my findings. In my dialogues about Paul vs. Jesus you will see that I have discussed this with others who also could not defend that position. So don't tell me I need to "look into it further" ... if you think I'm missing something, then please be specific and tell me exactly where I went wrong. ...or maybe you won't because ... you can't!

G: Doing good works alone is not "the most perfect philosophy" as you said. If someone is just a good person their whole life but never comes to know, love, and follow the Lord then they will still perish. Good works is something that people should do to reflect Christ's love to others. John 3:16 says "that whoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"...not "whoever does good works."

DDD reply: This claim FAILS on two counts:
1. I cited numerous examples of where Jesus specifically states that salvation is based on WORKS. At best, if he now says otherwise all you have done is provide another example of a Bible contradiction!
2. You aren't even right in your example. AS I NOTED in my commentary (did you really read it?), in the same paragraph division that includes John 3:16, Jesus does say that there are behavioral requirements (see John 3:19-21). He says that those who believe will be saved, but also states that those who do the will of the Father will be saved; he seems to be saying the same thing as James, that faith and belief are important because they lead to the works that save us. In contrast, Paul is the ONLY ONE who ever states that it is FAITH AND NOT WORKS by which a man is justified.

G: TheJust doing good works alone will not save you.

DDD reply: So you agree with Paul, and NOT JESUS or James. You should not call yourself a "Christian." You should call yourself a "Paulian."

G: The reason we exist is to worship and honor our Lord, Jesus Christ. I pray that you would consider looking deeper into the bible's teachings.

DDD reply: Congratulations! Your prayers have been answered. I have looked VERY deeply into the Bible's teachings, especially when I was a Christian and accepted them as the "inerrant/infallible Word of God" until I found out otherwise. Since YOU have not responded to the substance of the points I made, it seems that YOU are the one who should "consider looking deeper into the bible's teachings."

Greg continues later on 2-23-03:

I don't know why you keep trying to deny the truth. You should just accept the truth and stop trying to get your way out of it.

DDD reply: When I believed Christianity was "the truth" I accepted it, for many years. When I found clear and specific evidence of errors in the logic and morality of evangelical Christianity and clear and specific contradictions in the Bible, I was forced to recognize my error and ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

G: I wasn't using "cheap threats," I was simply telling you the truth. It will help you in the long run...

DDD reply: It is a cheap threat if it is not backed up with a single item of substance in response to serious issues I have raised; it is NOT "telling the truth" if it is NOT backed up with any "truth" in the form of addressing even one single point I made. Even if you happened to be right, if all you can say is "you're wrong" and cannot provide a single reason, then there is NO TRUTH behind what you are saying. You have not told any "truth" because you have not actually said a single word to address the issues I raised.
I raised extensive examples of problematic issues for Christians, and especially the very detailed and specific analysis of the contradiction between Paul and Jesus (backed up by his brother, James). You would not or could not respond.

G: you don't have to give all your money to the church

DDD reply: I did not say that one has to give "ALL" their money to the church. You misquoted me. I said active church members are supposed to give "lots" of money to the church. In most churches, citing good Biblical authority, the standard is a 10% tithe. On any kind of decent income, that comes out to quite a bit of money, especially when accumulated over a lifetime. And if it goes to build church buildings or pay salaries to promote false doctrines that subvert the actual teachings of the one they clam to worship, then it is not only a waste of money, but also extremely counterproductive.

G: and we don't have meetings.

DDD reply: I don't know what church you belong to. But I am familiar with many Christian denominations and I have never heard of one that doesn't have meetings. Every church I know has meetings of all kinds: worship services, Bible study sessions, Sunday school classes, prayer circles, testimony meetings, healing services, you name it. Any time "two or more are gathered" it is a MEETING.

G: Going to church once a week on Sunday morning is not a WASTE of time.

DDD reply: Going to a church that does not teach a true path of salvation IS a WASTE OF TIME. You have not shown me any reason why I am wrong in the extensive facts and examples I provided ... from your own scriptures. You have not shown a single reason why I should believe your claims instead of those of other Christian denominations who believe the Bible, or other faiths with different (or additional) holy books. If I go to church on Sunday morning instead of ... spending time with my family, resting and relaxing to recharge my batteries for the coming week, engaging in charitable ACTIONS to help those in need (or address community needs), engaging in pleasant recreational activities, engaging in healthful physical exercise, then it is not only a waste of time but is diverting me from more favorable options. Until you can show that your church is the one and only true path, by addressing the issues I have raised, then you can't just say that going to church is "not" a waste of time. It is.

G: It might teach you what you need to know.

DDD reply: Once again, you finally get one right. I went to church every Sunday for many years. Often I went to several services each Sunday and additional meetings of various kinds throughout the week. I studied my Bible. And you are right. I learned what I needed to know: that the Bible is full of flaws and errors and contradictions and failed prophecies, and that while Jesus taught some very good things, his message was supplanted early on by Paul who sabotaged, reversed and contradicted his teachings. I supplied ample evidence for this. You still haven't even made the slightest attempt to address the points I raised. You just say "you're wrong" but can't back it up. In your heart, you know I'm right!

Dialogue with Brent
Brent writes on 2-7-03:

I'd like to participate in your "Paul versus Jesus" debate, specifically the issue of "Works (plus faith) versus 'faith alone".

DDD reply: The issue is not "Works (plus faith) versus 'faith alone". The issue is that Jesus taught salvation by WORKS. Paul taught salvation by FAITH and NOT WORKS. James, the brother of Jesus, came to the defense of his dead brother by clarifying in an explicit, point-by-point rebuttal, using exactly the same parallel syntactical structure, same example (Abraham and Isaac) and same scriptural reference, that salvation was by WORKS and NOT FAITH ONLY, though faith is important in motivating or inspiring those works.

B: In the Parable of the Prodigal (Luke 15: 11-32), Jesus does indeed seem to suggest that faith alone can earn salvation: though the prodigal son had squandered his life in debauchery -- and, apparently, also failed to perform any good works (Jesus does not state this, but I think it can be inferred) -- his sincere repentance did bring him back into the father's good graces. No good works, yet salvation. (We will assume that the father and the two sons are meant to represent "God" and two very different human beings, respectively. Also that the father's 'forgiveness' represents "God's grace", ergo "salvation".)

