Critic Cross-the-Border

Some criticism of Jesus Words Only can be found at http://www.crosstheborder.org/documents/Jesus%20Words%20Only.html run by Nicklas Arthur.

This is more sniping.

1a. Cross-The-Border Critic Comment on Romans 7:1-3 Reference

[Critic speaking]

Introduction [of Jesus' Words Only] page 22. A FALSE ACCUSATION

"James had insufficient data. The Jerusalem Bishop, James, must never yet have seen any of Paul’s letters. For clearly, Paul’s letters directly affirm that Jews in Christ are “released” from the Law of Moses. (Romans 7:2.)"

Most people don't look up the references:

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Rom 7:1-3)

THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT DIRECTLY AFFIRMS THAT "Jews in Christ are “released” from the Law of Moses" WOW, Paul actually seems to imply that the Law of Moses for Marriage and Adultry even applies to the Gentiles... Exactly the opposite of JWO author's accusation. - SO that is just one of his false accusations.

1b. My Response on Romans 7:2

So Cross-the-Border's answer to my cite that Paul teaches Jews are released from the Law is to say the word "released" does not appear in Romans 7:1-3. Thus, it supposedly cannot mean what I say.

Now in his quote is a synonym for "released" in even the KJV translation this critic utilized -- "loosed" -- where it says once the husband of a married woman dies she is "loosed from the law of her husband." This is in verse 7:2.

So technically there is a synonymn in this passage to what my American Literal Translation of the Bible renders as "released."  This Cross-the-Border critic overlooks this, and then overlooks the import of the passage in Romans 7:4-6, as I will discuss below, which applies this "loosing" or "releasing" principle to Jews and Paul in particular.

It is clear which verse I was pointing to in order for this critic to weigh whether I indeed wrongly quote "releases" in this passage. In my book Jesus' Words Only, and the passage Cross-the-Border quotes, I point to Romans 7:2:

For clearly, Paul’s letters directly affirm that Jews in Christ are “released” from the Law of Moses.
(Romans 7:2.) (Jesus' Words Only (2006) at 22.)

I discuss in Jesus' Words Only at page 284 the various translations, including the KJV "loosed" version:

Yet, Paul in Romans 7:2 proudly says that by virtue of Jesus’ death, under the Laws of remarriage, Jews are “loosed from the Law” (KJV) “released from the Law” (ALT) “discharged from the Law” (ASV) and “set free from the Law” (YLT). They are now free to re-marry another—a God who has no Law of Moses any longer for them. The key Greek word is katarge. Robertson’s Word Pictures explains this means “to make void.” Literally, Paul says the Law becomes of none effect for Jews any longer when Christ died. Paul uses the same expression in Ephesians 2:15 when he says the Law was “abolished.” The word there is again katagsas—the aorist active participle in Greek of the same word in Romans 7:2. Paul’s point is this principle of abolition applies to the Jews.

In JWO, I discuss how 7:2 fits within the passage as a whole to mean what I say it means. Here is an excerpt from page 80 of Jesus' Words Only:

Romans Chapter Seven Says the Jews Are Released From the Law

Paul makes his views clear again in Romans 7:1 et seq. Paul says he is addressing those who know the Law. Paul then teaches that the Jews under the Law are the same as if Israel were a wife of God. When Jesus died, the husband died. This then “releases” the bride (Jews) from the Law. (Rom. 7:2.) The Jews are now free to remarry another. In this instance, they can now join with the resurrected Jesus who no longer offers the Law to follow. The Law instead, Paul says, is a bond to the dead husband-God, applying Paul’s analogy. There is no doubt on Paul’s meaning in Romans 7:2. The word translated as “releases” is from the Greek katarge. Paul uses the same Greek word in Romans 6:6. There he prays the body of sin “may be destroyed,” and uses the word katarge to mean destroyed, abolished, etc. Katarge means in Greek bring to nothing or do away with. It is the same word Paul uses in Ephesians 2:15 to say the Law was “abolished.”
Thus, Paul clearly taught in Romans 7:2 again that the Law was abolished. He made this truth specific to Jews too.

Thus, this clearly identifies for Cross-the-Border what verse and what word I cited. The fact his translation does not use the word "releases" and his Bible said "looses" is no excuse for someone accusing me of mistakenly making a "false accusation" that Paul taught Jews were released from the Law too, due to the death of the husband-God in the death of Jesus.

1c. Paul Drives Home His Heretical Conclusion

Where does Paul drive home the point this critic implies is wrong? Just three verses later! There Paul talks the same way about himself (a Jew) and the Law of Moses. Thus, there is no missing what this principle in Romans 7:1-3 means in relation to the Jews because Paul extends the principle to himself, a Jew,  and clearly says it means he, Paul, is released from the Law. It comes from the "death" of what "once bound us," thereby linking back to Romans 7:1-3. In Romans 7:6, Paul says “Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law, so that we serve in a new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”

Thus, Cross-the-Border was wrong in two ways. The passage in verse 2 does use the word "released" which even his King James used a totally appropriate synonym -- "loosed." And Romans 7:6 makes the point that as a result of the "death" of what bound us to the Law (the husband-God represented by the person of Jesus) Paul, a Jew, is loosed/released from the Law. (See Romans 7:1-3.)

All commentators agree with me that Paul teaches that the Law is now dead to us by virtue of Jesus's death, demonstrating the critic has not studied the passage sufficiently to find fault. While these commentators agree with Paul and welcome that Romans 7:1-6 proves that indeed the Law is abolished for both Jew and Gentile, I use the passage to prove Paul is a false prophet by virtue of "seducing" us from following the Law -- see Deut. 13:1-5.

