View Full Version : Did Paul intend for his writings to be Holy Writ?
Before I continue any further, let me pre-empt this post w/ the following disclaimers
1. I believe the Bible to be infallible and the inerrant God-breathed Word of God.
2. I believe that the epistles are canon, apply today and are beneficial to the Church
3. Paul is my favorite NT writer and believe everything he did, spoke and wrote are the actions of a Spirit-filled Christian. I am enamored w/ his style and simplicity. His 3 basic themes of faith, hope and love permeate and are interwoven masterfully in his writings.
Now here goes ….
Paul, like other Jewish Christians, considered the Torah and the words of the prophets to be Scripture. As a religious scholar who considered himself as once being the chief of the Pharisees and who studied under the feet of Gamaliel … writes to his son in the Lord, Timothy …
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Even the most novice theologian will tell you that when he wrote these words he did so as advice to a young pastor and mentee in the Lord.
And I believe … it’s safe to say that he did not believe this correspondence to be the Scripture described in this passage. I think it’s also safe to say that the other Hebraic epistle writers did not know that their writings would be compiled into a second or New Testament to be added to what they considered Scripture (the OT?).
Considering the nature of these letters that are targeted to specific churches and/or individuals … must we keep the purpose and audience of these letters into account when we are rightly dividing the Word of God.
1. For example, as a pastor/overseer of many works in Asia and Europe we see Paul addressing various issues and topics that are unique to a particular church region.
It’s believed that other letters ( possibly 4 total?) were written to the church in Corinth … yet we have only 2 in our bibles.
Were the other letters not inspired by the Spirit of God? If we were to uncover them today would we need to add them to our Bibles?
Undoubtedly, there is valuable and God inspired commandments, counsel and modern-day applications found in Paul’s writings to these specific churches. We get invaluable insight to the Apostles doctrine of the 1st century church from these epistles also.
Yet there are instances that we find traces in these letters that may not be directly from the lips of God.
2. Paul, at times, gives his personal opinion …
In the following two verses quoted as examples, Paul admits he was not inspired in giving some of his advice. He states that had "given his (personal) opinion" and had expressed what he personally "thought to be good".
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord;
but I give my opinion.....
I think then that this is good for the present distress,
{I say}, that {it is} good for a man to remain as he is.
1 Corin. 7:25/26
3 There are times we see him express personal issues he has w/ others … along w/ open personal rebukes.
Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas 1 came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 2:12 Until 4 certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this 5 and separated himself 6 because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 7 2:13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
4. Paul changing his mind …
In 2 Cor 2:5-11
Paul wrote to instruct the Corinthians on what to do about the particular man who had previously caused him so much trouble but now had repented. Paul instructed the Corinthians to forgive him and receive him back.
In another instance had cast away Mark, as being a frivolous and irresponsible young man, but years later he calls for him believing he is useful to the ministry.
5. Paul using the letters to defend himself against those who opposed and criticized him
Ex: In Second Corinthians
10:1-13:10
In this section, Paul turns his attention to the minority that still opposes him. The tone of the letter changes from conciliatory to confrontational.
10:1-18
Paul defends himself against the charges that he is timid in person but bold when he writes to them and that he lives "according to the flesh." He explains that unlike his opponents, he and his colleagues do not compare themselves, commend themselves or boast beyond limits.
11:1-12:13
Paul unwillingly compares himself to his opponents, the "super-apostles," in order to prove that he is not their inferior. He does so with great reservation because he believes that a criterion of apostolic ministry is "weakness," which is incompatible with such self-assertion. He explains how God gave him a "thorn in the flesh" to prevent him from becoming conceited after having heard inexpressible things while caught up in the third heaven.
c. 12:14-13:10
Paul announces to the Corinthians that he is soon coming again to Corinth, and he defends himself against the charge that he exploits the Corinthian during his visits. Paul tells them that he does not want to find sin in the church when he comes and warns his remaining opponents that he will not spare them upon his third visit. He admonishes them to examine themselves to be sure that they are in the faith.
6. And there are times we see him share mundane and business related matters w/ little or no bearing to us ….
Everything from farewells, greetings, appeals for offerings and even travel plans …
2 Cor 1:12-2:4
Paul wrote to defend himself against the charge that he changed his travel plans several times without justification. The charge was that Paul could not be trusted to do what he promised. He explained that, each time he changed his travel plans, he had a good reason.
-------------------------------------------------------
And so the question in my thread title still holds:
Did Paul consider or intend for his letters to be holy writ?
What considerations should we make when reconciling the nature of these writings and our obligation to rightly divide the Word?
Do all of his words hold equal weight w/ pronouncements from God through the prophets, patriarchs and even those quoted by Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation?
What must we factor when teaching and formulating doctrine based on the Epsitles? Target audience? Purpose of writing? Specific issues germaine to the time and culture?
Is Paul rolling over in his grave at the sight of how the modern-day Church has handled, or maybe mis-handled, his letters?
Cindy
05-16-2008, 09:12 AM
We can't know the answers to your question, although you seem to have come to a conclusion. He certainly knew the Word of God would live beyone his time, but how could he know that his writings would become part of it? I don't really know. But they are.
Encryptus
05-16-2008, 09:22 AM
Interesting but of course rhetorical question.
It is obvious when Paul speaks of scripture he meant Torah because the Bible as we know was not canonized within his lifetime, or even his generation.
It would be interesting to see how Christendom would react if for example the lost espistle to the Laodiceans were found
Jack Shephard
05-16-2008, 09:22 AM
Often times writers or people that write their work becomes more prolific after their passing. You often see this with painters and other artist as well. I think that Paul meant for his writtings to be used to motivate and to lead a people. There is no way to know for certain whether he meant them to be Holy Writ. I believe that God led him to write it and God did the rest.
Indeed, Encryptus ...
Colossians 4:16, mentions a letter sent to the church in Laodicea.
"Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."
Most commentators on this passage express the view that this letter must have been lost. Yet, that is a surprising opinion when you think about the care early Christians took in preserving the words of God. We also need to remember Jesus' promise expressed in Mark 13:31, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." Jesus was stating the certainty of the prophesy that he just made, but it remains that God views his word as permanent. The apostles also say that their writings would be long-lasting. "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because "All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the LORD endures forever." Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you" (I Peter 1:22-25).
The idea that we have lost a letter that was known to at least two congregations is very disturbing.
So, what has happened to the letter to the Laodiceans?
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2003-10-29.htm
Interesting but of course rhetorical question.
It is obvious when Paul speaks of scripture he meant Torah because the Bible as we know was not canonized within his lifetime, or even his generation.
It would be interesting to see how Christendom would react if for example the lost espistle to the Laodiceans were found
Often times writers or people that write their work becomes more prolific after their passing. You often see this with painters and other artist as well. I think that Paul meant for his writtings to be used to motivate and to lead a people. There is no way to know for certain whether he meant them to be Holy Writ. I believe that God led him to write it and God did the rest.
But what should we factor in formulating and teaching doctrine when it comes to the nature of these letters ...?
By Paul's admission some of it is personal opinion.
James Griffin
05-16-2008, 09:32 AM
Daniel there is a difference between questioning the theology found in Paul's "letters" - Mainly Romans, and Hebrews etc. and the pastoral letters concerning dress and conduct. Women's hair- "we have no other custom".
Are you attempting to delineate between the two or are you suggesting nothing but the historical books (Gospels and Acts) should be considered sacred. Or that only the prophetic book (Revelation) should be?
What are you purposing be accepted as sacred, and what are you purposing be accepted as Apostle Paul's suggestion?
Where would the line be drawn and what would be the criteria. And if more importantly who would decide?
Daniel there is a difference between questioning the theology found in Paul's "letters" - Mainly Romans, and Hebrews etc. and the pastoral letters concerning dress and conduct. Women's hair- "we have no other custom".
Are you attempting to delineate between the two or are you suggesting nothing but the historical books (Gospels and Acts) should be considered sacred. Or that only the prophetic book (Revelation) should be?
What are you purposing be accepted as sacred, and what are you purposing be accepted as Apostle Paul's suggestion?
Where would the line be drawn and what would be the criteria. And if more importantly who would decide?