So the example of the prodigal son does somewhat back Paul's position. I say "somewhat" because there's also the contradictory example of the OLDER brother, who DID spend his life toiling and slaving away for the father (I'll assume that the older brother's toil equates "doing good works"). To the father, the older brother complains that it's unfair that his younger brother be welcomed back so easily into the household after living such a dissolute life (and failing to do good works, I infer again.) But the father reassures the older brother in this way "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found." (Lk 15: 31-32).

In my opinion, the "salvation by faith alone" could ONLY apply to the prodigal son and NOT to the older brother, because the prodigal was, for reasons maybe of naivete or rashness or lack of self-discipline, unheedful and ignorant of the father's desire for him to behave properly. Therefore, possibly, the father took that into account when he forgave his prodigal son.

I liken the prodigal son to say, a murderous gangster who, mortally wounded, finally repents with all his heart and is received into heaven at the last second. During his life, the gangster was evil, and quite in the dark about the real meaning of God and the like; but he finally, fully understood his plight (going to heaven or not), the concept of genuinely asking for forgiveness was somehow fully articulated in his mind just before he died. So therefore salvation was granted to him.

But had the older brother, who had previously spent his life doing good works for the father, decided to forego doing any further good works in the belief that he, like the prodigal son, could at the last moment ask the father for forgiveness and expect to receive forgiveness -- he might be in for a shock, since he knew better than the prodigal son did in the first place. The older brother can't stop doing good works, because the father knows that the older brother, unlike the younger brother, is fully aware of how is supposed to conduct himself.

DDD reply: You cite the example of the Prodigal Son, but I believe you badly misinterpret it. Your symbolic or metaphorical references to the fathers as God and the two sons as one relying on faith and one on works is fine. But look at how the parable actually concludes: the brother who relied on faith took his inheritance (verse 12), and wasted it on high living (verse 13. The other brother relied on good works and remained true to his father. When the Prodigal returned, the loyal son protested the killing of the "fatted calf" and all the expense of a great celebration, but the father reminded him that he (the loyal son) had remained true. The entire remaining inheritance, all that the father has is still his (verse 31). The other son has already taken his inheritance. He has NOTHING. He is to be hired as a servant (verses 17, 21). Yes, he his given a robe and a ring and a reception and better treatment, perhaps, than the other servants. But he has no more inheritance. His repentance restored him to his father, but his faith alone did not save him. It is the faithful brother, not the prodigal, who retains the entire inheritance and is "ever with me" and has "all that is mine") (v. 31). So your conclusion is reversed. Works ultimately saves the hard working brother and faith does not restore the prodigal, though repentance and a willingness to begin WORKS anew, starting all over, can at least keep him from starvation.

But even if your interpretation were correct, or if you could find some other example where Jesus seems to teach salvation by "faith," at best you would show Jesus making contradictory statements. I already showed where Jesus clearly and repeatedly said that salvation was by WORKS, so if you can show me the opposite, all you've got is that Jesus not only contradicts Paul, but himself. But so far you haven't done that.

B: Hence, Paul may be right that faith alone may bring salvation, but he wrong in assuming that this may be true for everybody;

DDD reply: I don't think Paul made this distinction at all. I think you are trying to make a distinction where Paul says no such thing (or please cite chapter and verse where he does clarify this distinction; I seem to have missed it). Lacking this distinction, it seems pretty obvious that Paul is making a broad, general statement.

B: faith alone only applies to those like the prodigal son -- ignorant, indecisive, lacking self-discipline, not fully understanding of what it takes to get salvation. All others would do better to listen to James.

DDD reply: At least you seem to notice that Paul and James are clearly saying something difference. But since I have established that the context is precisely, exactly the same (same syntactical structure, same example, same scriptural reference), and neither one of them makes the distinction you suggest, it seems to be a direct, irrefutable contradiction.

Dialogue with Brad
Brad writes on 2-2-03:

Your articles demonstrate that you have taken the claims of christians and the writings of the bible quite seriously, if not because they represent important truths, certainly, because so much of the world continues to be influenced by christian ethical and religious beliefs.

DDD reply: Those are all valid reasons for an interest in issues of Christian teachings. For me, though, the reason is more personal: after growing up as a conservative and devout fundamentalist Christian, I gradually had to confront the realities of contradictions, errors and flaws that I faced and could not deny. Since I have already taken the time to explore these issues as part of my own search, it is not much more effort to put them up on a website so that those with similar questions can compare notes and see that they are not only on the right path, but that they have plenty of company.

B: I am amazed that for someone who has actually looked and thought deeper into the writings of the bible than most christians that you have left some holes in your positions as gaping as those left by fundamentalists and orthodox christians in their own teachings.

For example, to say that Jesus "universally" taught and practiced love toward all "except" the religious Pharasees was quite a contradiction indeed. If he was not speaking and acting out of love to the Pharasees and religious leaders then his "consistant" show of love is simply not worthy of the term "universal" as stated in the article: Jesus vs Paul.

DDD reply: My goodness! I certainly agree that would be a contradiction if someone said that. You imply that *I* said it. However, if that is what you meant, then you misquote me. Here is the actual quote from my site: "Jesus himself consistently expressed love and closeness to sinners, lepers, tax collectors and other outcasts, while saving his rare words of harshness and anger for the Pharisees and Saducees." Noting that the Bible reports some harsh words from Jesus about the established religious leaders of his day is very different than saying that he taught that love should not be practiced toward them. Speaking forcefully, even angrily, is not incongruous with love. What parent has not spoken firmly, even harshly, toward their children, without ever ceasing to love them? What husband and wife have not spoken occasional words of anger while still really loving each other. Do you need me to cite specific examples? There are quite a few, and I didn't cite them here since I thought this was generally understood and accepted. But to report that the Bible says that Jesus addressed them firmly, even harshly, is not the same as saying they weren't included in his admonitions to universal love, expressed in compassionate deeds to all.

