Skip to comments.A look at John 3:14-18
Posted on 09/14/2013 12:29:44 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
John 3:14-18 doesnt necessarily support the faith alone position.
For Protestants, John 3:14-18 might seem like the ultimate Gotcha! passage to use against Catholics. But if you look a little deeper, youll recognize that the passage does not defend the faith alone position and is totally in line with Catholic teaching.
The passage reads as, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
That might seem a little damning to the Catholic position that good works are necessary, right? Well, in truth, its not.
With God, to believe means to obey. God does not desire a lukewarm, vague belief in Him, but a devoted life in His service. This is evidenced later in the chapter. John 3:36 reads as, He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
And if one looks at verses 19-21 of the chapter, they will see that Christ said that those who love darkness and do evil deeds will not reach the Light (Heaven).
Sin which, at its heart, is anything offensive to God is a heinous, damaging thing that we must cleanse ourselves of. This cleansing is done through Christ, of course, but meriting it requires a little more than a belief in Him. It requires a repentant heart (see Luke 13:3) and, in the case of mortal sin, sacramental confession (see my video about Confession).
On top of all of this, Christ told us in John 13:15 to follow the example that He set and He also told us in John 15:10 that we must keep His commandments to abide in [His] love.
We cant just sit back and relax non-stop, counting on our vague faith to save us we have to do things! Like St. Paul wrote in Colossians 1:24, we must help the Church in filling up what is lacking in Christs afflictions.
So, when reading the Bible, remember that true belief requires obedience and good works.
(All verses are from the NASB translation.)
Click here to watch the accompanying video.
“**as it gives us more opportunity to drive them all mad**
Hardly what I would call a Christian attitude.”
Perhaps not, but we still live as fallen humans, even though we are saved by grace. Therefore, we will still sin even though it is not what we want to do.
Self-righteous is hardly a Christian attitude either.
“How can they be forgiven when you do not go to Confession? How do you know for sure? Can you read gods mind?”
Yes, because we have the Holy Spirit who lives in us and directs us. We are assured of our salvation from the moment we believe and nothing can separate us from God.
“The Gospels are first hand acconts. When did Paul meet Jesus except in being blinded on the way to Damascus?
Fact is in the bible Paul persecuted the Christians and did not meet Jesus and have first hand information.”
You heard it here first folks! Salvation, the Roman Catholic, has hereby renounced Paul and all his epistles! This also marks the moment when I stop taking her seriously though.
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
I guess you’re going to have to throw out the Papacy too, since Peter apostatized by endorsing Paul and his writings as Holy scripture?
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:11-19
“(but we disregard such shameful excess because they are “spirit-filled”, which apparently overrides the responsibility”
No, we do not excuse this at all. We forgive. And we let the Spirit and Scripture direct us as to what action to take according to the sin.
All sin has consequences, even for a Spirit-filled believer. We are most certainly not given a pass by God nor should we be given one by our fellow believers. However, our salvation is never jeopardized as a result of our sin.
And one need no education or learned qualifications to understand the simple truth of the Gospel. It is so simple a small child can understand.
You just confirmed what smvoice said in post 62, salvation.
Come on, Salvation.
Even this is a stretch by Catholic standards.
Just because you have taught something does not mean you have understanding of it.
Salvation, are you born again and filled with the Spirit? I do not think so. Your words and your tone remind me of someone using head knowledge of faith and not heart knowledge.
All Scripture backs up all Scripture. None can be taken out of context to suit us or please us or to fit what we believe. Read the whole of Scripture prayerfully and ask the Lord to reveal the truth to you...Catholic or not. Once you stop defending an organization and seek God and His truth only, the walls will start to come down and the scales fall away.
This from the person that posts 37 paragraphs at a crack to say nothing.
So why not do the Christian thing and provide the link, since you apparently went there to get the quote?
The problem is with forgiving those who are not repentant. Numerous examples come to mind, such as two well-known Pentecostal evangelists (male & female) who were "caught in the act" - photographed exiting a Rome hotel hand-in-hand. As far as I can see, there has been no calling into account, and their "ministries" continue to attract the faithful (and their money).
And one need no education or learned qualifications to understand the simple truth of the Gospel. It is so simple a small child can understand.