All very good questions ... That we need to examine, James.
I think the Bible as we have it is sacred, BTW ... including the Epistles.
On the subject of the pastoral passages found in Paul's writings ... James ...
Does the pastoral advice to one individual ... or church ... apply to all in all instances for all time?
deltaguitar
05-16-2008, 09:40 AM
Hmmm . . . I thought that at the council of something or another they decided what was cannon and what wasn't.
Hmmm . . . I thought that at the council of something or another they decided what was cannon and what wasn't.
And they were trinitarians. *GASP*
Timmy
05-16-2008, 09:43 AM
And what about Jude? He quotes The Book of Enoch, apparently accepting it as authoritative (calls it prophecy), and yet we don't include it in today's canon. (Most of us, anyway.) Was Jude "inspired" to quote a non-scriptural book? Have we goofed in excluding it?
Jude 14-15 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Enoch 1:9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
And what about Jude? He quotes The Book of Enoch, apparently accepting it as authoritative (calls it prophecy), and yet we don't include it in today's canon. (Most of us, anyway.) Was Jude "inspired" to quote a non-scriptural book? Have we goofed in excluding it?
Jude 14-15 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Enoch 1:9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
Excellent point, Timmy.
Cindy
05-16-2008, 09:46 AM
Daniel it is what it is, we can all come to conclusions and have opinions, that doesn't mean we are right or wrong. Unless the Holy Ghost revealed it unto Paul that his words would be part of Holy scriptures, we still can't know what his intentions were when he wrote them. I believe he wrote to edify and teach, and just like most of us draw from our own experiences. I also don't believe you should choose certain scriptures to try to prove it either way. It's either all of his writings or none of his writings. Because we know he followed Jesus Christ's teaching and was filled with the Holy Ghost his words were inspired by God.
Is it safe to relegate what is Scripture ... to what the disciples would've have considered Holy Writ ...?
Including the Book of Enoch?
I know I wouldn't want to add the book of Moroni ... definitely not God-breathed.
Timmy
05-16-2008, 09:48 AM
Is it safe to relegate what is Scripture ... to what the disciples would've have considered Holy Writ ...?
Including the Book of Enoch?
I know I wouldn't want to add the book of Moroni ... definitely not God-breathed.
Says you! :toofunny
:tic
Because we know he followed Jesus Christ's teaching and was filled with the Holy Ghost his words were inspired by God.
But so is Tommy Tenney, Joy Haney, A.A. Allen and Charles Spurgeon ....
Baron1710
05-16-2008, 09:52 AM
And what about Jude? He quotes The Book of Enoch, apparently accepting it as authoritative (calls it prophecy), and yet we don't include it in today's canon. (Most of us, anyway.) Was Jude "inspired" to quote a non-scriptural book? Have we goofed in excluding it?
Jude 14-15 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Enoch 1:9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
James also quotes Plato's Republic in James 4:1.
James also quotes Plato's Republic in James 4:1.
Didn't Paul also quote a philosopher?
Cindy
05-16-2008, 09:54 AM
But so is Tommy Tenney, Joy Haney, A.A. Allen and Charles Spurgeon ....
Yes!
Is truth still truth even if it comes from a philosopher?
Baron1710
05-16-2008, 09:58 AM
Is truth still truth even if it comes from a philosopher?
Truth is truth. All truth is God's.
Cindy
05-16-2008, 10:00 AM
Is truth still truth even if it comes from a philosopher?
There are absolute truths Daniel, and all of them are of God. God cannot lie.
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 10:06 AM
i dont think even the apostle paul was arrogant enough to think his thoughts were scripture quality but god breathed through him because he foresaw our need for principles and scriptural word to follow, in the canonization process god influenced the right people that were involved and invoked his will on the the putting together of the bible, so god did it, without needing pauls intentions, dt
OneAccord
05-16-2008, 10:09 AM
Its odd that Bro. Dan would start this thread. I have just begun reading (for the first time) "The Lost Books of the Bible". It contains "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans"
deltaguitar
05-16-2008, 10:09 AM
Is truth still truth even if it comes from a philosopher?
I was reading parts of this book, Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and he mentions that truth is always truth no matter who it comes from. Many times growing up in our particular religion we are taught that we have the truth and then when we find out we aren't the only ones that have truth we can reject what we have been taught.
i dont think even the apostle paul was arrogant enough to think his thoughts were scripture quality but god breathed through him because he foresaw our need for principles and scriptural word to follow, in the canonization process god influenced the right people that were involved and invoked his will on the the putting together of the bible, so god did it, without needing pauls intentions, dt
Okay ... do you think Paul introduced "new commandments" that were not aligned w/ Scripture as we know it/he knew it ?...
For example ... there is no prohibition of jewelry in the Old Testament ... furthermore it is celebrated by God in dressing Israel metaphorically ... Patriarchs used it ... the Jewish people use it until this day... Jesus speaks of it as a reward in one of his parables ....
Yet, modern-day truth bearers ....when formulating doctrine .... use prooftexts from two of his letters to teach that God is against jewelry.
Its odd that Bro. Dan would start this thread. I have just begun reading (for the first time) "The Lost Books of the Bible". It contains "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans"
Odd ... why, 1A? What have you learned from the book?
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 10:17 AM
Okay ... do you think Paul introduced "new commandments" that were not aligned w/ Scripture as we know it ?...
For example ... there is no prohibition of jewelry in the Old Testament ... furthermore it is celebrated by God in dressing Israel metaphorically ... Patriarchs used it ... the Jewish people use it until this day... Jesus speaks of it as a reward in one of his parables ....
Yet, modern-day truth bearers ....when formulating doctrine .... use prooftexts from two of his letters to teach that God is against jewelry.
it is my opinion that the apostle paul wrote the epistles under the influence of the holy ghost, god himself knowing that they would become part of the bible, his word and our only hope bro dan, hey how you doing with your friend, bro, dt
I was reading parts of this book, Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and he mentions that truth is always truth no matter who it comes from. Many times growing up in our particular religion we are taught that we have the truth and then when we find out we aren't the only ones that have truth we can reject what we have been taught.
You mean ... trinitarians have the Truth?
Timmy
05-16-2008, 10:21 AM
Its odd that Bro. Dan would start this thread. I have just begun reading (for the first time) "The Lost Books of the Bible". It contains "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans"
I wonder if he ever wrote to the church at Lesbos. "Paul's First Epistle to the Lesbians". :lol
I wonder if he ever wrote to the church at Lesbos. "Paul's First Epistle to the Lesbians". :lol
Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhbekaybe.
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 10:22 AM
I wonder if he ever wrote to the church at Lesbos. "Paul's First Epistle to the Lesbians". :lol
that is gross timmy my boy, just gross, dt:blah:blah:blah
Encryptus
05-16-2008, 10:24 AM
Okay ... do you think Paul introduced "new commandments" that were not aligned w/ Scripture as we know it ?...
For example ... there is no prohibition of jewelry in the Old Testament ... furthermore it is celebrated by God in dressing Israel metaphorically ... Patriarchs used it ... the Jewish people use it until this day... Jesus speaks of it as a reward in one of his parables ....
Yet, modern-day truth bearers ....when formulating doctrine .... use prooftexts from two of his letters to teach that God is against jewelry.
Was Paul speaking against jewelry per se, or was it against ostentatious displays of wealth at church?
Cindy
05-16-2008, 10:25 AM
Okay ... do you think Paul introduced "new commandments" that were not aligned w/ Scripture as we know it ?...
For example ... there is no prohibition of jewelry in the Old Testament ... furthermore it is celebrated by God in dressing Israel metaphorically ... Patriarchs used it ... the Jewish people use it until this day... Jesus speaks of it as a reward in one of his parables ....
Yet, modern-day truth bearers ....when formulating doctrine .... use prooftexts from two of his letters to teach that God is against jewelry.
I believe when Paul was teaching about modesty, it was for people that "dressed up" in their expensive clothes and jewelry and thought they were better than others. It wasn't just what they wore but their spirit that were wrong. The spirit of pride. Look at me, look at me, I have all this and you don't. And it was being a stumbling block to some new believers. It isn't the jewelry that is wrong. And remember what the Israelites did with their jewelry to make the golden calf.