B: In fact, a clear instance of how Jesus selectively afforded his love for people is where he refused (initially) to heal the daughter of the Syrophenician woman. There he "lovingly" calls her and her kind "dogs". When he does finally consent to healing her daughter, it can then be argued that he wished to heal her from the start, but I cannot accept this as anything but a blatent twisting of the story.

DDD reply: Oh well, I guess "nobody's perfect." The fact that Jesus occasionally fell short of his own teachings is not a problem for me; it is only a problem for those who believe him to be the incarnation of a perfect deity, with no blemish ever.

B: I am inclined to believe that you only subscribe to a 'salvation' that exists in the here and now. The merits of Paul and the problems I have with performance-based salvation will be seen immediately in the context of a final judgement where all men and women will stand before God and be sent either to heaven or hell. It is truly problematic if you try to say that our good deeds will be what seals our eternal destiny. For example take Mt 25:

Matthew 25 shows two judgment day senarios that may not be the same senario.

DDD reply: The real Matthew 25 does not support your view so, in your dissatisfaction with the scripture as actually handed down to us, you seem to want to replace it with your own "inspired version" which is quite different.

There are not two judgment day scenarios. Verse 32 clearly states that ALL the nations are gathered together, and he separates them as an act of judgment. Verses 33-34 note that those on the right hand are metaphorically called "sheep" and their judgment is to eternal salvation, while verses 33 and 41 note that those on the left are called "goats" and their judgment is to the devil's everlasting fire.

B: Where one group says "Lord, when have we done xyz??" the other group is said to be saying "Lord look what we've done!!"

DDD reply: You are right that those who are saved (the "sheep" on the right) express puzzlement because they don't recognize what they have done, but Jesus makes it clear that it is based on what they have DONE -- their WORKS or ACTIONS -- even if they didn't realize it at the time. Your characterization of the condemned "goats" on the left as saying, "Lord look what we've done!!" is nothing short of bizarre. The Bible shows nothing remotely similar to that. You just made it up! In fact, it shows the exact opposite: they ask, "When did we see you (hungry / thirsty / stranger / naked / sick / in prison) and turn away from you?" Clearly they seem to acknowledge the need for works, and that they have been adjudged falling short on works, and asking for clarification. In fact, if you believe Jesus to have had supernatural powers, you could even say that perhaps he foresaw the future Christians preaching in his very name that works were not needed, and he is warning them that they will be turned away, but these darn Christians are determined to listen to Paul and not the one whose name they claim to have taken upon themselves.

B: In particular, the "sheep and the goats" passage is problematic. As you stated, "those who DO express universal compassion in behavioral action WILL BE SAVED". When I first began to have trouble with this passage, was after I began to dabble in computer programming. A great many 'bugs' with computer software is due to the software code not handling one or a number of situations. If I were to design a system that accounts for the various groups of people found in Matthew 25, I would have to determine the eternal destinies of 6 to the power of 6 groups. Those who did visit the "least" in prison, but did not cloth the naked, but did feed the hungry...etc. The passage itself does not show the judge giving anyone a composite score. It is assumed that they either did or did not perform all the tasks required. No "handling" of partial performance is acknowleged or described.

DDD reply: You're way too literal here, which is a "bug" of its own, of the worst kind (and in computer programming results in ever-increasing software "bloat"). Jesus condemned those who seek too closely the letter of the law and not its spirit. Or as he described the Pharisees in their pious orthodoxy, they strain out a gnat but swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24). He also did not mean literal sheep and goats, either. I hope you got that much. Why don't you go back and contemplate this passage and come back and really tell me that Jesus wasn't saying that people would be judged by how they felt and acted toward the most disadvantaged in our society.

B: This not only poses a problem for those trying to rely on the authenticity of Matthew 25, but it is a huge puzzle for those going to the bible for a single bottom-line "criteria" for gaining heaven. It is a problem that is recognized by those such as Paul that cannot accept a performance based salvation or basis of appropriation of the "gift" of atonement.

DDD reply: The problem with Paul is not his concept that salvation is beyond what we can earn and is therefore a gift. The problem is the standard he set. If Jesus is the one who has the right to adjudicate the issue of salvation and set the standard, then ostensibly he can set any standard he wants. Paul says it is faith. My point is that is NOT the standard Jesus set: Jesus set one of works rooted in universal loving compassion. Whether that is a practical or workable or realistic standard is a problem for Christians. If you think Jesus set an unrealistic standard, take it up with him. I'm just reporting the contradiction between a couple of long-dead religious theorists who clearly disagreed with and contradicted each other.

B: Finally it strikes me as not in keeping with your generally thorough approach to analyzing the bible to decide that external behaviors should be the key to judging lives instead of what would be the most fair standard for salvation: honest faith and a clear conscience. Paul does not deny any outworking of faith in the form of good deeds, James does not deny the possiblility that faith should be brought into the dialog. But when we try to determine a single criteria for salvation, it seems to me that internal virtue and intent should be the criteria and not external performance. In this world in which we live, injustice happens more often because of the over-emphasis on external performance rather than because of self examination and house-cleaning.

DDD reply: You're losing sight of what we're discussing here. I am not presenting a theory of salvation here. I am noting the theories presented by Paul and by Jesus (backed up by James) and showing that they are in direct contradiction. If you believe Paul's makes more sense than Jesus' that's fine -- but you should call yourself a Paulian, and not a Christian.

B: Playing fair is harder to measure than "bottom line" performance. Will God punish those who have not stolen or cheated in order to gain the financial and material means needed to visit, cloth, feed and house the down-trodden? I say no. Many times, in purefying their motives people consequently become the downtrodden, unable to help themselves or anyone else in material terms. What they are left with is a sense of debt that they are unable to pay. They are percieved by the world as a liablility to society, condemned to a life of being only on the recieving end, not able to make a "genuine" contribution to the world. Indeed, with the simplistic standard of external performance, their contribution will not be registered on the scale at all.

Another problem with performance grading is that God desired for all of us to have a salvation experience more persistant than that of our own inclination to do good. Where some arrogant fools percieve that their good deeds are perfect and that their compassion is not tainted with greed, pride, and the desire for attention and self aggrandizement, there are others of us who look deeper into the heart and are more introspective. We realize that a gift of clothing, housing and even food is an insult if it is given by someone who is of the attitude that they are somehow superior and are now owed something for their deeds.