No argument on this point. As I was taught by the song we sang in Sunday School: "Trust and Obey"
“So why not do the Christian thing and provide the link, since you apparently went there to get the quote?”
Happy Christian reading
That wasn’t difficult now, was it?
“As far as I can see, there has been no calling into account, and their “ministries” continue to attract the faithful (and their money).”
Then they and their ministry are certainly not Spirit-filled nor are their followers. You may tell them by their fruit.
And, never fear, they will be held accountable one day and so will those that said nothing and let them continue on with their sinful ways. Not everything is punished in this life. God is not mocked.
Good morning to you (it’s almost noon here).
I see that lots of the Roman trolls are showing up. they start by posting snarky remarks and then consistently proceed to try and bring about confusion and obfuscation of the central points we make in refutation of heresy and error.
A new tactic seems to be folk coming into the thread claiming to be one thing, but characteristically siding with the Roman clan enjoining Protestants not to be opposing Rome.
I noted on another thread the statement that the first person that mentions Islam loses, but does the same apply when you question the use of taquia as a reference? Of course, there are other similes that can be used. I seem to remember a wooden horse filled with soldiers
Indeed. Most of us see them as apostate anyway. They are moneychangers, covetous cons. Benny Hinn and Paula White, and others in the Word of Faith circles like Mike Murdock and Joyce Meyer, are consistently denounced by the faithful. Catholic Answers and EWTN probably just forgot to mention it.
It takes real hubris for any defender of Rome to point out immorality or financial corruption in others.
The passage reads as, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Note please ... "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."
Is given as if a comma should follow the word "believes", whereas in KJV the same passage reads,
"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:"
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
I get my grammatical subjectives and objectives mixed up sometimes, but the NASB is a seriously flawed source for the exacting of doctrine.
Since I just finished my work for the night, I decided to take the time to respond to this even though it was not directed at me. MatthewRobertOlson wrote to Harley:
“Your first point is flawed. The verse says “because their works were evil” (”their” referring to the “people [that] loved the darkness”), not because all works are evil. Therefore, to say that the verse means that “our works are evil” is quite a big stretch. “
Now this isn’t even a response to anything Harley even said, and it’s also quite nonsensical. She didn’t say that all works are evil. She said that our works are evil, which is a big difference, and a position you have no choice but to accept due to the sheer number of scriptures that prove the matter. Her own verse cited the Lord calling us “evil,” and Christ in another place says, “no one is good, save one, that is, God” (Luk 18:19). Paul, in his epistle, says “no one good, no, not one” (Rom 3:12). Now, these things wouldn’t be said if there was some spark of goodness in a man, or an exception to the rule somewhere where there was a good person. Either only God is good, and every man a liar, or else God is a liar and every man not accountable to Him whether they are good or not.
Now, since we know that God is no liar, but that man tells lies like he breaths, it follows that if we do have good works, it is not our own, but God who works in us “both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Php 2:13). We cannot say that there is a spark of goodness in us that caused us to differ, as you vainly say, since, before salvation, we are dead in sin, and “had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph 2:3). This is not a partial corruption. This is not a fraction of a corruption. It is a corruption of both mind and body so that there is no goodness in man unless God, by the Holy Ghost, gives it to Him.
Now if we are dead in sin, how can we, who are dead, give any heed to the things of the living? And if you say that God merely helps us, but does not quicken the soul so that it can believe, making an unwilling man willing, where is this spark of goodness in man that is there to be helped? Can you identify it? Can you tell me where it is? If a man is dead, he is no better than a spiritual corpse, as Augustine wisely observed:
“For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master.” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 30. “Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith”)
You wrote, in reply to her, “Doesn’t the ability to give good gifts indicate at least a small amount of inherent goodness?” Now why do you come to this kind of a conclusion, instead of wondering how there can be any goodness in man when God specifically ruled it out? If God says that “no one is good, no not one,” and that all of our righteousness “is as filthy rags,” it does not follow that there is anything good in us, even a little bit, as all of it, even the best of our deeds, is inherently ugly and disgusting in his sight. The logical reply then, is, that if there really is any good in us, it was given to us by God. Such is the case with the Pagan nations historically and to this very day, where God gives to man common grace for the maintenance of society and the benefit of mankind in general; however, if God withheld even this from us, there would be no doubt that our unrestrained souls would run rampant in all manner of sins, just as the antediluvians did which resulted in God’s destruction of them all.
