James,
Thanks for recognising the typo. I meant NT writers.
The four gospels were probably penned next but they are more parallel historical witness records of the Life of Christ rather than doctrinal essays.
Careful because the epistles are directed to the churches based on the life of Christ and include plenty of what Christ did and taught.
Acts onwards is the church post Pentecost, released in the Holy Spirit to put into practice Christ’s teaching. The idea that there are two different gospels suggests some are caught in the same occasional confusion the disciples had, that we see in the gospels, whilst they were learning from Jesus.
All I’m saying is that they could have been varying doctrinal opinions regarding God’s Law in some early Christian churches.
We can see from the NT epistles that there most definitely were.
The Churches in Jerusalem would more naturally regularly address points of God’s Law rather than Paul’s Gentile congregations who were largely unfamiliar with the Bible.
OT law you mean? If so yes.
IMO the idiomatic phrase merely means "not having the full picture" or only "knowing in part. We all have an understanding of the Truth that needs some refinement.
On the contrary, that would mean we don’t have the truth if it needs refinement. What we are missing is the full understanding of the truth, which Jesus explains, there are things we cannot yet understand.
does every single sentence he wrote (that was not specifically mentioned as ‘his opinion’) to each specific Gentile church audience constitute as ‘the immutable Word of God’?
Yes, why not? So are you saying you do not believe every single thing written in the rest of the NT, or is it just the epistles by Paul?
As you correctly observe he was primarily an apostle to the Gentiles yet was an expert in Jewish matters, not least having studied under Rabban Gamaliel.
But there is a circular confusion in your argument.
While we now have instantly at our fingertips digital copies of dozens of complete biblical translations, the wealth of two thousand years of Christian scholarship and commentaries, Strong’s Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, W.E. Vine’s Expository of the Bible, etc., Is there a possibility that the Holy Spirit might now show us a more refined understanding?
That two thousand years of scholarship is also based on Paul’s epistles as well as the rest of the NT. What you are asking makes no sense unless you are saying another spirit is leading you astray. The NT defines the Holy Spirit as the inspiration of the NT. If you are implying the NT needs refining then it isnt the Holy Spirit prompting that.
Are we, at least, permitted to relate more to the Apostle James’ definition of faith and the importance of works than Paul’s sometimes ambiguous passages?
No because neither are ambiguous in a holistic context, but James statement on face value is more ambiguous and that is why the book of James was not so readily accepted as authentic at first.
My point was simply that these "inspired" NT writers were also "fallible" human instruments.
But on that logic how would anyone know Paul wasn’t right and the gospels wrong?
No! I was referring to what the Bible texts say. I didn’t write the Bible. Liberal scholars often deny what the Bible says as the revelation from God by trying to attribute it to the mere opinions of others.
You still have yet to answer my question as to why Christians like you who take every solitary word Paul says about the Law of God as irrefutable Word of God, yet choose to totally ignore his writings requiring women wearing veils and being saved through child birth? Please answer!
Your question is nonsense. It is based on you not taking every solitary word and for some reason choosing Paul’s epistles. How can Christians like me take every solitary word if we totally ignore his writings requiring women wearing veils etc? That would mean we don’t take every solitary word. But we take every word in context, both in the passages and holistically.
The dilemma with this issue is there seems to be a conflict with what the Corinthians epistle says as opposed to the Romans epistle, unless in this case the prohibition only applies to the Corinthian church, perhaps because the women were in error there and causing problems.
pass me those baby back pork ribs, will ya?"
Ugh? Have you not yet grasped that Christ has fulfilled the law and the prophets?
Mark 7:19
For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Romans 14:20
Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
