1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Scripture Contains The Word Of Paul, and Others.

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by Shelli, Nov 15, 2007.

  1. Shelli

    Shelli New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    2
    I Corinthians 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."II Corinthians 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."Above are three of many examples from the Bible which, by clear statement of their human writers, are words not uttered by God."Theopheustos, God breathed," #2315 translated "inspiration" in II Timothy 3:16, is the only Scriptural appearance of that original text word. The only other example of any original word being translated "inspiration" is #5397 in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit" which gives "understanding," presumably the Holy Spirit. Neither construction or context of II Timothy 3:16 or Job 32:8 in their use of "inspiration" requires the reader to equate God's uttered Word with "understanding" or humanly penned text content. This is demonstrated in the three above examples from the Letters to the Corinthians.It is best to have Scripture disclose its own first person voice rather than to give sweaty and undiscerning adherence to humanly devised doctrinal tradition.Shelli.
     
  2. tim_from_pa

    tim_from_pa New Member

    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    12
    But Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ, and was given apostolic authority.When he says "I speak not by commandment" ,that was equivalent to saying that the Lord did not state the condition specifically previously, perhaps in the Law or other such scriptures. But if something was not specifically stated for the circumstances, Paul was actually asserting his authority by say "I" to clarify the matter based on what the Scripture already stated in principle (as opposed to stating it specifically).
     
  3. Peacebewithyou

    Peacebewithyou New Member

    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Shelli;22665)
    I Corinthians 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."II Corinthians 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."Above are three of many examples from the Bible which, by clear statement of their human writers, are words not uttered by God."Theopheustos, God breathed," #2315 translated "inspiration" in II Timothy 3:16, is the only Scriptural appearance of that original text word. The only other example of any original word being translated "inspiration" is #5397 in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit" which gives "understanding," presumably the Holy Spirit. Neither construction or context of II Timothy 3:16 or Job 32:8 in their use of "inspiration" requires the reader to equate God's uttered Word with "understanding" or humanly penned text content. This is demonstrated in the three above examples from the Letters to the Corinthians.It is best to have Scripture disclose its own first person voice rather than to give sweaty and undiscerning adherence to humanly devised doctrinal tradition.Shelli.
    Are you refering to Paul's words when you say "sweaty and undiscerning adherence to humanly devised doctrinal tradition?" :eek:
     
  4. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Shelli;22665)
    I Corinthians 7:12a (KJV), "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."Vs. 25a, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement."II Corinthians 8:8a, "I speak not by commandment, but by the occasion of the forwardness of others."Above are three of many examples from the Bible which, by clear statement of their human writers, are words not uttered by God."Theopheustos, God breathed," #2315 translated "inspiration" in II Timothy 3:16, is the only Scriptural appearance of that original text word. The only other example of any original word being translated "inspiration" is #5397 in Job 32:8, referring to "a spirit" which gives "understanding," presumably the Holy Spirit. Neither construction or context of II Timothy 3:16 or Job 32:8 in their use of "inspiration" requires the reader to equate God's uttered Word with "understanding" or humanly penned text content. This is demonstrated in the three above examples from the Letters to the Corinthians.It is best to have Scripture disclose its own first person voice rather than to give sweaty and undiscerning adherence to humanly devised doctrinal tradition.Shelli.
    Misunderstanding.Many of us have come to reinterpret "the Word of God" to mean the Bible Canon, rather than "The Gospel Message". In fact, the two, (ie Word of God and Gospel Message) are synonymous beyond doubt. The obvious intent of the apostles was not to leave a testimony of the message behind in writing, or else they surely would have composed numerous works handed off to the Churches as authoritative, along with perhaps a well needed peer review session. However, their goal was to preach Christ to the fullest, giving testimony to the Truth in every way they could, up to and arguably including, their deaths. The word of the pen carried no more authority than the word of mouth. Both could rightly be considered a relaying of the "Word of God". To realize this, it is useful to recognize the context in which the Gospel is transmitted. First, Jesus himself writes nothing down. He simply taught the Apostles firsthand. This is a practice of Oral Transmission of teachings from Rabbi to student, and though Jesus was recognized as much more than a Rabbi, nonetheless the apostles referred to him appropriately as "Rabbi". The Oral Transmission was the recognized and practiced mode of preaching, and often textual testimony was not of the utmost importance. Eventually something would be written down, but notice that Old Testament books were often written after things happened, in order to preserve record of it, if it was deemed important enough. It is exactly this which we see in the writings of the Canonical works of the New Testament.This might help explain why Matthew's original Hebrew Gospel was lost, along with his latter Greek Gospel, incorporating large portions of Mark's, Verbatim, being constantly edited, so as to later accidentally have put the word "Church" into the mouth of Jesus, along with having revised "the Lord's Prayer" making it longer.One way or another though, there is no question that Canonicity was not considered an immediate issue from the Time of the Apostles. This itself, of course, supports what I have already stated; that the testimony of the pen held no greater a regard in the eyes of the faithful, than did the oral teaching. If it had, then surely the church, from the earliest of ages, might have compiled, and decided on a recognized normative compilation of authoritative works. If you study history, it is overwhelmingly abundant that this was not the case. In fact, the Canon, more than anything, was established not with the goal of preserving the innerrent specially inspired parchments documenting the summation of the Gospel message. Rather, the goal was to protect the essence of the teaching from manipulation, giving us a "norm" or "measure" by which we should examine our doctrines (the very meaning of "Canon").This confusion, however, has been popularized especially in Evangelical Christianity, as it is called. In fact, some of the more "Extremist" sects {extremist meaning here only that they are theologically extremist on this issue}, have taught that the very words used in Scripture are intended as such, and we may learn from their placements in the sentence, and even exegise a meaning based on faulty spelling, which often occurs. These groups often claim that God wrote the Bible himself, quite literally, simply by moving man to be his penman, such that the words recorded are not the words of the prophets, so much as the exact words which God dictated the prophets, or irrevocably led the prophets, to write.This is obviously poor theology, and does not in any way comply with the facts. What I suggest to you, is that you try to understand the message first and foremost, being as mindful of the words used on paper, as the context in which they are presented. Once you can fully understand what the author meant, then you can go on from there to be more equipped to understand the whole Gospel message properly, putting all things in proper perspective.The passage you brought up; I suggest to you that you try to understand it, in light of what I have presented, and see if you don't come out seeing clearly what the Scriptures are witnessing to here.In short, I agree with both of the posts above mine, but found them lacking. Please do understand that what Paul taught was accepted as a measure by which we should establish ourselves as respectively normative or heretical.
     