DDD reply: You cite additional problems with "performance grading." Again, I am not endorsing or presenting a specific doctrine of salvation. I am noting the contradiction that Paul has with what was taught by Jesus and his brother James. The contradiction I cited was very explicit. You have done nothing to show where I have erred in noting this contradiction. All you have done is show why you think Paul is right ... and in so doing, you are also saying that JESUS IS WRONG.

B: Thanks for the list of bible contradictions. I would like to edit the list a bit. Some of the real important ones are somewhat lost in the list with many others that are simply explained by effortless accounting.

DDD reply: I agree that some of the contradictions are more egregious than others. Generally the most egregious ones, or those on more substantive topics, are the ones I included on my main contradictions page (http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html), but I have tried to include only valid contradictions. If in your process of "editing" the list you find some you feel are not valid, you are welcome to send me your explanation of why you think that. In some cases in the past I have removed items if I agreed they weren't valid. But for now you haven't actually cited anything you found problematic, and it is pretty difficult to respond to your general allegation that some can be "simply explained by effortless accounting." If that is true, cite the example. But also keep in mind that accounting errors are still errors, and if there are errors then the Bible is not "inerrant."

Brad continues later on 2-2-03:

I must admit that I did not clearly present my theory about what seems to be two judgement day senarios in Matthew 25. I should have made it more plain that the two groups in Matthew 25 with the contrasting responses did not correspond to the "sheep and the goats". You naturally assumed that I was limiting my commentary to Matthew 25:31-46.

DDD reply: Yes, I made the wrong assumption. Since you were responding to my commentary, in which I had specifically cited Matt 25:31-46, I assumed that a response to Matt 25 without a specific reference to verses was a reply to what I had written, and thus a reference to the parable of the sheep and goats.

B: In fact, in mentioning a group of people who were not suprised at the Lords judgement, I was referring to the passage just prior to the sheep and goats, 'the Parable of the talents' where the investors said to their Lord, "[Look what we've done], behold, I have gained beside them five talents more." Have I again taken a quite literal interpretation? I would rather accept that you think I am taking things too literally than to say that I am making things up. I personally feel neither is true. If some would condemn me for adding the paraphrase of my own, "Look what we've done", then perhaps they are being too literal themselves. The point I was trying to make is that whereas some seem to be coming in full awareness of their worthiness, others IN MATTHEW 25 come to the Judge in complete unawareness of their worthiness. How they percieved themselves on the described day of reckoning may be a trivial matter in the minds of only the most superficial of persons.

DDD reply: Having clarified that you were actually referring to a different passage, I understand your comment about those claiming salvation based on what they had DONE. I'm not sure, however, why you would choose to cite this example, as it actually undermines the point you were trying to make.

Look what Jesus is teaching here: the master gave three servants some talents -- the first got five, another got two and the last only got one. The first doubled his to ten, the second doubled his to two and the last did nothing but just kept the one he had. No action; just "faith" in the goodness of his master (well, it does say there was no action; I'm adding the assumption that he trusted the master which I extrapolate from his comments on the master's shrewd business acumen at the end of the parable). When the master returned, he was furious with the one who kept his solitary coin and did nothing but give lip service to the master's business skill. Faith or trust or lip service were not enough. He took the solitary talent. Who did he give it to? Both of the others performed equally well -- they both doubled their stake, and they both were saved, or metaphorically made "rulers over many things." But he gave it to the one who performed the most -- who did the most. Whether you or I (or Paul or James) thinks this to be a logical basis for salvation is irrelevant. It is what JESUS taught.

Clearly you are correct that the first two servants believed they would be saved based on their PERFORMANCE (actions / deeds / works). Paul (and you as a Paulian) would probably disagree with them. But JESUS DIDN'T. He agreed with them. Those were the ones he made "rulers over many things" and who entered into the "joy of the lord." Especially in conjunction with the very next passage, the one I cited and was referring to, it just adds to the fact that whether Jesus' standard is logical, consistent, or anything else, his standard is based on ACTIONS. This specifically and directly contradicts Paul and those Christians who claim to take upon themselves the name of Jesus but are really following Paul in an opposite and contradictory direction.

Again, I cited extensively examples with detailed analysis of exactly where and how Paul contradicts Jesus and his brother, James. You have never really challenged those or tried to explain how Paul is not in contradiction. All you do is join Paul in opposing and undermining Jesus.

B: When responding to my point about the complexity that is to be found with measuring the worthiness of people for heaven, you managed to slip by the difficulty by offering generalizations [with your comment about my being too literal.']

DDD reply: I did not "slip by the difficulty." I noted that your point was simply irrelevant. As I said (which you refer to later): "I am not presenting a theory of salvation here. I am noting the theories presented by Paul and by Jesus (backed up by James) and showing that they are in direct contradiction."

Try to understand something here: I am no longer a Christian. It does not matter to me how complex or challenging it is to measure worthiness based on performance. It does not matter to me if Jesus is right or wrong, or if he makes sense or is self-contradictory or incomplete or any of the things you accuse him of. My point is not to defend Jesus' claim. It is merely to identify it. If you find Jesus' teaching so inadequate or illogical or overly complex, then your dispute is with Jesus, not me. I am merely showing what Jesus said, and how it contradicts Paul. In your attacking the adequacy of the standard set by JESUS (not Paul) you are proving my point that you are a follower of Paul and that you disagree with Jesus and that you think his doctrine inadequate, illogical and overly complex.

B: You are, first of all missing the point that this passage grants admission to everlasting life on several different basis, not one general one as you suppose. Your preference to see the "spirit" of the passage is nothing short of hypocritical when you're entire article about Paul vs Jesus along with your bible contradiction list could be dismissed with the same generalizations by those who presume to know what the "true meaning" is which various passages are trying to communicate. Before further dialoging around these matters, perhaps we should set forth which matters are camels and which are gnats. I'll start out: let's not pretend that raising the question about an exact criteria for salvation is swinging at a gnat.