2a. Cross-the-Border Response to Use of "Easter" In King James

[Critic Cross-the-Border says]:

Funny that he [i.e., me, JWO's author] uses Acts authoritatively when it suits his purpose, but here slams it.

Appendix C: The Easter Error
QUOTE- "with the word Easter in Acts 12:4. The King James translators thus believed Easter was synonymous with Passover. Why was this?" [Jesus Words Only at xxi]

[Critic Cross-the-Border then quotes Acts 12:3-4]

And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Act 12:3-4)

[Critic speaking]
I HAVE INCLUDED verse 3 because the KJV translators used it to interpret the passage, you see they knew that the "days of unleavened bread" follows the Passover, SO THE Passover WAS ALREADY PAST, and they also knew that Easter Follows the "days of unleavened bread" and that the Romans KEPT THE ASHTEROTH CELEBRATION and did not want to interrupt their celebration... SO YOU SEE THE ERROR IS MR T'S and not the KJV translators.

2b. My Response on Acts 12:4

I do not slam Acts at all, but I cite its Greek text as more correct than the King James translation in Acts 12:4.

The word at issue in the original Greek of Acts 12:4 is pascha meaning passover in Greek. Anyone can verify this by downloading the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer at http://www.scripture4all.org. The ISA clearly renders pascha as passover.

The critic at Cross-the-Border appears to think Passover was past, and that the term "Easter" was a reference to Ashteroth worship that was upcoming. However, the word is pascha in the original Greek text from Acts. Nothing in the original Greek is using any reference to Easter or Ashteroth worship. The King James simply errs in rendering Passover with the word Easter.

What is disturbing about this criticism is the critic therefore has no problem referring to the most holy day of the year of Christ's resurrection by a word which the critic believes means Astheroth worship. I was saying how horrible to refer to Christ's resurrection by the name for the goddess Easter, rather than referring to the passover week. However, this critic shockingly has no problem referring to Christ's resurrection Sunday by the term for "Ashteroth worship." I am sorry but I find this just as bad.

As I explained in Jesus' Words Only, the truth is the King James Bible's use of Easter is the product of English history, and clearly referred to the pagan goddess Eostre. The term for Passover in English became synonymous with "Eostre's Month" -- the month of the goddess "Eostre." This is indisputable, as Bede mentions this in the 8th Century. I explained at page xxiii in Appendix C of Jesus' Words Only:

There is no dispute this is the origin of the name for Easter. In the Eighth century, a Christian monk and historian, Bede, explained why English-speaking lands persisted in calling the Passover by the name Easter. He explained: “Eosturmonath, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival [Passover in Britain].” (Venerable Bede: The Reckoning of Time Faith Wallis (trans.) (Liverpool University Press, 1999) at 54.)

Hence, the critic was wrong in saying the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 meant "Ashteroth" (a Canaanite god). The word pascha in Acts 12:4 meant in Greek passover. Second, the critic was wrong to defend calling Christ's resurrection day by the name of a pagan god, whether Eostre or Ashteroth. It does not much matter which. Any such idea is deplorable yet this is what the King James Bible translators elected to do for the word pascha in an unholy compromise with pagan tradition.

3a. Critic Says Paul Does Not Teach Eternal Security

The author of JWO, MR T'S main accusation seems to be that PAUL CONDONED THE IDEA THAT YOU COULD CONTINUE IN SIN AFTER SALVATION. IF you pick and choose your verses as does MR T, author of JWO and modern day "THE LAW IS NAILED TO THE CROSS" Christianity you can believe that-but not if you take all of Pauls writings as a whole and in context. Consider the following examples:

For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Rom 2:13) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31) Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

SO THE WRITINGS OF MR T OR PAUL? I'LL CHOOSE PAUL.

3b. My Response On Whether Paul Taught Eternal Security

The critic Cross-the-Border has not read enough of what I write to properly frame this criticism. In a sense I agree with this critic. I defend that Paul frequently rejects eternal security/faith alone except in a few passages - especially Eph 2:8-9, Romans 8:1-2, and Romans 4:3-5. (See Jesus Words on Salvation, ch. 26, at pages 453 et seq.)

Because I cannot refute those passages in favor of eternal security, which almost all evangelical Christianity relies upon to say Paul teaches faith alone/eternal security, I join with this critic in spirit on what is God's true teaching against eternal security. But this leads me to say "let's choose Jesus over Paul" for Jesus clearly taught with no exceptions (unlike Paul) that salvation is by repentance and obedience besides faith.

This critic has not yet grappled with these passages in Paul's writings which prove eternal security. I have virtually all of modern evangelical Christianity on my side in reading these several passages in Paul to controvert repentance and obedience as conditions of salvation. In fact, almost all evangelical Christianity rejects the view of the critic and myself that works are important too -- because it relies upon Paul as inspired from God.

In sum, the critic was wrong that Paul has only one view, and that is one can lose one's salvation for sinful works. Paul's passages of Eph 2:8-9 and Romans 4:3-5 (and many more) are read by almost all to the opposite conclusion.

However, if this critic could persuade everyone about Paul's views, then the most important concern I have about Paul would disappear. If Paul were truly an ally of Jesus's doctrine of salvation based upon repentance, I would not be as concerned as I am about Paul's inclusion as 'inspired' from God. (The only exception would be that Paul's arguably blasphemes in several pasages, and these either require a footnote warning for the readers or exclusion of Paul's writings from the NT.See "Paul's Unwitting Blasphemies.") Alas, very few see Paul the way this critic at Cross-the-Border sees Paul. I wish this critic well in his journey to convince all that Paul only means to reaffirm the Messiah's Gospel of Salvation is by repentance from sin besides faith. (Mark 9:42-47.)