Encryptus
05-16-2008, 10:25 AM
I wonder if he ever wrote to the church at Lesbos. "Paul's First Epistle to the Lesbians". :lol
He addressed them sufficiently in Romans Timbo
Was Paul speaking against jewelry per se, or was it against ostentatious displays of wealth at church?
Definitely the latter in context ...
The same is true when God lashes out against Israel's haughtiness various times in the OT ....
But to say the Word prohibits it ... and to use Paul's writings to prove this ... is not only extrabiblical ... but I believe would offend Paul greatly in various ways.
Cindy
05-16-2008, 10:26 AM
I wonder if he ever wrote to the church at Lesbos. "Paul's First Epistle to the Lesbians". :lol
Timmy!!!!!!!!
Timmy
05-16-2008, 10:28 AM
He addressed them sufficiently in Romans Timbo
Hey, I was talking about the island, what did you think I meant? :lol
deltaguitar
05-16-2008, 10:29 AM
You mean ... trinitarians have the Truth?
Of course they have truth. So much of our doctrine comes from them. I am not sure what THE TRUTH is but I can promise you that we Oneness don't have it all either. We set ourselves up for huge failure and loss of our future generations when we claim that we have THE TRUTH and no one else does.
Do you think that Paul would feel slighted if he heard modern day Apostolics who claim he was only speaking to saved folks in his letters ... Did he intend for his letters to have a broader audience since he instructed them to be read aloud? Or those that seem to feel he does not discuss how we are saved in his letters?
Baron1710
05-16-2008, 10:33 AM
Do you think that Paul would feel slighted if he heard modern day Apostolics who claim he was only speaking to saved folks in his letters ... Did he intend for his letters to have a broader audience since he instructed them to be read aloud? Or those that seem to feel he does not discuss how we are saved in his letters?
Wouldn't that be a little like saying the OT was only intended for the Jews? It was written for and given to them but does anyone really believe it was only for the Jews?
Cindy
05-16-2008, 10:33 AM
Do you think that Paul would feel slighted if he heard modern day Apostolics who claim he was only speaking to saved folks in his letters ... Did he intend for his letters to have a broader audience since he instructed them to be read aloud? Or those that seem to feel he does not discuss how we are saved in his letters?
I feel he was speaking to you and I as well as the people in his time. Saved and unsaved. His letters addressed things in the churches that were wrong. People have the same faults and failures now as they did then. IMO. But we also have the same Jesus and the Holy Ghost which was promised to them and us, as the way to live a holy life.
Wouldn't that be a little like saying the OT was only intended for the Jews? It was written for and given to them but does anyone really believe it was only for the Jews?
I find it interesting that some will use 5 or 6 verses on water baptism found in the Epistles but will not accept other soteriological concepts from these letters if it does not fit their paradigm for works-based/produced salvation.
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 10:37 AM
-------------------------------------------------------
And so the question in my thread title still holds:
Did Paul consider or intend for his letters to be holy writ?
What considerations should we make when reconciling the nature of these writings and our obligation to rightly divide the Word?
Do all of his words hold equal weight w/ pronouncements from God through the prophets, patriarchs and even those quoted by Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation?
What must we factor when teaching and formulating doctrine based on the Epsitles? Target audience? Purpose of writing? Specific issues germaine to the time and culture?
Is Paul rolling over in his grave at the sight of how the modern-day Church has handled, or maybe mis-handled, his letters?
Dan, what are examples of how the modern day church is "mishandling" or misinterpreting Paul's scriptures?
Dan, what are examples of how the modern day church is "mishandling" or misinterpreting Paul's scriptures?
One example ... that I believe is mishandled is found in post #27
DM ... I also believe that a cultural situation unique to the Church in Corinth ... has not been factored in intepreting 1 Corinthians 11 as it applies to the extra-biblical cutting of hair doctrine.
Cindy
05-16-2008, 10:44 AM
DM ... I also believe that a cultural situation unique to the Church in Corinth ... has not been factored in intepreting Corinthians 11 as it applies to the cutting of hair doctrine.
Do you think there were "cross dressers" in biblical times? And cultule attire that were unique to certain people?
dizzyde
05-16-2008, 10:45 AM
Back with a bang, Daniel!! :happydance
What must we factor when teaching and formulating doctrine based on the Epsitles? Target audience? Purpose of writing? Specific issues germaine to the time and culture?
I think this is critical in reading any Scripture, my pastor actually taught a lesson recently on how to read the Bible. These things were mentioned, the How, When, Why, and Where.
Is Paul rolling over in his grave at the sight of how the modern-day Church has handled, or maybe mis-handled, his letters?
I think that there are a lot of things that would make the first church scratch their heads about in the modern day church (all inclusive).
dizzyde
05-16-2008, 10:47 AM
Was Paul speaking against jewelry per se, or was it against ostentatious displays of wealth at church?
The 50 million dollar question...
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 10:50 AM
One example ... that I believe is mishandled is found in post #27
DM ... I also believe that a cultural situation unique to the Church in Corinth ... has not been factored in intepreting Corinthians 11 as it applies to the cutting of hair doctrine.
jewelery and hair-cutting are minor issues that can be addressed by common sense. These are issues in the modern day church where some interpret liberally while others conservatively. I don't see the need for reevaluating our interpretation based on whether paul's writing is holy writ or not. Seems like an irrelevant proposition.
Encryptus
05-16-2008, 10:54 AM
Were there also not times when Paul even stated in his epistles that certain topics he was just expressing his opinion?
1 Corinthians 7:6
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
(KJV of course)
jewelery and hair-cutting are minor issues that can be addressed by common sense. These are issues in the modern day church where some interpret liberally while others conservatively. I don't see the need for reevaluating our interpretation based on whether paul's writing is holy writ or not. Seems like an irrelevant proposition.
The very mantra of the truth-bearers/bashers/separatists is that what Paul wrote is the Word of God and that not accepting their intepretation of doctrines formulated from his writings mean you are not part of the church or hell-bound, DM.
Most troubling is that because the focus of having ALL TRUTH and being the sole purveyors of truth when interpreting the Word is drilled into those who enter churches in our movement is so STRONG ...
We have an entire lost generation and remnant of people who do not understand the concept of bible context ... nor how to rightly divide the Word ... and because they truly believe that because they won't adhere to such standards that they are....
LOST FOREVER AND UNSAVEABLE ... AND HENCE WILL NEVER ATTEND ANY OTHER CHURCH ... AND DROWN THEMSELVES IN MORE SIN TO DEAL W/ THIS SPIRITUAL UNREALITY ...
I'm sorry ... this (context) does matter ... not irrelevant .... truth does matter ... examining all of the Word and how to read the Bible does matter ....
IT HAS ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES.
crakjak
05-16-2008, 11:01 AM
Daniel,
These questions are very scary to most religious folks, because without an intimate relationship with the Savior, it is impossible to receive the Word even though it be God-breathed.
John 15:15
Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. KJV
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 11:12 AM
The very mantra of the truth-bearers/bashers is that what Paul wrote is the Word of God and that not accepting their intepretation of doctrines formulated from his writings mean you are not part of the church or hell-bound, DM.
Most troubling is that because the focus of having ALL TRUTH and being the sole purveyors of truth when interpreting the Word is drilled into those who enter churches in our movement is so STRONG ...
We have an entire lost generation and remnant of people who do not understand the concept of bible context ... nor how to rightly divide the Word ... and because they truly believe that because they won't adhere to such standards that they are....
LOST FOREVER AND UNSAVEABLE ... AND HENCE WILL NEVER ATTEND ANY OTHER CHURCH ... AND DROWN THEMSELVES IN MORE SIN TO DEAL W/ THIS SPIRITUAL UNREALITY ...
I'm sorry ... this (context) does matter ... not irrelevant .... truth does matter ... examining and how to read the Bible does matter ....
You always want to take on the Big Bad "truth bashers". What is so wrong with a conservative interpretation on hair cutting and jewelery? Most young people and adults have the sense to do as they please or go and find another church. The few people that don't have the emotional strength to live their own convictions live under the conviction of their conservative pastors. What is wrong with that? Many live under these convictions voluntarily. I think you exaggerate the big bad wolf.