DDD reply: Discussing the logic of Biblical criteria for salvation is a gnat if one does not believe the Bible. I am not arguing whether Paul is right or whether Jesus (supported by his brother James) is right, or if their standard makes sense or is too complex or too ambiguously vague. I am pointing out that they Paul is in contradiction with Jesus (and James), and that in this disagreement, YOU come down on the side of PAUL, NOT JESUS.

B: You state emphatically: "If Jesus is the one who has the right to adjudicate the issue of salvation and set the standard, then ostensibly he can set any standard he wants. Paul says it is faith. My point is that is NOT the standard Jesus set: Jesus set one of works rooted in universal loving compassion...."

Because you refer to a single standard when you say, "that is NOT the standard" I must now tell you to go back and read again the teachings of Christ. First of all, to suggest that there is in the teachings of Christ a single standard for our lives is totally incorrect. I see multiple criteria, set forth by Jesus, and by the Old Testament which he added to. Matthew 25 is a prime example. The response to the rich young ruler is another. You cannot define that Standard and yet you refer to it as though it were a forgone conclusion that the Lord gave us one. What about Mt 5 where we were also told to not be angry and to be perfect? How is benevolent action the only basis of recieving eternal life when Mt 5:22 & 29 make it clear that there are other reasons involving mere thoughts and attitudes for which one can be sent to hell?

You are also on weak grounds to say that it is NOT faith. For two reasons: 1) Jesus said in John 3: that "whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

DDD reply: You're referring to the famous John 3:16 -- and in that same passage, in the very same paragraph division of text, Jesus also noted in verses 19 and 21 that when all is said and done, and the good "come into the light" (and the evil the opposite) it will be based on their DEEDS.

B: Many other places the Lord talks about faith and its importance to salvation, of body and soul.

DDD reply: Unlike me, you don't cite chapter and verse, just say there are "many places" where Jesus says what you say he does. I will acknolwedge that Jesus preached the importance of faith, as did James. But UNLIKE PAUL, he NEVER said that salvation, justification or "coming to the light" would be based on faith APART FROM works, as Paul does in Romans 3:28 and several other verses I cited. Supporting his brother Jesus, James' explanation (in direct contradiction to Paul, especially when the parallel structure is compared and with identical scriptural and example references) is that faith inspires good deeds, so it is important, but it is the good deeds that save us.

B: What did the thief on the cross do to live up to your single "standard"? Nothing!! He believed that Jesus was the son of God.

DDD reply: We don't know that at all. We know he was executed as a thief, so he at least committed one wrong act (or at least was accused of it). We don't know what else his life consisted of. Perhaps like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables he lived in squalid poverty and stole a loaf of bread to feed his family ... or another poor family, and otherwise in his life he had many good deeds. You are "assuming facts not in evidence" by claiming to know what deeds he had done (or not done) based on the teensy snippet in the New Testament ... but if you believe Jesus to have been divine, then he would have known, so you are second-guessing the one you claim to believe

B: 2) Once you have admitted that the Bible is self contradictory, it becomes thenceforth only a matter of choosing, which set of beliefs one likes to retain and which set of doctrines to discard.

DDD reply: I don't claim to base my beliefs on the Bible at all. I am only pointing out its contradictions.

B: In other words, you don't really know what Christ actually taught, do you? You are simply forced as am I to apply some other personal basis for making a decision about which set of theories to hold to. I feel that I have set forth quite clearly in my first e-mail a basis for making such a decision and that you should have been a bit more careful when you read it.

You [claimed that I'm] losing sight of what we're discussing here; that you are not presenting a theory of salvation here but merely noting the theories presented by Paul and by Jesus (backed up by James) and showing that they are in direct contradiction. This is not true. You are not MERELY demonstrating the contradictions. You are concluding that the Bible's version of what Christ taught is the correct one and is not contradicting itself. And you do this without giving the real basis for your findings.

DDD reply: I am making no such claim. I am refuting those who do claim that. In fact, because the gospels did not even begin to get written down until several decades after Jesus' death, in a time when memories could not be reinforced with photos, video clips, and even writing was a difficult and expensive proposition, I don't doubt at all that the Bible has many, many errors in how it portrays Jesus' teachings. In fact, I can't even prove that someone named Jesus actually lived, though I suspect there is enough smoke to justify some fire. I certainly believe his teachings have been embellished and altered, and his deeds exaggerated to the point of legend. I am not supporting the Bible. While I recognize the Bible's importance as a historical icon and source of much of our cultural ethic, I offer my commentaries as proof that it is NOT divine and inerrant, but that it does have errors. If you claim that the Bible is not an accurate or correct reflection of what Jesus taught, then you join me in challenging those who claim its inerrancy or infallibility.

So please confirm for me here: do you claim the Bible to be the divine, inerrant and infallible word of god, or do you agree with me that it has many flaws and errors?

Brad continues on 2-3-03:

To answer your question: [as to whether or not I claim the Bible to be the divine, inerrant and infallible word of god, or acknowledge that it has many flaws and errors?]: I will say unabashedly that I have found the Bible to be more divine than any other writing I have encountered.

I maintain this position though I also say without apology that the Bible is filled with numorous errors, and so on this point I do whole-heartedly agree with you. These errors are not in my opinion minor glitches or errors of small consequence. The errors are such that I would contend that some parts of the Bible are filled with incorrect doctrines and teachings. But this is no shock to those who have read narrative accounts in scripture of those whose lives did not exemplify the "way of rightiousness". So I must be more specific, I feel that the current paradigm of our Holy Bible incorrectly places too much authoritative weight on the words of those we suppose to have been at the time of their authoring of scripture, exemplary men. Some would say that the Bible is "in spirit" flawless and "in spirit" inerrant, but I cannot at this time say that I agree.

DDD reply: That's a fair position. But then you are not really arguing with me when I cite contradictions within the Bible, or note that in the form that has been preserved and handed down to us, Paul most definitely contradicts Jesus and his brother James. Since all we have is the account as it has been preserved, unless you have some other authoritative basis for telling us what Jesus really did say, we have a specific record and based on that, the words attributed to Jesus contradict Paul's letters and, in that disagreement, you come down with the words of Paul's letters and not the words attributed to Jesus.

While I find much inspiration and wisdom in Jesus' teachings, I do not attribute divinity to him and therefore am not troubled if the standards he set for salvation are found to be inconsistent, incomplete, ambiguous or in any other way inadequate.