Therefore, we must confess with Paul, and not with the Catholics, the following saying, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;” (2Co 3:5).
“We are given graces, yes, but these graces do not simply give us salvation, but enable us to do good works and to have faith so that we can do our part of the process.”
Now this contradicts the scripture which says “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom 9:16). Your argument could only be true if the scripture said, “not of God who wills, or God who runs, but man who obeys,” or “Not of God who has mercy, but man who wills it,” since the mercy of God is not enough to effect salvation, but must wait for the man to work it out himself. But we say with all the Holy scriptures that faith is the gift of God, and that all those who receive it from the Father to believe, do come to the Son, without any of them being lost, as would be the case if left to our own willing and running (John 6:37, 39, 64-65). Or as Augustine puts it:
“if it is said, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” because it is of both, that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God, so that we are to understand the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” as if it meant the will of man alone is not sufficient, if the mercy of God go not with itthen it will follow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of man go not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, it is not of man that wills, but of God that shows mercy, because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not also rightly put it in the converse way: “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” because the mercy of God by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to say this, “It is not of God that shows mercy, but of man that wills,” lest he should openly contradict the apostle, it follows that the true interpretation of the saying, “It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy,” is that the whole work belongs to God, who both makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it for assistance, and assists it when it is prepared.” (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 32)
I went through it and must be missing something that is clear to you - I'm always willing to learn, if you would be so kind to point out the specific verse.
My points are not "flawed". You neglected John 3:19 which states, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. There is not much to discuss. It is rather clear. We love the darkness. We don't love the light. And the reason is because our works are evil. We love to be disobedient.
Question: How are we able to "give good gifts" if we are totally evil? Doesn't the ability to give good gifts indicate at least a small amount of inherent goodness?
I did not say we are "totally" evil. I said we are evil.
God must change our hearts.
This was a gentle rhetorical question to enlighten us to our true condition. This is one of the reason He came and died for us:
As Paul states, "Oh wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from this dead?"
This corruption in us is the reason we cannot do anything pleasing to God. First, God must give us a new heart and spirit to walk in His ways. (Eze 36:26) Then God must lead us in His path for righteousness sake. (Psalms 23:3)
But what you have raised is a very interesting topic. To think that man is intrinsically good is new thinking developed in the Renaissance. It is not what scriptures teaches us and, if we were honest with ourselves, it is what we really know about ourselves. Deep down inside us we know we have all those characteristics that are vile wanting to surface. God doesn't suppress them. God eradicates them. But this can only happen once He makes us new creatures and calls us to walk in His statues and obey His ordinances.
It is totally to His praise and His glory that we are who we are. We cannot do good things for the Father. It is only through God the Son and God the Spirit that we bear fruit.
This is an absurd argument, as
1., it makes the level of authority of words dependent upon the past or even present holiness of the instrument, and,
2. it ignores the fact that Paul did indeed have first hand information, and
3. it would make 2 gospels of lesser authority than the other writers as Mark and Luke were not first hand accounts, which fact is also ignored, or you are ignorant of.
As re 1, while being the Lord means Christ personally had more authority than any man, yet He is not known to have written anything except some words in the sand once, but wrote the NT by His Spirit thru chosen instruments. And the authority of which which words are based upon that (and didactically whether the form is teaching God's will simply recording things such as the conclusions of the natural mind as in Ecl. 2:24; 8:15) and not the past or even present holiness of the instrument.
If otherwise, we would have to reduce the worth of David's words since even as a believer he was guilty of adultery and murder. And also those of Peter as by his own confession he was a sinful man b4 conversion, and afterwards he was guilty as charged of hypocrisy, (Gal. 2) by Paul, whose words Peter affirmed as Scripture. And who is never charged with sin in his post conversion life, but is shown as being the primary theologian, writer of Holy Writ and church planter and disciple. In fact, excluding duplicate accounts, Paul is given more press by the Holy Spirit than Peter, and is so instrumental that he is called "pope Paul" in polemical parody in response to exalting Peter above that which is written.