My friend Jim Ellis ... at another forum weighed in w/ this interesting point and scripture....
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Notice that Peter considered the epistles of Paul to be Scripture.
mfblume
05-16-2008, 11:13 AM
It is not an issue of whether or not Paul knew his words would be holy writ. It is what God planned. And God doesn't let everyone in on His plans many times. :) The fact is, God is in control and they are his holy writ.
Good question, Dan!
You always want to take on the Big Bad "truth bashers". What is so wrong with a conservative interpretation on hair cutting and jewelery? Most young people and adults have the sense to do as they please or go and find another church. The few people that don't have the emotional strength to live their own convictions live under the conviction of their conservative pastors. What is wrong with that? Many live under these convictions voluntarily. I think you exaggerate the big bad wolf.
Maybe I do ... but I believe many of us have encountered people who will not accept the Gospel after looking at us and how we present the Gospel ...
If you would rather stick to man-made traditions and doctrines ... than more power to you ... but when it comes to winning souls to the kingdom, issues that affect the relationship people have w/ God and issues of eternal consequence that can be adversely affected by false teaching AND false perceptions...
IT MATTERS.
BTW, my mother sticks to her convictions voluntarily ... but knows that's exactly what they are .... convictions ....
Not Bible.
You always want to take on the Big Bad "truth bashers". What is so wrong with a conservative interpretation on hair cutting and jewelery? Most young people and adults have the sense to do as they please or go and find another church. The few people that don't have the emotional strength to live their own convictions live under the conviction of their conservative pastors. What is wrong with that? Many live under these convictions voluntarily. I think you exaggerate the big bad wolf.
oh I can answer that. anyone who disagrees with our good friend is a two fold child of the devil that needs to be opposed and vanquished.
Cindy
05-16-2008, 11:20 AM
Truth matters, absolute truth matters absolutely.
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 11:23 AM
Maybe I do ... but I believe many of us have encountered people who will not accept the Gospel after looking at us and how we present the Gospel ...
If you would rather stick to man-made traditions and doctrines ... than more power to you ... but when it comes to winning souls to the kingdom, issues that affect the relationship people have w/ God and issues of eternal consequence that can be adversely affected by false teaching AND false perceptions...
IT MATTERS.
sounds like you are promoting a new brand of Apostolic Charismatics. Is that the case? That may be the future direction of the church.
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 11:24 AM
oh I can answer that. anyone who disagrees with our good friend is a two fold child of the devil that needs to be opposed and vanquished.
well i find that funny ferd, but somewhat true, only the weak are vanquished, the strong remain, and get stronger, lol,dt:boxing
Raven
05-16-2008, 11:26 AM
Dangerous Dan
You're dangerous because you pose questions that cause people to think. That's good!
Living, vicariously for God, through a pastor or organization is never what God intended but it has certainly happened to many. The Spirit is calling as never before: "Come now and let us reason together ..." Not time for personal evangelism but it's time for some VPE ... Very personal evangelism. That's just you and God.
Raven
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 11:33 AM
Dangerous Dan
You're dangerous because you pose questions that cause people to think. That's good!
Living, vicariously for God, through a pastor or organization is never what God intended but it has certainly happened to many. The Spirit is calling as never before: "Come now and let us reason together ..." Not time for personal evangelism but it's time for some VPE ... Very personal evangelism. That's just you and God.
Raven
good post raven, now about that deer hunting, lol,dt:happydance
Dangerous Dan
You're dangerous because you pose questions that cause people to think. That's good!
Living, vicariously for God, through a pastor or organization is never what God intended but it has certainly happened to many. The Spirit is calling as never before: "Come now and let us reason together ..." Not time for personal evangelism but it's time for some VPE ... Very personal evangelism. That's just you and God.
Raven
Well, Raven do you agree with Daniels premis?
Should Pauls writtings be stricken from the Cannon?
Before I continue any further, let me pre-empt this post w/ the following disclaimers
Now here goes ….
Paul, like other Jewish Christians, considered the Torah and the words of the prophets to be Scripture. As a religious scholar who considered himself as once being the chief of the Pharisees and who studied under the feet of Gamaliel … writes to his son in the Lord, Timothy …
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Even the most novice theologian will tell you that when he wrote these words he did so as advice to a young pastor and mentee in the Lord.
And I believe … it’s safe to say that he did not believe this correspondence to be the Scripture described in this passage. I think it’s also safe to say that the other Hebraic epistle writers did not know that their writings would be compiled into a second or New Testament to be added to what they considered Scripture (the OT?).
Considering the nature of these letters that are targeted to specific churches and/or individuals … must we keep the purpose and audience of these letters into account when we are rightly dividing the Word of God.
1. For example, as a pastor/overseer of many works in Asia and Europe we see Paul addressing various issues and topics that are unique to a particular church region.
It’s believed that other letters ( possibly 4 total?) were written to the church in Corinth … yet we have only 2 in our bibles.
Were the other letters not inspired by the Spirit of God? If we were to uncover them today would we need to add them to our Bibles?
Undoubtedly, there is valuable and God inspired commandments, counsel and modern-day applications found in Paul’s writings to these specific churches. We get invaluable insight to the Apostles doctrine of the 1st century church from these epistles also.
Yet there are instances that we find traces in these letters that may not be directly from the lips of God.
2. Paul, at times, gives his personal opinion …
In the following two verses quoted as examples, Paul admits he was not inspired in giving some of his advice. He states that had "given his (personal) opinion" and had expressed what he personally "thought to be good".
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord;
but I give my opinion.....
3 There are times we see him express personal issues he has w/ others … along w/ open personal rebukes.
4. Paul changing his mind …
In 2 Cor 2:5-11
Paul wrote to instruct the Corinthians on what to do about the particular man who had previously caused him so much trouble but now had repented. Paul instructed the Corinthians to forgive him and receive him back.
In another instance had cast away Mark, as being a frivolous and irresponsible young man, but years later he calls for him believing he is useful to the ministry.
5. Paul using the letters to defend himself against those who opposed and criticized him
Ex: In Second Corinthians
10:1-13:10
In this section, Paul turns his attention to the minority that still opposes him. The tone of the letter changes from conciliatory to confrontational.
10:1-18
Paul defends himself against the charges that he is timid in person but bold when he writes to them and that he lives "according to the flesh." He explains that unlike his opponents, he and his colleagues do not compare themselves, commend themselves or boast beyond limits.
11:1-12:13
Paul unwillingly compares himself to his opponents, the "super-apostles," in order to prove that he is not their inferior. He does so with great reservation because he believes that a criterion of apostolic ministry is "weakness," which is incompatible with such self-assertion. He explains how God gave him a "thorn in the flesh" to prevent him from becoming conceited after having heard inexpressible things while caught up in the third heaven.
c. 12:14-13:10
Paul announces to the Corinthians that he is soon coming again to Corinth, and he defends himself against the charge that he exploits the Corinthian during his visits. Paul tells them that he does not want to find sin in the church when he comes and warns his remaining opponents that he will not spare them upon his third visit. He admonishes them to examine themselves to be sure that they are in the faith.
6. And there are times we see him share mundane and business related matters w/ little or no bearing to us ….
Everything from farewells, greetings, appeals for offerings and even travel plans …
2 Cor 1:12-2:4
Paul wrote to defend himself against the charge that he changed his travel plans several times without justification. The charge was that Paul could not be trusted to do what he promised. He explained that, each time he changed his travel plans, he had a good reason.
-------------------------------------------------------
And so the question in my thread title still holds:
Did Paul consider or intend for his letters to be holy writ?
What considerations should we make when reconciling the nature of these writings and our obligation to rightly divide the Word?
Do all of his words hold equal weight w/ pronouncements from God through the prophets, patriarchs and even those quoted by Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation?
What must we factor when teaching and formulating doctrine based on the Epsitles? Target audience? Purpose of writing? Specific issues germaine to the time and culture?
Is Paul rolling over in his grave at the sight of how the modern-day Church has handled, or maybe mis-handled, his letters?