B: At this point we have to be aware that much of the Bible was God adapting to men's wishes.

DDD reply: Or more likely men writing what they wanted their "god" to say.

B: Saul was annointed king at Gods "Command". But the will of God was that no king be ruling in Israel but merely Judges that arose for a certain purpose and time and Samuel was also in leadership. How much of the Bible truly reflects the will of God then? It is truly up to individuals to make up their own minds or continue to leave that to the scholars.

Is the Bible the word of God? Jesus is said to be the Word Of God in Revelations and I believe that claim.

DDD reply: Why do you choose to accept Revelations as opposed to other parts of the Bible? Revelations was written by John in solitary isolation on the Isle of Patmos. It contains bizarre and indecipherable symbolism, or decipherable in any way the reader chooses to interpret it, thus the many varied and interesting claims for what it means and why those seeking to make the Bible mean whatever they want it to say. Some even suspect he may have gone mad before writing this.

B: The bible is static, inanimate, and sometimes ambiguous, un-like the Word of the Lord.

DDD reply: But your definition of the "Word of the Lord" is not based on any standardized authority. There is no new authoritative communication from Jesus whom you call the Word of the Lord in over 1900 years, and you and I agree that even the standardized authorities we have aren't all that reliable. All you are left with is individual personal revelation, or the revelations of new latter-day prophets or cult leaders, which are not widely regarded as authoritative either. There is no authoritative standard by which to determine what Jesus said if you think it different than what is in the Bible. And since what we have is so contradictory, and since the words attributed to Jesus contradict Paul's version that has been handed down to us, there is no authoritative basis for modern Christianity.

B: I am still holding a belief that I am a christian. When I began to take seriously the claims of bible believers and of the Bible seriously in 1977, it led me on a search for PROOF that I was truly a child of God, saved and going to heaven. My teachers and pastors assured me that I was to simply trust in this as fact. But that was never good enough for me. I poured into the scriptures to find out my status with God. The Bible for many years seemed to beat me up rather than encourage me in this quest.

Finally, something very biblical happened to me. I had experiences with the Holy Spirit and things that were undeniably supernatural took place in my life. I not only read but experienced that the Holy Spirit is the "earnest" or down-payment of our inheritance in Christ and the proof that full payment will eventually be realized.

All throughout my christian walk, I sought dynamic experiences rather than programmed rituals that any religion could produce. I saw clearly that Jesus, when he said, "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedETH out of the mouth of God", meant that the word of the Lord continues to proceed, and it is presently flowing from His mouth.

When I began to face my doubts about the church system and the Bible with this solid experience, it kept me from thinking that I would lose everything I had worked hard to gain with God. I percieve this period of reexamination to be a process of purification from the doctrines and teachings of men.

Finally, as you have noticed from my e-mail, all the sayings of Jesus, and even the very identity of Jesus Christ is now under scrutiny. I am having to find Christ the same way an infant or child does. Not by scientific proof, but by His Spirit and his presence.

DDD reply: Again, this position is fair, other than to explain how you go about picking and choosing which verses you will accept; why you accept this quotation but not others. Your position seems to be that God has not established a general standard and, thus, has left human mortals on their own; but if you believe in personalized revelation (what "proceedETH out of the mouth of God") then you believe that on a case-by-case basis he can make himself known to those who seek him for themselves, but not on a generalized or public basis.

Brad continues on 2-5-03:

You acknowleged that we do agree that significant Biblical contradictions exist. Finally I have somehow made this evident and you are realizing that I don't disagree with you on this very fundamental point. I have not denied that contradictions exist in Holy Writ and I have not been trying to sell you on the idea of inerrancy. I have wanted to debate a little about what comes AFTER you recognize the incongruous nature of the Biblical writings. This may be more where we come to differ.

DDD reply: Once we recognize that the Bible (and the Koran, Book of Mormon, or any other work touted as inerrant) really is NOT inerrant, then we have three possibilities, which can be mixed and matched to varying degrees:
1. We can base our presumed knowledge on observable phenomenon, using such protocols as the scientific method (owing to the imperfections of human perception, instrumentation and sometimes integrity, even the rigorous protocols lead to conclusions that later need to be reversed).
2. We can seek our own individual, personal contact with the divine, and if that fails, make up our own explanations, claim they are inspired, and produce our own "sacred writ" claiming whatever level of "inerrancy" we wish to claim. Of course, no matter how honest and sincere we are, our listeners will have no object criteria for evaluating whether it is real or fraudulent. Such is the problem with having a deity (if one exists) who speaks on a purely individual and not general basis.
3. We can indulge in innocent speculation and conjecture about those aspects of knowledge that are not knowable by current human methodologies. We can discuss and debate, and try to apply logic and reason, but people have been doing that for many millenia and each time the unknowable passes into the realm of the knowable, through expanded capabilities of science, we learn that what the best minds "figured out" ain't necessarily so.

B: The contradictions involving "three cock-crows" or "two cock-crows" or how King Saul died never posed a problem for me. You're welcome to ask "why not?".

DDD reply: Obviously this is not an issue for you. I have included numerous contradictions, both as to key doctrinal issues at the core of Christian beliefs as well as on trivial points, because the existence of any contradiction, while trivial to you, is significant to those who, unlike you, claim the Bible to be inerrant and infallible.

B: What began to mess me up is when core doctrines of the Bible, the Bible's most important themes, such as "salvation by faith" ala Paul, and "salvation by deeds" ala Jesus and James became more irreconcilable to one another as they became more of a focal point for me.

You seem to be getting a better understanding of where I'm coming from when you note that: "...the words attributed to Jesus contradict Paul's letters and, in that disagreement, you come down with the words of Paul's letters and not the words attributed to Jesus"

Do you not see how this is an oversimplification? Much on the order of declaring, as you did that there is one "standard" by which we shall be judged according to Jesus. (the Jesus of our fallible record of scripture.) I can't help but think that every time you try to make me see that Paul and I are making Jesus out to be incorrect...and even wrong, you are convinced that you have me in a corner.