  5. Shelli

    Shelli New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    2
    (tim_from_pa;23137)
    But Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ, and was given apostolic authority.When he says "I speak not by commandment" ,that was equivalent to saying that the Lord did not state the condition specifically previously, perhaps in the Law or other such scriptures. But if something was not specifically stated for the circumstances, Paul was actually asserting his authority by say "I" to clarify the matter based on what the Scripture already stated in principle (as opposed to stating it specifically).
    Tim,I guess you agree that Paul was not speaking previously written Word from God.However, there is no Scripture which says all of Paul's personal statements, even as they are reflective of Scripture he understood, are as authoritative as God's uttered Word in the rest of Scripture. Paul never stated his authority was the same as that of extant Scripture in his time, namely the Torah, unless he specifically said he was speaking the Word or commands of God. In the case of II Cor 7:12, He specifically said he was speaking his own words, not God's.For you or anyone to state, "When he [Paul] says, 'I speak not by commandment', that was equivalent to saying that the Lord did not state the condition specifically previously [sic]," is to make an unbased assumption from your imagination. The text does not require that assumption by you. Why make it other than as an attempt to support some personal issue you favor?Shelli.
     
  6. Unorthodox Christian

    Unorthodox Christian New Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    1
    Though it was From Paul, According to 2nd Timothy 3:16, God inspired him to Write it.
     