As re. 2, Paul did have first hand information, as His writes in Gal. by the Holy Spirit,
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)
This likely most fully (at least) took place when during the three years before he went to Jerusalem, in part of which he sojourned in Arabia. (Gal. 1:17, 18)
And Paul states in refuting those, who like you, impugned his apostolic authority, "have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1Cor. 9:1) and labored more than the rest. (1Cor. 15:10)
As re 3, Mark and Luke are not 2 gospels of lesser authority than the other writers as Mark and Luke were not first hand accounts, with Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached, and Luke the historian writing what eyewitnesses from the beginning recalled. Meanwhile, your holiness hermeneutic Matthew, the tax collector for pagans.
Thus your reasons for the second class authority of most of the NT are not valid, nor is the reason you gave for so doing, . that of having to choose btwn the gospels and Paul. That being said, yet as said, the Lord, being the Lord, His words do reflect His primary anointing and authority, though these are by the same Spirit that inspired the rest, of which Christ foretold. (Jn. 16:12-15) And as a comparison of duplicate accounts indicates, sometimes we are not reading what Christ exactly verbatim said as the Spirit sometimes recasts them in giving a more comprehensive revelation.
I don’t see that this passage reveals that Paul met Jesus.
Well and truly said, dear brother in Christ; thank you!
Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? - I Cor 9:1
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. - Acts 22:7-8
I’m not sure I really get the Roman Catholic approach either. I am Eastern Orthodox and, as far as I can tell, we aren’t as legalistic about everyday theology as either RCs or Protestants.
In our view, faith and works are like oxygen and hydrogen in water. Sure, there are two oxygen atoms and you can’t have water without them, but you can’t have water without hydrogen either. Why make things that have to work together oppose each other? It makes no sense.
In expanding on why i stated to you in 126 , besides it not mattering as regards authority whether Paul actually met the Lord Jesus, that He did see the Lord is clear, and the special direct revelation of the gospel that Gal. 1 refers to can indicate personal instruction.
In any case, as Paul states by the Spirit of Christ, "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." (2 Corinthians 12:11)
You cannot even diminish the rebuke of Balaam's donkey (Num. 22:28-30) because of the instrument that spoke it. And there is no real conflict between the gospels and Paul, and in fact the epistles work to explicate the Lord's sayings and provide consequently details and theology behind the gospels. Without the epistles we would not even have much light on ecclesiology, which Rome much depends upon even if she substantially reinvents aspects of it.
A sound basic (if not strict) description is that the OT is the Preparation (for Christ), the gospels are the Presentation (of Christ and His truths), the books of Acts is the Proclamation (of Christ's message), and the epistles are the Explanation (of Christs message and its details), while the books of Revelation is the Consummation. To God be the glory.
You almost sound like a Roman Catholic mole in Protestant church clothes.
When you write, “Of course salvation is solely on the basis of the atonement of Christ. The Catholic Church, in fact, has condemned Pelagianism (salvation by works) as well as the variation called semi-Pelagianism,” you seem to do a good job of glossing over the glaring theological differences that exist between Roman Catholic soteriology and that of the Protestant Reformation.
If you believe all that, why was there any need for a Protestant Reformation — and why was Luther not welcomed by Rome as a hero?
Actually, most Catholics are very concerned about the things that Mary accomplished, as well as her intercession for them. (I know: I used to share that concern.) Go to Lourdes, if you want a full taste of it, as I did in the days of my Catholic youth.
You must not have read many threads: There are many vicious, uppity, uncharitable attacks on Protestants by Roman Catholics on this board.
I do not look down my nose at Catholics: I remember where I came from. However, I am honest enough to know that most of them are not saved. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and taught by nuns. Nowhere was I ever taught the Gospel as St. Paul presents it in Romans Four — or all of Romans for that matter. In fact, I always envied the confidence my Protestant friends and neighbors enjoyed in their salvation.
Frankly, whether or not you “have a problem” with the Catholic view of the referenced passage in John Chapter 3 is beside the point. The issue is: Does what was presented in the original post on this passage represent sound exegesis of the biblical text? Methinks that it rather does not.
Considering converting to Romanism, by any chance? We do not need folks muddying the waters, as you appear to be doing rather skillfully. Not everyone has these things down, yet. You run the risk of leading others astray with your easy talk.
True... it ABSOLUTELY supports it!!!
If you can find Anything in here that is NOT 'belief'; then please, Please, PLEASE!!!! show it!
SOMEone's definition of MEET is a bit lacking.