DDD reply: Not at all. It is straightforward, if that's what you mean by "simplistic." The fact is, however imperfect or simplistic, the texts attributed to Jesus (which is all we have to go by) state that he established a certain standard for salvation or justification. Paul presents an opposing standard. You claim to be a follower of Jesus (the real Jesus, not the one recorded in an imperfect Bible, though you don't state how you know when you've found him) yet when the record we have shows one (imperfect) standard for Jesus and one for Paul, you argue against what is attributed to Jesus and firmly back that of Paul.

This is an artificial corner, and I merely have to argue one of the following:

DDD reply: None of the "arguments" (which follow) leads to a conclusion based on validity. They all require YOU to somehow fill in the blanks and come up with an alternative with no authoritative or generalized basis for it.

B: 1) the Bible does not contain the accurate words of Christ

DDD reply: Then you have to claim that there is no basis for following "Christ" unless you can come up with an authoritative source not only for what he did say, but also for why it is right and why we should accept this humble carpenter's son as the "Christ" (Greek for "messiah" or "savior").

B: 2) Jesus himself was made infinitely less than His Father so that he might even be wrong about whether or not there would be fruit on a fig tree.

DDD reply: Okay, go ahead and argue it. How do you "know" it? On what basis do you claim the authority for this knowledge? Don't just say "God told me" or you were inspired; false prophets (including Paul) have been saying that ever since the time Jesus walked the earth.

B: 3) and here is the traditional argument of evangelicals, Jesus was asking us to become more than what merely gets us into heaven by the skin of our teeth.

DDD reply: This fails on many grounds. First, the evangelicals base that on a claim of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility; you can't claim their argument if you reject the primary premise on which it is based. Second, the profession of faith or acceptance is NOT to become "more than" something rooted in adhering to a behavioral standard. While neither standard may "earn" salvation, which ultimately remains a "gift" (as is our very existence, whether from a deity or evolution or whatever), a standard rooted in the manifestation of that motivation (faith and/or universal compassionate love) in an active form is still a higher standard. True, the behavioral standard set forth in the texts attributed to Jesus in ambiguous and vague ... oh well, who ever said the guy was "perfect" :-)
But as I said before, that is an argument for the Christians and Paulians among themselves. My point is merely to call attention to the disagreement and the contradiction.

B: The sermon on the mount, if it is taken as essential to salvation is an extremely tough row to hoe, and it should not be seen as the essential requirement of all who desire to be right with God. You will no doubt take issue with this last point, if so I do have a clarification I would like to make right now...You would be correct to say that the wording of Matthew five does indeed bring its teaching into the realm of things to do to be saved...taken at face value. I immediately have to revert to 1) or 2) above on this and like passages.

You ask: "Why do you choose to accept Revelations as opposed to other parts of the Bible?" I appreciate the historical background you mention about the Book of Revelation. I have no simple defense for my respect for Revelations. As I have read and studied, certain themes began to emerge from many different Bible books. One of those themes is the preeminace of Christ. The Book of Revelations was written by someone who held Jesus as being a preeminant being. While pondering this person, Jesus, I saw that my heart needed just such a person. It was as though God created me to have this Jesus shaped hole in my heart. When a glimpse or picture of Jesus fit just perfectly so as to fill that emptiness, I concluded that a designer was responsible for the existence of both me and my picture of Jesus. Subjective, yes but I do not admit to pragmatism, because I could not believe merely because I had a need. There had to be the dimension of the evidence of crafting and design.

You claim that my "definition of the 'Word of the Lord' is not based on any standardized authority." Is that so? Have you not read this time and time again in the Old Testament? "And the WORD OF THE LORD came unto [so and so]". Is the Old Testament not a standardized authority?

DDD reply: No more than the New Testament. As with the NT, the OT has its adherents who claim its divinity. But I cited numerous and extensive contradictions there, too, some trivial but some quite substantial, to show that it does not apply as a generalized authority of an infallible, omnipotent deity speaking to his/her children.

B: (And by the way, who ever said that the best kind of authority is standardized?) Now, all of a sudden, you are considering extra-biblical ecclesiastical authority as the place where I should go to have all of my beliefs validated. Or do I grossly missunderstand your point?

DDD reply: If you claim authority unto yourself only, you don't need to justify it. You know what you have or have not experienced (though I once heard from a recovered schizophrenic who said that when he had his hallucinations he certainly believed them to be real, so even that isn't always reliable). When you try to share it with others, then you have to have some basis for making it credible to others who did not have the same experience themselves. By "standardized" or "generalized" I mean the basis for authority or credibility that allows you to extend your personal experience to others.

B: I am ready to admit to picking and choosing. It really is not a bad rap or reputation at all in my view. The sad thing is that where we all do this, only some of us admit to doing it. I suspect that you are likely implying that I have some kind of faulty basis for my picking and choosing. It is premature, I think to conclude from what I have said thus far that I have some inconsistant attitude about the Bible. Wouldn't it be just as extreme of a position to take to reject entirely the idea that God authored parts of the Bible as the opposite position of accepting entirely that God authored the "jots and "tittles"? Extremists like things black & white while quite often thoughtful people tend to fall in between the extremes somewhere.

DDD reply: In one respect, here, I have some common ground with the evangelicals. Either the Bible is the inerrant word of god or it isn't. They say it is, I say it isn't. That doesn't mean that, if there is a god, he/she/it couldn't have inspired some people and there is some inspired text in there. I certainly find some inspiration in the Bible, mostly in Matthew with some also in Luke, but a few other places, too. Some of the Psalms are poetic and inspiring/inspired. Even Paul comes brilliantly to compassionate life in I Corinthians 13. I also find some inspiration in Shakespeare and many other poets and writers from ancient to modern times, as well as the writings of philosophers and scholars. But since I don't base my evaluation on any a priori assumption of inerrancy/infallibility, I readily admit to very carefully picking and choosing what sources, Biblical or otherwise, I consider worthy.

B: God has established many general standards and principles. None of them, that is, none of the dictums that pertain to external performance, should be regarded as "the single" general standard that entitles us to adoption into God's family. Galatians 3:23 & 24 characterizes what an external "general standard" does, it is merely, according to Paul, a mechanism to lead us to Christ.