  7. Shelli

    Shelli New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    2
    (Biblical Tetragramaton;23159)
    Misunderstanding.Many of us have come to reinterpret "the Word of God" to mean the Bible Canon, rather than "The Gospel Message". In fact, the two, (ie Word of God and Gospel Message) are synonymous beyond doubt. The obvious intent of the apostles was not to leave a testimony of the message behind in writing, or else they surely would have composed numerous works handed off to the Churches as authoritative, along with perhaps a well needed peer review session. However, their goal was to preach Christ to the fullest, giving testimony to the Truth in every way they could, up to and arguably including, their deaths. The word of the pen carried no more authority than the word of mouth. Both could rightly be considered a relaying of the "Word of God". To realize this, it is useful to recognize the context in which the Gospel is transmitted. First, Jesus himself writes nothing down. He simply taught the Apostles firsthand. This is a practice of Oral Transmission of teachings from Rabbi to student, and though Jesus was recognized as much more than a Rabbi, nonetheless the apostles referred to him appropriately as "Rabbi". The Oral Transmission was the recognized and practiced mode of preaching, and often textual testimony was not of the utmost importance. Eventually something would be written down, but notice that Old Testament books were often written after things happened, in order to preserve record of it, if it was deemed important enough. It is exactly this which we see in the writings of the Canonical works of the New Testament.This might help explain why Matthew's original Hebrew Gospel was lost, along with his latter Greek Gospel, incorporating large portions of Mark's, Verbatim, being constantly edited, so as to later accidentally have put the word "Church" into the mouth of Jesus, along with having revised "the Lord's Prayer" making it longer.One way or another though, there is no question that Canonicity was not considered an immediate issue from the Time of the Apostles. This itself, of course, supports what I have already stated; that the testimony of the pen held no greater a regard in the eyes of the faithful, than did the oral teaching. If it had, then surely the church, from the earliest of ages, might have compiled, and decided on a recognized normative compilation of authoritative works. If you study history, it is overwhelmingly abundant that this was not the case. In fact, the Canon, more than anything, was established not with the goal of preserving the innerrent specially inspired parchments documenting the summation of the Gospel message. Rather, the goal was to protect the essence of the teaching from manipulation, giving us a "norm" or "measure" by which we should examine our doctrines (the very meaning of "Canon").This confusion, however, has been popularized especially in Evangelical Christianity, as it is called. In fact, some of the more "Extremist" sects {extremist meaning here only that they are theologically extremist on this issue}, have taught that the very words used in Scripture are intended as such, and we may learn from their placements in the sentence, and even exegise a meaning based on faulty spelling, which often occurs. These groups often claim that God wrote the Bible himself, quite literally, simply by moving man to be his penman, such that the words recorded are not the words of the prophets, so much as the exact words which God dictated the prophets, or irrevocably led the prophets, to write.This is obviously poor theology, and does not in any way comply with the facts. What I suggest to you, is that you try to understand the message first and foremost, being as mindful of the words used on paper, as the context in which they are presented. Once you can fully understand what the author meant, then you can go on from there to be more equipped to understand the whole Gospel message properly, putting all things in proper perspective.The passage you brought up; I suggest to you that you try to understand it, in light of what I have presented, and see if you don't come out seeing clearly what the Scriptures are witnessing to here.In short, I agree with both of the posts above mine, but found them lacking. Please do understand that what Paul taught was accepted as a measure by which we should establish ourselves as respectively normative or heretical.
    To make a long explanation supposedly showing the operative distinctions during Apostle Paul's time between written Gospel and spoken Gospel is a rabbit trail leading away from what I have posted. It may sound interesting, but nobody is edified by such talk when considering Paul's writings.Before anyone continues in any sort of denial of the accuracy and purposeful appointment of the written Gospel in the Bible, they really should review Luke 1:1-3, specifically where Luke says, " ... having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write ..." This is indeed, rather than as stated in your post, a testimony of the Gospel message in writing. It is best to sound authoritative and intellegent based upon what Scripture says, rather than try to sound authoritative and intellegent based upon liberal human speculation, as with what "the Apostles would have done" under assumed circumstances.The testimony of the pen of Luke, and of other NT authors by their own specification, will help these sort of "analytic thinkers" of Scripture straighten out their conclusions independently of what other "scholars" have contrived. Of course, this will not happen in people operating under their own filtered assumptions apart from the axiomatic statements in God's Word. These poor folks can never decide what is the "essence" of God's Word, but merely wander in the netherland of uncertainty.What I suggest to you is that you do not attempt to speak of what the NT authors "meant" by ignoring what they specifically wrote within its context, and apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Once you can submit to the authority of Scripture as it was written and enlarged upon by the Apostles, then you can go on ahead and and be equipped to properly understand the Gospel in its entirety, instead of making assumptions beforehand. Jesus spoke the specifics of Scripture in order to convey its current application to the Jews, and then fulfilled its entirety through His actions of crucifiction, resurrection, appearance to over 500, and His ascension.I hope this and further discussion will help you in your efforts to apprehend an understanding of God's Word for us today, amidst this Information Age's unending speculation and innumerable theologic rabbit trails.Shelli.
     
  8. Shelli

    Shelli New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    2
    (Unorthodox Christian;23490)
    Though it was From Paul, According to 2nd Timothy 3:16, God inspired him to Write it.
    If a preacher in church is "inspired" by God to speak 30-40 minutes in a sermon, are all of his words then the very Word of God?Shelli.
     
  9. Unorthodox Christian

    Unorthodox Christian New Member

    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    1
    Were the words of Judas Iscariot or Satan written down in the bible, the Same as the Word of God? I know philosophically speaking you can't answer a question with a question, but think about my question and then apply the answer you give me to the question you've asked.
     
  10. Shelli

    Shelli New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    2
    (Unorthodox Christian;23518)
    Were the words of Judas Iscariot or Satan written down in the bible, the Same as the Word of God? I know philosophically speaking you can't answer a question with a question, but think about my question and then apply the answer you give me to the question you've asked.
    Yes, the words of Satan were recorded in Scripture. As an "evangelist," that should be an easy fact for you to both know and deal with.Satan's words are not God's Word, yet they are in Scripture.Shelli.
     
  11. Shelli

    Shelli New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    2
    (Peacebewithyou;23143)
    Are you refering to Paul's words when you say "sweaty and undiscerning adherence to humanly devised doctrinal tradition?" :eek:
    Nope. I am referring to the dogmatic parroting seen in most "authoritative" explanations of this issue. Seminary guys are really quick on the draw to get sweaty about it.Shelli.
     
Loading...