Really? You think that Saul, being a Pharisee of the Pharisees, who lived at the time of Jesus, didn't have knowledge of who Jesus was or that the possibility exists that SAUL actually did meet Jesus before He was crucified?
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it was pretty likely Saul DID meet Jesus at some time before He was crucified.
I'd lay money on the fact that Saul did know of Him, if not had at least seen Him.
Course, there's no way of knowing if that was the case until we die, but I would not be surprised.
Well, if having a conversation with someone and having them introduce themselves to you isn't *meeting* them, I don't know what is.
Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of *meet* is, eh?
Acts 9:1-6 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? And he said, Who are you, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.
I equate it with being a member of a team (seeing how this is football season). If the coach tells you to learn the plays or get in condition or be at practice and you never do these things, then are you really on the team.
If Christ tells us to do certain things and we don’t do them, were we ever really on the team.
I agree you just can say I’m saved and then go on your merry little way. There should be some outward evidence of an inward conversion.
However, none of those things I do saves me. Salvation is from Christ and Christ alone. Nothing we can do to add to that.
I do find it interesting though that when I ask my Catholic friends how do they identify their religious affiliation they usually respond as Catholic....not Christian. It’s almost as if Catholicism trumps Christianity. It might be a semantic thing.
If Christ tells us to do certain things and we dont do them, were we ever really on the team.
I agree you just can say Im saved and then go on your merry little way. There should be some outward evidence of an inward conversion.
However, none of those things I do saves me. Salvation is from Christ and Christ alone. Nothing we can do to add to that.
Thank you for this clear explanation of how works should accompany our faith, though they are not the basis of our faith.
I have little patience with those who seemingly glory in their arrogant, prideful attack on those outside of their own narrow, parochial understanding of Christianity.
If the Pentecostals were condemned - or the Baptists, or the Orthodox or any other legitimate church were roundly attacked, I would hope that I would defend them as well.
We live in a day when Christianity is coming under increasing attack, and it is thus all the more important that believers cease from turning our guns on each another in a destructive "circular firing squad" and support one another against the real Enemy.
Well, just WHO, in your learned opinion is the “real enemy”? Last night, you seemed to scholarly on your assessments of everything pertaining to life, today, not so much. So I AM curious if we agree on who the real enemy is.
That was a vision. Paul never met Jesus in person.
“I have little patience with those who seemingly glory in their arrogant, prideful attack on those outside of their own narrow, parochial understanding of Christianity.”
In other words, if guys like you were in charge, we would never have had a reformation to begin with, and we’d all be bedding it with Erasmus and those feeble minded humanists with their man-centered philosophies, while the Catholics would still be selling salvation for top dollar. I for one prefer sound doctrine over these evil things.
You can go join together with Pope Francis and his “Atheist Good Samaritans” marching on to their supposed heaven (but really, it’s hell) against a common enemy, walking with smug faces into the ditch as they abandon the power of the Gospel, but embrace its image. Meanwhile, I’ll stay with my God who is the true ruler of the world, and will not be intimidated by the self-righteous speeches of the ecumenists.
Wrong. Paul was caught up into paradise, in the third heaven. And given an abundance of revelations directly from Christ. (2 Cor. 12). He also saw and heard Christ on the road to Damascus. Christ spoke to him face to face, mouth to mouth and ear to ear. That is CLEAR from Scripture.
Paul only speaks of “a man” not himself.
2 Corinthians 12
1 I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows — 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.
GOOD LORD, Salvation, are you calling God a LIAR? He SAYS it! You are too much. You will deny what God SAYS if it doesn’t match with your predetermined RCC script. You do so at your own peril. Keep on trashing everything He says that isn’t located in Matt.-John and James. The odds of God forgetting what you’ve said are nil. But who knows, perhaps your priest will put in a good word for you../s
...he was speaking of himself...read 12:7. *sigh*
I doubt you will read these few lines, but they make it clear that this describes what Paul says in his letter to Corinth.Saul was the name he was given by his birth family.
Paul (Paulus) was the name we see writing the letters to the Gentiles, his mission field. Jesus changed that man on the Damascus road into a "new man". Paul never boasted about his own work as much as used his life as an illustration to point at Christ.
Acts 9: 9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lords disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?
5 Who are you, Lord? Saul asked.
I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting, he replied. 6 Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.