DDD reply: But you don't have an objective, general source for determining these "general standards and principles" that you claim God has established. It is just your own hunch, or what you believe with your heart; whatever passes your "pick and choose" filter. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying you don't have an unimpeachable basis for it that can be applied as a general reference or authority for everyone. Therefore, your choices (like mine) as to what we find inspired or inspirational is a matter of subjective appreciation, gut feeling, wishful thinking, hopeful desire, or whatever you want to call it. Ultimately it is speculation and conjecture. It is interesting, fascinating, but not something I want to apply a lot of time or effort on. I consider it a matter for personal, introspective musing. I have my own pet theories (which can't be "divine" since they keep changing), and my own ideas of what I would like the eternal universe to be like, but I keep those to myself lest someone else take them more seriously than they merit.

B: All of us should be careful how far we jump from A to B. By no means does a void of general standards, if I were to subscribe to that as being true, lead inevitably to humans being on their own. Why couldn't God in a personal fashion show us the way? or As Jesus stated in John 14: be "the way".

DDD reply: Your comment about caution in jumping from A to B echoes my point exactly. That's why I keep those thoughts to myself and I'm not willing to let the dialogue drift too far in that direction. Once we've established that the Bible, however otherwise worthy it may be in some respects, is not the divinely inerrant/infallible word of god, then everything else becomes speculation and conjecture.

I don't believe anyone else when they tell me THEIR versions of what they heard "proceed out of the mouth of god" (since every version is decidedly different, from Joseph Smith to Jim Jones to David Koresh to "Heaven's Gate" -- some with far less notoriety and some with rather tragic consequences to the people who listened). So if someone tells me that god told them something that is not only for themselves (so should be kept to themselves) but also for me, then I get real skeptical real fast.

B: This brings us to a doctrine upon which both Jesus and Paul agreed unequivocally. External realities that are preeminant in the minds of the citizens of the secular sphere have no true and lasting salvation to offer. In that realm lay the means to make people temporarily well or sick. But in the domain of internal things, (ie, "Behold, the kingdom of Heaven is within you") true and lasting salvation or blessing exists. Two kinds of peace correspond exactly to these two contrasting domains. One is external, the other internal.

DDD reply: I don't question at all that Jesus and Paul had many areas of "unequivocal" agreement, probably more than their areas of disagreement, though the essence of the basis for salvation is a pretty fundamental point of difference. But my point is that, having established this fundamental point of contradictory disagreement, the divinity of Christianity, at least as filtered by Paul's extensive writings (and unknowable through Jesus who didn't leave any writings), is purely a matter of speculation and conjecture. And, as I said, I'm not willing to go that direction.

We have established that the Bible is NOT inerrant and infallible and cannot be used as an authoritative source for what Jesus said or taught, and therefore for the entire basis for true Christianity.
We agree that trying to determine what Jesus did teach can't come from the Bible, so one either has to figure out logically (on what basis?) or have personal revelation from their own direct contact with God. Since I'm not going to pursue the avenue of conjecture from personal efforts to figure it out, and I don't believe anyone else when they tell me about what god told them (to pass along to me) I don't know where else this discussion can go.

Prior dialogues:
To keep this web page to a manageable size, previous dialogues have been moved to a separate prior file which can be found at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/3d0103pforum.html.

We welcome feedback! Send e-mail feedback to: feedback.
Please note, be sure to include the word "FEEDBACK" somewhere in the title of your message to avoid having your e-mail deleted unread with all the other junk e-mail that is mass deleted. Please note, all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards and may be included in this forum.

This forum consists of selected e-mails representing views that both agree and disagree with the comments on this webpage, along with responses from the author when appropriate. Comments used will be quoted exactly (copied and pasted from e-mails) but personal or extraneous comments may be omitted in the interest of space and relevance.

To participate, send your e-mail comments to Danizier@aol.com (including the word "FEEDBACK" somewhere in the title) and then watch this space to see your comments as part of a current, topical discussion. Please include all comments within the text area of the e-mail. DO NOT SEND E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS. All messages that contain attached files will be deleted -- the e-mail text will not even be opened, much less the attached file -- it will be dragged straight into the "Delete" icon.

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted (copied and pasted from e-mail messages).
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may take several days before the response gets added to this forum.

Please note, only issues-related comments will be included. Irrelevant comments or personal insults will not be selected. If multiple participants make a similar point, only those that make the point most efficiently will be selected, and all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards and may be included in the forum at the sole discretion of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards.

The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the contradictions of Paul vs. Jesus (and others, most notably James). Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus (this page)

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: Discussion about Christian Atonement Doctrine - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3daforum.html

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dbforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Return to main article (Paul vs. Jesus) by Davis D. Danizier

Author Bio and Background and introductory overview of this series:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/danizier

Compiled Commentaries now available in Printed Booklet form:
All three of the commentaries by Davis D. Danizier have now been compiled into a single small 55-page booklet, along with introductory material and additional expanded material not included in the website versions.

This printed edition is a valuable resource for those who prefer to read a printed edition and maintain it for reference purposes, or to have as a handy guide when traveling or discussing issues with others. It is also in a convenient format for giving to others who may be of like mind, or who might be interested in considering a different view than what they have taken for granted for many years.

This printed edition of all three essays is available in booklet form (55 pages) for $9.25. (California residents please add 72 cents sales tax for total of $9.97) To order by telelphone call Word Wizards publications at: (760) 631-3696 To order by e-mail, send e-mail request to: Danizier Essays E-mail order MUST include all of the following information: Name (must exactly match name on credit card used) Address to which printed edition will be sent Credit card name (Bank Name and whether Visa or MasterCard) Credit card account number Credit card expiration date Telephone number to call if any questions about order Include in subject line of e-mail request: Order Danizier booklet [note, only Visa/MasterCard can be accepted, NO Discover or American Express at this time] Credit card will not be processed until order is sent.

We Accept Visa/MasterCard Orders

Invoiced through http://www.wordwiz72.com.

Go to Danizier bio and introductory page: http://www.wordwiz72.com/danizier

Return to Word Wizards home page

Return to Word Wizards free downloads for other articles that may be downloaded FREE!