Honestly I think Paul fully intended his writings to be used as clear directive (you can call that cannon if you will.
where he speaks of scripture, he is as DanA says speaking of the OT not his letters.
but Paul also clearly indicates in his letters when he is speaking from opinionr or when he is speaking as an Apostle... to be obeyed.
Where he speaks of his own view ie. relating to it being better not to marry, he indicates such. we cant build doctrine on that (though some have thru the centuries)
Paul also opens 2 Cor 11 by talking about the "ordinences" or the rules if you will. evidently he considers some portion of his letters to be used as text of some sort.
in other places he says that if anyone preaches any other gospel that they should be treated quite harshly.
I think that trying to determine what Paul intended the letters to mean to us is problematic, but there is clearly inspiration in these letters that to me anyway suggest that God had a clear intention for them no matter what was in Pauls mind at the time.
It is a worthy discussion none the less.
dizzyde
05-16-2008, 11:52 AM
Well, Raven do you agree with Daniels premis?
Should Pauls writtings be stricken from the Cannon?
Come on Ferd, Daniel never said that. He said exactly the opposite in his very first post in this thread.
Come on Ferd, Daniel never said that. He said exactly the opposite in his very first post in this thread.
No need to debate what Danel said. we can all read it.
It is a good question and worthy of discussion.
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 12:04 PM
when you are young you question all, but when you get my age you better have gotten some of them answered, and some conviction in your heart, dt
dizzyde
05-16-2008, 12:09 PM
No need to debate what Danel said. we can all read it.
It is a good question and worthy of discussion.
OK! :highfive
Raven
05-16-2008, 12:12 PM
Ferd my friend!
No, Paul's writings should not be stricken from the "canon". But I do believe that some things were written by permission that were not necessarily for all readers of the letter.
In God's "Grand Plan" there is a destiny that will be fulfilled and God's true word will be known. God's not worried and neither should we.
Raven
The words of Paul need to be placed in proper context ... not just w/ dress standards espoused by the Holiness police ... but in other important areas such as divorce and re-marriage ... a proverbial NO-NO among some the more radical extrabiblical circles. Where did Paul stand on this?
One writer states:
Let's now look at what Paul said about remarriage. Paul uses the words of Jesus in explaining what a Christian should do if she should get a divorce: "But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife" (1 Cor 7:11). Here Paul says that a divorced wife should remain unmarried. (It is interesting to note that Paul fails to give the same injunction to unmarried husbands, although I think it should be assumed he meant the same for the husband.)
Now, it is the word "remain" that we need to focus on, since he said "remain" unmarried. The Greek word remain is meno1, and interestingly it is not used in the Bible to necessarily refer to permanency. In that same chapter he says, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so" (1 Cor 7:20-21). So even a slave is to "remain" a slave, but not necessarily for a lifetime. He is free to change his status and get freedom.
Paul also uses this word for married and unmarried people, "Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to" (1 Cor 7:24). Then he gives an example of what he meant, and in it he directly states that remarriage is not a sin. The passage is in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28:
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned... (KJV, emphasis added)
Who has not sinned by getting married? Both the virgin and the person who was loosed from a wife have not sinned. The virgin is the one who has never married; the one loosed from the wife is one who was married but got a divorced. The word "loosed" is the word for "divorced". Paul clearly says that none of them have sinned by getting married. This makes it abundantly clear that Paul never saw remarriage as a sin.
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 12:28 PM
The problem isn't with remarriage, but remarriage and being a bishop or deacon.
Mrs. LPW
05-16-2008, 12:32 PM
I thank God everyday for "The Holy Suggestion Book"
The problem isn't with remarriage, but remarriage and being a bishop or deacon.
Really? Where does it say that a bishop or deacon can't be remarried, DM?
I thank God everyday for "The Holy Suggestion Book"
Where can I buy one?
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 12:45 PM
Where can I buy one?
hey dan come up with the 99.95 and i will manufacture and mail you one, lol,dt
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 12:48 PM
Really? Where does it say that a bishop or deacon can't be remarried, DM?
I Tim 3:2, " Bishop must be husband of one wife"
I Tim 3:12 " Deacons be husbands of one wife"
Tit 1:5,6 " elders...the husband of one wife"
D Bernard interprets this as one wife in life not in the polygamist sense.
I Tim 3:2, " Bishop must be husband of one wife"
I Tim 3:12 " Deacons be husbands of one wife"
Tit 1:6 "husband of one wife"
D Bernard interprets this as one wife in life not in the polygamist sense.
Good for David ... he's wrong on a lot of things ... including the plan of salvation, the New Birth, outward holiness and justification ...
One= 1 .....
Not 1 x infinity ... although that would still equal one ...
Isn't he Oneness, anyway?
How long will we add to the Word?
Where does it say he can't be re-married? Still waiting.
*Dave makes Paul roll over one more time*
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 01:05 PM
Good for David ... he's wrong on a lot of things ... including the plan of salvation, the New Birth, outward holiness and justification ...
One= 1 .....
Not 1 x infinity ... although that would still equal one ...
Isn't he Oneness, anyway?
How long will we add to the Word?
Where does it say he can't be re-married? Still waiting.
*Dave makes Paul roll over one more time*
Pastor of a church, President of Graduate school, doctorate of jurisprudence, magna cum laude in bachelors degree, 15 books....nothing to sneeze at. What are your credentials? king of AFF?
Pastor of a church, President of Graduate school, doctorate of jurisprudence, magna cum laude in bachelors degree, 15 books....nothing to sneeze at. What are your credentials? king of AFF?
And he's still wrong.
:crazywalls
My Own Eyes
05-16-2008, 01:12 PM
Very interesting topic DA. I have enjoyed reading through this thread.
I don't have a lot to add to the discussion however, because seeing as I don't believe the Bible to be infallible or the absolute word of God, I am guessing that most here can imagine my take on it anyway.
I don't imagine that Paul thought of it as holy writ. And regardless of what someone interjected, just because Peter claimed it as such does not strike me as a valid argument.
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 01:13 PM
And he's still wrong.
:crazywalls
how do you interpret " BISHOP MUST BE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE"
Ferd my friend!
No, Paul's writings should not be stricken from the "canon". But I do believe that some things were written by permission that were not necessarily for all readers of the letter.
In God's "Grand Plan" there is a destiny that will be fulfilled and God's true word will be known. God's not worried and neither should we.
Raven
then for once it looks like Dan Ferd and Raven all agree... at least in general.... i suspect we might not agree on some of the particulars!
None the less, Dans opening post was pretty good stuff...
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 01:19 PM
then for once it looks like Dan Ferd and Raven all agree... at least in general.... i suspect we might not agree on some of the particulars!
None the less, Dans opening post was pretty good stuff...
that is quite a trinity you guys have going, lol
Encryptus
05-16-2008, 01:22 PM
Pastor of a church, President of Graduate school, doctorate of jurisprudence, magna cum laude in bachelors degree, 15 books....nothing to sneeze at. What are your credentials? king of AFF?
DM if that is the criteria for being correct in all things theological please consider
Joseph Ratzinger
Professor at several world renowned universities. Numerous degrees. Some of his books and articles translated in 17 languages. He is personally fluent in six languages, conversant in a couple more and is a scholar in ancient Greek and Hebrew.
You probably know him better as Pope Benedict XVI.
that is quite a trinity you guys have going, lol
well, they just got lucky. i am the only one that is right all the time!
DividedThigh
05-16-2008, 01:29 PM
well, they just got lucky. i am the only one that is right all the time!
well at least i am a loyal freind and can vouch for you, lol,dt
DM if that is the criteria for being correct in all things theological please consider
Joseph Ratzinger
Professor at several world renowned universities. Numerous degrees. Some of his books and articles translated in 17 languages. He is personally fluent in six languages, conversant in a couple more and is a scholar in ancient Greek and Hebrew.
You probably know him better as Pope Benedict XVI.
The Pope and the Food Pope are wrong, most of the time, too.
Dedicated Mind
05-16-2008, 01:41 PM
how do you interpret " BISHOP MUST BE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE"
bump
The Pope and the Food Pope are wrong, most of the time, too.
Daniel, I might not always be right on all points of theology (I can barely spell it) but there are two things you can be assured of.
I am rarely wrong on food, and i generally dont make the kind of insulting comments you do without provacation.
Mrs. LPW
05-16-2008, 01:44 PM
Where can I buy one?
It's kind of a "build a Bible" thing. Most North American Churches have one.
bump
Like it reads ... literally, DM.
One wife.
You mean ... trinitarians have the Truth?
We rely on trinitarians for our Bible translations, much of our teaching material, lots of our sermons, and much of our music.
Was Paul speaking against jewelry per se, or was it against ostentatious displays of wealth at church?
What does the UPC Manual say?
and,
is the UPC manual on a par with the writings of Paul?
and
could the UPC manual be considered Scripture?
What does the UPC Manual say?
and,
is the UPC manual on a par with the writings of Paul?
and
could the UPC manual be considered Scripture?
Apparently the manual ... most importantly the article on Holiness and Fundmental Doctrine must be affirmed every two years and the bible doesn't.
Encryptus
05-16-2008, 01:59 PM
What does the UPC Manual say?
and,
is the UPC manual on a par with the writings of Paul?
and
could the UPC manual be considered Scripture?
Excellent questions, perhaps make a good poll.
Doubt would get that many affirmatives on this forum, but might on a couple others that come to mind.
I Tim 3:2, " Bishop must be husband of one wife"
I Tim 3:12 " Deacons be husbands of one wife"
Tit 1:5,6 " elders...the husband of one wife"
D Bernard interprets this as one wife in life not in the polygamist sense.
And others interpret it as one wife at a time.
A woman who is dead or divorced is no longer a wife.
Jack Shephard
05-16-2008, 02:01 PM
But what should we factor in formulating and teaching doctrine when it comes to the nature of these letters ...?
By Paul's admission some of it is personal opinion.
I think that personal opinion has a place in the church, yet not in doctrine. I feel that God is the ulitmate authority not Paul. There are things that he, Paul, taught that are good and profitable. There things that he taught there were not doctrinal, yet somehow they morphed into doctrine. I do not think that following what he taught is wrong nor do I think it would be wrong to not follow it. I think we should follow the moral teaching cause it is helpful to living a christian walk, but somethings are not essential to living for God.
And others interpret it as one wife at a time.
A woman who is dead or divorced is no longer a wife.
Why does that make sense?
ShofarMan
05-16-2008, 02:03 PM
Apparently the manual ... most importantly the article on Holiness and Fundmental Doctrine must be affirmed every two years and the bible doesn't.
The manual does not need affirmation Alicea, the affirmation is loyalty to it.
I Tim 3:2, " Bishop must be husband of one wife"
I Tim 3:12 " Deacons be husbands of one wife"
Tit 1:5,6 " elders...the husband of one wife"
...
Paul said that a deacon is to be the husband of one wife, yet he called Sister Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1. Could it be that Paul meant one marriage partner instead of specifically one wife?
I think that personal opinion has a place in the church, yet not in doctrine. I feel that God is the ulitmate authority not Paul. There are things that he, Paul, taught that are good and profitable. There things that he taught there were not doctrinal, yet somehow they morphed into doctrine. I do not think that following what he taught is wrong nor do I think it would be wrong to not follow it. I think we should follow the moral teaching cause it is helpful to living a christian walk, but somethings are not essential to living for God.
I think the hair doctrine is exactly this ....JT ....even if one were to accept a strict constructionist/erroneous view on 1 Corinithians 11 ... there is no witness for this to be doctrine.
Paul said that a deacon is to be the husband of one wife, yet he called Sister Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1. Could it be that Paul meant one marriage partner instead of specifically one wife?
Did Pheobe have a wife?
:gaga
Mrs. LPW
05-16-2008, 02:07 PM
Apparently the manual ... most importantly the article on Holiness and Fundmental Doctrine must be affirmed every two years and the bible doesn't.
Just for once I wish you'd find some other org to slam. Surely the Catholic Church has enough for you to find fault with? How about them JW's? Or maybe the Polygamists???
That horrible, awful, bad, appalling, dreadful, ghastly, horrendous UPC...
Apparently there are still people on here who want AFF to be UPC free, because at every opportunity you have, you slam it.
All the cries for unity are begining to sound like tinkling brass...
And I edit.. I responded to you Dan, but it's not you only who does this at almost every occasion that presents itself.
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:14-18
Notice that Peter considered the epistles of Paul to be Scripture.
question no. 1 Did Paul consider or intend for his letters to be holy writ?
answer: I think he saw himself like the prophets in the Old Testament, hearing from God and speaking for God.
question no. 2 What considerations should we make when reconciling the nature of these writings and our obligation to rightly divide the Word?
answer: context, what was written? to whom was it written? why was it written? when was it written? For example, the veiling of women addressed in 1 Corinthians was telling folks in the church that they ought to at least follow conventional moral community standards by wearing a veil and not wearing men's hairstyles. Those two things were considered immoral or loose at the time and were associated with idolatry. A woman appearing bareheaded in public is still considered immoral in some places and Christians in those places should accept that custom. A woman having short hair and not covering her head has no stigma in our culture today and should not be an issue.
question no. 3 Do all of his words hold equal weight w/ pronouncements from God through the prophets, patriarchs and even those quoted by Jesus in the Gospels and Revelation?
answer: depends on the circumstances. words of personal greeting would not be on the same level as "let him that stole, steal no more" or "respect your body because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit." Final words in 2 Timothy requesting Timothy to stop by Troas and pick up a cloak and then to bring it along with books and parchments to him in Rome before winter is personal to Timothy at that time and in those circumstances. It does not mean that today in 2008 AD I have to go to Troas, find someone named Carpus, get a cloak there, find Paul's books and parchments and make a trip to Italy looking for an apostle in prison. A reference to a woman following the current custom of washing the saints' feet (1 Timothy 5:9) would have the application of service and hospitality today and not necessarily the literal washing of feet.
question 4. What must we factor when teaching and formulating doctrine based on the Epsitles? Target audience? Purpose of writing? Specific issues germaine to the time and culture?
answer: see my comments in above answer
question 5: Is Paul rolling over in his grave at the sight of how the modern-day Church has handle, or maybe mis-handled, his letters?
answer: well, probably not literally spinning in his grave. I doubt if there is enough remains to do that. But, he probably is a little amused and some times appalled as he views us from heaven and sees how we use his writings. Probably one thing that amuses him is the way some ministers insist on literally greeting the brothers with a kiss (full on the lips at times) as being a mandate from God.
A couple times come to mind where Paul considered his words/writings to be words from God.
In our book of 1 Corinthians which may be made up of a couple of his letters, he answers questions or objections which he had received from the folks in Corinth.
One example is 1 Cor 6:13 where Paul quotes "food for the stomach and the stomach for foods." This may have been a common proverb or saying of the time which had been quoted to him by someone in Corinth to excuse poor behavior. Paul quotes it back and then added, "BUT, God will destroy both it and them" and goes on to teach respect for the human body as the temple of God.
Another place is 1 Cor. 14:34-40 which appears below as found in the NKJV:
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
It is my opinion that the first part of this passage was a quote used by some in the assembly at Corinth from the oral law or tradition to prove that a woman could not speak in the assembly. Traditionally, women were not allowed speaking ministries in the synagogues and there are some quotes found used by the Jewish rabbis and elders at that time backing that up. In my opinion some of the men in the church were quoting that oral law or tradition in the church and maybe even to Paul in a letter to him. Perhaps some were condemning Paul because he had women working with him in the Gospel (ref Phil 4:3) or maybe these were just male chauvinists of the Jewish tradition who were bothered by the fact that both women and men could prophesy and speak with tongues since God had poured out His Spirit in this age (ref Acts 2:16-18). Paul quotes their prohibition against women speaking in the assembly (verses 34-35) then responds. In the KJV his response starts with "What?" but I don't see that word in either of my Greek interlinears. In the NKJV it just says, "did the Word of God come from you or did it come to you?" In other words, who is writing Scripture here? you Corinthians? or me, an Apostle? Then he goes on to say, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (verses 36-37). Then he goes on to say, "well, if you don't want to agree with what I'm saying here, just remain ignorant" (loose paraphrase of verse 38). He goes on to tell them not to forbid (people, including even women) to speak with tongues (verse 39) and to keep a semblance of order (verse 40) according to the guidelines he had given them earlier (in that chapter).
Mrs. LPW
05-16-2008, 02:12 PM
Probably one thing that amuses him is the way some ministers insist on literally greeting the brothers with a kiss (full on the lips at times) as being a mandate from God.
So grateful I've never met one.
Jack Shephard
05-16-2008, 02:12 PM
I think the hair doctrine is exactly this ....JT ....even if one were to accept a strict constructionist/erroneous view on 1 Corinithians 11 ... there is no witness for this to be doctrine.
Agreed. I think that women like my wife, mother and mother-in-law that follow or followed the belief on hair benefitted from it because of their faith and obedience to that faith. I do not for a minute think a women cutting hair is a sin, not at all. Gender-bending is not right. I think where the Bible states 'obedience is better than sacrifice CAN here. If some thinks that it is wrong for them and they follow that conviction then obeying the conviction in faith is profitable. Faith is the key in the hair thing. I know people that have hair to the floor but the faith behind it is not there. They follow out of religous law not out of conviction. I also know some with short hair almost similar to a mans style that could touch the heaven better than some with longer hair. Principle does not equal law.
It is my opinion that in 1 Cor. 7 where Paul is speaking about marrying or remaining single that when he says, "I have no commandment" he is saying that he has no direct saying of Jesus nor words from NT scripture nor a direct word revealed to him about that so he can say, "thus saith the Lord." Instead, he gives what he believes lines up with the nature of God and is not contrary to Scripture as he understands it, so he says confidently, "I think I also have the Spirit of the Lord" (verse 40).
I had never read that "epistle to the Laodiceans" before. I wonder who actually wrote it and when. It speaks about temples, priests, vestments, and rituals associated with Christianity, but I wonder if things like this would have developed before the death of Paul (perhaps AD 68).
I kinda skimmed through it but I don't remember seeing anything in it about the Jerusalem temple having been already destroyed.
If that epistle actually existed early in church history, there may have been good reason it was not included in the canon. Some of us like to say that the Roman Catholic church chose certain writings which they agreed with and suppressed others they did not agree with and that is how our canon developed. Actually, it was more by consensus. Local churches tried to build up a library of writings. Some were considered "Scripture" and others were just considered "good reading." Our NT canon is pretty much the consensus of most of the local churches. Yes, some thought "The Wisdom of Solomon" (a book now included in OT apocrypha) should have been included and some thought "The Shepherd of Hermas" should have been included but these opinions were not held widely. Some questioned the canonicity of some of the epistles but again, these were minority opinions.
Some believe the epistle we call "Ephesians" may have been the epistle to Laodicea that Paul mentions. Some early copies of Ephesians have a blank where the word "Ephesus" occurs in verse one where our Bibles say, "to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus."
So grateful I've never met one.
I remember one meeting with ministers of a small organization that is no longer around. I think it merged with another group. One elderly man, a Bishop, who happened to be African American, had a mustache, and very brown teeth administered his holy kisses to the mouth. That was over 40 years ago. I was a young minister. He was one of my Bishops. I kissed him in the mouth in order to comply with the Scriptures.
Cindy
05-16-2008, 02:48 PM
I think that personal opinion has a place in the church, yet not in doctrine. I feel that God is the ulitmate authority not Paul. There are things that he, Paul, taught that are good and profitable. There things that he taught there were not doctrinal, yet somehow they morphed into doctrine. I do not think that following what he taught is wrong nor do I think it would be wrong to not follow it. I think we should follow the moral teaching cause it is helpful to living a christian walk, but somethings are not essential to living for God.
Huh?
Cindy
05-16-2008, 02:52 PM
I remember one meeting with ministers of a small organization that is no longer around. I think it merged with another group. One elderly man, a Bishop, who happened to be African American, had a mustache, and very brown teeth administered his holy kisses to the mouth. That was over 40 years ago. I was a young minister. He was one of my Bishops. I kissed him in the mouth in order to comply with the Scriptures.
:vomit
Timmy
05-16-2008, 03:00 PM
Did Pheobe have a wife?
:gaga
Only one (at a time), I'm sure. :winkgrin
Jack Shephard
05-16-2008, 03:19 PM
Huh?
Please re-read my post to understand...pretty easy I think
bkstokes
05-16-2008, 08:23 PM
I remember one meeting with ministers of a small organization that is no longer around. I think it merged with another group. One elderly man, a Bishop, who happened to be African American, had a mustache, and very brown teeth administered his holy kisses to the mouth. That was over 40 years ago. I was a young minister. He was one of my Bishops. I kissed him in the mouth in order to comply with the Scriptures.
Jim
That is what I call dedication. I think I would have just been called carnal or rebelious on that point.
Jim
That is what I call dedication. I think I would have just been called carnal or rebelious on that point.
Well, I didn't think it was necessary to comply with the Scriptures but I didn't want to offend him or to have him think I didn't really believe the Bible.
James Griffin
05-17-2008, 04:14 AM
I had never read that "epistle to the Laodiceans" before. I wonder who actually wrote it and when. It speaks about temples, priests, vestments, and rituals associated with Christianity, but I wonder if things like this would have developed before the death of Paul (perhaps AD 68).
I kinda skimmed through it but I don't remember seeing anything in it about the Jerusalem temple having been already destroyed.
What you read on another forum was "Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans" written by the Austrian mystic Jakob Lorder in the 1800's which he claimed to have learned from an "inner voice".(Apparently that was his modus operandi with all his writings) In other words he believed God had given him a revelation of what Paul had written.
There is no known copy of the actual Espistle to the Laodiceans.
Rhoni
05-17-2008, 06:46 AM
Jim,
Maybe you can answer a question for me: there are so many books written at the same time as the dead sea scrolls and some are included and some left out of the Bible. Who made the determination that the Bible is complete as it is? Who's decision was it to bring these books together in this particular order?
Just curious,
Rhoni
Well, I didn't think it was necessary to comply with the Scriptures but I didn't want to offend him or to have him think I didn't really believe the Bible.
If the man tried to pull that stunt I would have laid hands on him ... not holy ones either ....
I'm thinking a few jabs and a haymaker to the jaw.
Apocrypha
05-17-2008, 10:47 AM
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
Good article on the development of the OT and NT accepted cannon. Though it does break my heart that we don't accept the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and a few other church fathers who were litereally the disciples of the Disciples and who sat under their ministry and were taught by them first hand.
Canonicity of the New Testament
Factors Leading to the Recognition of the New Testament Canon
What were the factors that led to the recognition of a New Testament canon as we have it today? For almost twenty years after the ascension of Christ none of the books of the New Testament were even written and about sixty-five years elapsed before the last New Testament book was written. James was undoubtedly the first, being written between 45-50 A.D., and Revelation was most surely the last, being written about 90 A.D. But several things began to happen that promoted the formation of the New Testament canon. Enns summarizes these:
(1) Spurious writings as well as attacks on genuine writings were a factor. Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament and New Testament writings apart from the Pauline letters (he altered Luke’s gospel to suit his doctrine). (2) The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity and they naturally were collected, being recognized as canonical. (3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship, hence, it was necessary to determine which of those writings were canonical. (4) Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 303, demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.69
The Process of Recognition of the New Testament Canon
(1) In the Apostolic Era. Since the books were inspired when they were written, they were already canonical and possessed authority as being a part of God’s Word. The responsibility of the church was simply to attest to the fact of their inspiration. This process began immediately with the writers recognizing that their own writings were the Word of God (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 4:15). But they also recognized that other writings of the New Testament were Scripture and on a par with the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and referred to both passages as Scripture. Peter likewise attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Furthermore, the New Testament epistles were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative revelation from God (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27).
(2) In the Post-Apostolic Era.
Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115) also acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. A.D. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. A.D. 185), acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235) recognized twenty-two books. The problematic books at this time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.
Even more important was the witness of the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170), which was a compilation of books recognized as canonical at that early date by the church. The Muratorian Canon included all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and one epistle of John.
In the fourth century there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament canon. When Athanasius wrote in A.D. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In A.D. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) recognized the twenty-seven books, and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches.70
Ryrie has an important note in connection with Martin Luther’s opinion of the epistle of James.
Sometimes it is claimed that Martin Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical. This is not so. Here’s what he wrote in his preface to the New Testament in which he ascribes to the several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value. “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle—these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.71
The Tests For Canonicity
The question naturally arises, what process and by what means did the early church recognize which books were canonical and which books were not? The following summarizes the tests used to discern which books were canonical.
(1) Authentication on the Divine side—Inspiration. Did the book give internal evidence of inspiration, of being God breathed? Was it of proper spiritual character? Did it edify the church? Was it doctrinally accurate? “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected as a result of not meeting this test. The book should bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit.”72
(2) Authentication on the human side. Three issues were important here: (a) Was the author an apostle or did he have the endorsement of an apostle? Mark wrote the gospel of Mark, but he did so under Peter’s endorsement. Luke, as a close associate of the Apostle Paul, wrote under the endorsement of his authority. (b) Universal acceptance was another key factor. On the whole, was the book accepted by the church at large? The recognition given a particular book by the church was important. By this standard, a number of books were rejected. There were some books that enjoyed an acceptance by a few, but were later dropped for a lack of universal acceptance. Then there were a few books that some questioned because of doubts about the author, not the content, but were later accepted because the majority accepted them.73
The Reliability of the New Testament
Just how reliable are the New Testament documents?
There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.74
This contrast is startling and tremendously significant.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C-A.D 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.… The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 480-425 B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use are over 1,300 years later than the originals.75
The fact of the many documents plus the fact that many of the New Testament documents are very early (hundreds of parchment copies from the 4th and 5th centuries with some seventy-five papyri fragments dating from A.D. 135 to the 8th century) assures us we have a very accurate and reliable text in the New Testament.
Apocrypha
05-17-2008, 10:49 AM
i go to this website put out by Calvin college to read stuff from the Early first century fathers like Polycarp
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.html
considering Polycarp was the disciple of John and his direct appointee as bishop for nearly half a century before they turned him into a human candle it would imply that his words have weight also.
James Griffin
05-17-2008, 10:55 AM
Jim,
Maybe you can answer a question for me: there are so many books written at the same time as the dead sea scrolls and some are included and some left out of the Bible. Who made the determination that the Bible is complete as it is? Who's decision was it to bring these books together in this particular order?
Just curious,
Rhoni
Hey Rhoni,
Erik posted a great article above.
Even the Jews got into heated arguments over OT canon.
Bottom line answer to your question though:
It was done over time, by committees, and through much heated debate.
Much like the councils (Nicaean et al) which decided what would be the "official" doctrine.
Did this help or were you looking for something more in depth??
JAG
i go to this website put out by Calvin college to read stuff from the Early first century fathers like Polycarp
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.html
considering Polycarp was the disciple of John and his direct appointee as bishop for nearly half a century before they turned him into a human candle it would imply that his words have weight also.
Read his epistle ... interesting to examine what the generation after the 1st century church thought was important or significant to address ...
Nothing about the Acts 2:38 template for salvation in it ... nothing on dress codes ...
more of that love Jesus, love your neighbor ... obey His commands stuff.
Also Polycarp ... feels this to be important doctrine that he states the following emphatically:
“For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;”377 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggle%28%27fnf_iv.ii.vii-p1.4%27%29;)377 and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross,378 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggle%28%27fnf_iv.ii.vii-p2.2%27%29;)378 is of the devil;
and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.379 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggle%28%27fnf_iv.ii.vii-p3.1%27%29;)379 Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from380 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggle%28%27fnf_iv.ii.vii-p4.6%27%29;) the beginning; “watching unto prayer,”381 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggle%28%27fnf_iv.ii.vii-p5.2%27%29;) and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God “not to lead us into temptation,” as the Lord has said: “The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak.”383 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggle%28%27fnf_iv.ii.vii-p7.3%27%29;)
Polycarp does quote many of the epistles of the first century ... especially Paul's
Apocrypha
05-17-2008, 11:28 AM
the one who's writings I look to more than Polycarp are Ignatius. Peter appointed a man named Evodotius to the bishopric of Rome.. then Evodotius died of illness and Peter next appointed Ignatius. Both were hands on trainees of the disciples (the same guys who wrote the cannon). Some of Ignatius's writings are spurious but we know which ones since its easy to identify. Its interesting to see the shape of the early church government and how it was organized (which is not mentioned as much in the actual cannon of accepted scripture).
Jim,
Maybe you can answer a question for me: there are so many books written at the same time as the dead sea scrolls and some are included and some left out of the Bible. Who made the determination that the Bible is complete as it is? Who's decision was it to bring these books together in this particular order?
Just curious,
Rhoni
From what I understand, what should and what should not be considered "Scripture" took some time. Churches tried to establish a collection of books. Some books in the collection were held in higher esteem than others (similar to the Jewish concept of OT books which included some apocrypha).
One requirement was that the book had to be written by an Apostle or by someone directly influenced by an Apostle. Matthew and John were Apostles. Luke traveled with Paul and carefully researched what he wrote so his writings (Luke and Acts) were acceptable. Mark traveled with Peter and may have been his scribe or secretary so the Gospel of Mark was acceptable. James was the brother (in the flesh) of the Lord and was an Apostle (1 Cor 15:7, Gal 1:19) and Bishop (or chief bishop or presiding bishop) of the Jerusalem church so the epistle by him was considered Scripture.
Of course there were lots of books/epistles/gospels written and the name of an apostle would be tagged to them so they would appear authentic. Some of these were written years later. In sorting out which were good and which were bad and which could be considered "Scripture" there were some differences of opinion among the various churches and leaders. For example, some thought the book known as "The Wisdom of Solomon" some times just referred to as "Wisdom" should be included as a NT book. It appears as an apocryphal book in the OT. There was another book called "The Shepherd of Hermas" which some thought should be included. Actually, there was pretty much of a consensus among the leaders and churches as to which books should be considered Scripture and in time that is how we got our NT.
There is a site at:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html
which goes into detail. I have not read much at that site.
One thing that seems interesting to me is that the Roman Catholic and Protestant NT both contain the same books. When it comes to the OT there are some books called apocrypha which are accepted by Roman Catholics and some others but not by most Protestants. The original King James Version included apocryphal books but many modern versions of the KJV do not. So much for those who are so strongly for the 1611 KJV.
There is a short book called "The Didache" or "teaching" which has differences of opinion on its date of origin. Some place it back in the days of the Apostles and others say it could date from a couple centuries later. This book mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost formula for baptism and baptism by three immersions in running water. There is a version of the Bible called the AESV (Aramaic English Standard Version) which includes the "Didache" also called the "Limuda" and includes it in Acts 15:25-29.
Mrs. LPW
05-17-2008, 02:00 PM
I remember one meeting with ministers of a small organization that is no longer around. I think it merged with another group. One elderly man, a Bishop, who happened to be African American, had a mustache, and very brown teeth administered his holy kisses to the mouth. That was over 40 years ago. I was a young minister. He was one of my Bishops. I kissed him in the mouth in order to comply with the Scriptures.
That must have been awkward.. I don't know what I would have done... most likely sneezed really loudly and claimed not to want to give him my germs.
Cindy
05-17-2008, 02:02 PM
I have come to the conclusion that Paul did intend for his writings to be Holy Writ!
Rhoni
05-17-2008, 02:05 PM
Hey Rhoni,
Erik posted a great article above.
Even the Jews got into heated arguments over OT canon.
Bottom line answer to your question though:
It was done over time, by committees, and through much heated debate.
Much like the councils (Nicaean et al) which decided what would be the "official" doctrine.
Did this help or were you looking for something more in depth??
JAG
Thank-you, Your answer along with Erik's post made things a bit clearer for me.
Blessings, Rhoni
Michael The Disciple
05-17-2008, 05:53 PM
Paul said he was an Apostle. The other Apostles believed he was one. That settles it for me. He was anointed to teach the Gentiles which he did.
Paul said he was an Apostle. The other Apostles believed he was one. That settles it for me. He was anointed to teach the Gentiles which he did.
Settles what for you, Mike? Can you elaborate?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.