The School of the prophets: God's rules

[lforrest]

iforrest

You give me a warning yet don't respond to the question? You shouldn't be a moderator who engages in the discussion if you don't want to have to answer as everyone else does.

Stranger

I only respond if I deem it constructive to do so, and also avoid making hasty replies. When I think a terse response will work I use it.

I should also remind you that moderator actions should not be discussed. Rules

 

[lforrest]

I just believe it is a bit of a mystery. I know God foresees our future, but I also know our prayers cause Him to move when he would otherwise not. It is not just a predetermined future with God pulling all the strings. He truly does let us choose and our choices make a difference in eternity.

I agree that prayers do have an effect on the future. Its like the future is laid out as a road and God can change its course at will, such as when he answers a prayer or judges or forgives a nation. I say this because the future threat in a dream, vision, or word of knowledge can seem very real. I have been right about this at least twice before by praying or acting preemptively.


Numbers 12:6-7

6 he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.

This seems to point to a different classes of prophets. And it is also apparent that Moses was trusted more.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Wormwood wrote:

Now, my original point was to address the means by which a prophecy comes to a prophet...or how an individual is declared to be a prophet. We simply do not see, anywhere in the Bible, someone assigning to themselves the title of "prophet." God spoke to them, they didn't decide this for themselves because they felt very passionate about the impressions they had. Nor do I think the "school" of prophets was a place where someone went to learn it as a craft. Also, we do not see prophets prophesying out of their own gut feelings or imaginations....at least not true prophets. So, my point is simply this:
If someone claims to be a modern-day prophet, they must: 1) Have received a direct revelation from God via vision or voice (or I suppose God could write on a tablet or wall in a Belshazzar's palace), and 2) Have a message that comes true (unless a condition is met whereby the prediction is nullified).

So, I guess my question for you and any other person who claims to be a prophet today is, "Has God audibly spoken, and continues to speak a specific revelation to you to share with a person or group of people, or have you received a clear vision by which you were shown/told a message to share with a person or group of people?" If not, how is it that you determine yourself to be a prophet since that is what we see with every prophet narrative and description of how a prophet received their message in Scripture? If so, what is the specific message and to whom are you supposed to deliver it?

In my experience, pretty much every person who declares themselves to be a prophet claims their proclamations come to them as impulses in the moment or inclinations they have in a situation. This is simply not what we see with Biblical prophets (at least not those who are not declared to be false). Moreover, pretty much every "prophecy" I have heard is vague and a general regurgitation of Scripture that really has no specific predictive or prescriptive element. It may be a "biblical" thing they are saying, but I certainly wouldn't classify it as "prophetic." Finally, I have also heard many self-proclaimed prophets make predictions that do not come true. Of course they often have some rationale but rarely are such people held accountable or warned about speaking on behalf of the Lord things that have been false.

Anyway, those are my concerns I was trying to address.

Having some problems with the editor, but my response follows:


I've never heard of anyone calling themselves to God. No one seeks Him, much less calls themselves to Him. For that matter, who in the world would choose to be a prophet, given a choice?
Now as far as the message is concerned, God sometimes gives people specific messages about what they themselves must do and this is the most common way that God speaks to people, if they can hear Him. E.G.:, when the Pastor of the church that I had become a member of announced that he was taking a position with a church in Florida, I was a bit confused over why the Lord brought me to that particular church and prayed about what the Lord would have me do. All He said to me was "feed my sheep," which is really just something from scripture that He called to my mind. I didn't have the biblical qualifications to be a pastor and had no desire to hold such a position in the church, but since I'm a student of the word and seem to know more of it than most pastors that I've spoken to, I endeavored to contribute everything that I could to that congregation to open their eyes and minds to what the scripture has to say in group bible studies.
While a word from God should be specific, if we read the prophets, we find that much of prophecy is given in visions, and visions are typically far from being specific and clear. For example, the Apostle Peter saw a vision from God of something like a large sheet being lowered with all sorts of unclean animals in it, and was told to take and eat. If the Lord hadn't clarified the message to him, Peter probably wouldn't have realized that this vision was part of an instruction on how to deal with believing gentiles. If prophecy was all straightforward and clear, then the prophets would have understood the messages that they were commissioned to give, yet scripture tells us that this was not generally the case. If visions were simple and clear to understand then there would be no argument over the meaning of the symbolism in the book of the Revelation, or in the book of Ezekiel, or in the book of Amos, or in the book of Zechariah, etc.
Not everyone who has a vision is able to hear from God or recognizes that God is speaking. Consider Samuel, the last great prophet before the appointment of kings to Israel. When Samuel first heard God, he thought that the high priest was calling and speaking to him. Eli had to teach Samuel to recognize God's voice and how to respond. When the Apostle Paul was first called, he was separated by God for 3 years while the Lord equipped him to preach Christ from the Old Testament. Isaiah was already a priest when he was called and familiar with scripture, but God had to equip Isaiah by purifying his mouth (with a piece of burning coal) prior to sending him out with a message for Israel.
God calls men to His service, He equips them, and then He sends them (or places them) where He wants to use them. No where, here or elsewhere, have I ever said that men can make up their own calling, the very notion is absurd. We have to discover our gifts and then learn how to use them by putting them into practice. Some of these gifts are only manifested by God when we submit to His Spirit in the moment of their use. For example, I once shut the mouth of a blasphemer at work while arguing over "who knew God." This isn't something I have the power to do. I can't walk about finding people insulting God, command them to stop speaking, and expect them to remain silent. It isn't within my power to do so. On the one occasion that I've mentioned, God put the idea in my head to command this person in Jesus' name to stop speaking, and God shut his mouth, not me.
Visions, they can be very difficult to understand, and can show things which might not be understood until after the event has happened (as with the beasts that Daniel saw representing kingdoms in the Earth.) A few months prior to Sept. 11th, 2001, I dreamt of an earthquake taking place in Manhattan large enough to shake the city. There was no major quake since that time (though there still could be) but the attacks of 9/11 most certainly shook up the city, and perhaps this was all the vision meant (if anything). Prior to the attacks I was definitely expecting something awful to happen and had actually scheduled a few days of vacation, hoping to be away when it did. However, I selected September 12th for the 1st day of my vacation, and never got to take it. The week before the attacks occurred I was spending time with my Union local handing out leaflets in the lobby area just outside of the tower entrances to the mall there. On the way back to the PATH train station I had a premonition and mentioned it indirectly to the co-workers I was traveling with, saying that "the Empire State building had been hit by an aircraft and survived the strike; I wonder how the trade center towers would hold up," and it was less than a week when we all found out.
The thing that I find most troubling about my own "gifts" is that I began to experience them before I received the gospel and Christ by faith. I wasn't a born again christian when I enlisted for military service in 1982, but I knew that the next big war that we'd be involved in would be in the middle east and I told people as much when I was asked why I chose Arabic for a language of study rather than Russian (I was recruited to be a cryptologic linguistic specialist, but changed my "choice" for MOS while in basic training.) This might be because my mother had determined to devote me to God's service in the RCC though I'm not sure when she got the idea in her head. It might be because I believed that Jesus was God's Son from as far back as I can remember, and grew with the desire to be like Him back when a child attending catechism classes for my "first holy communion" and then for my "confirmation" in the faith. I don't understand exactly how God chooses people or why, but I do believe that I was called "from the womb" in spite of the fact that I didn't understand the gospel until I was 39 years old (and had done what was right in my own eyes up till then for the most part.)
I don't know if my experience could be called normal, but it definitely is not unique as I have met or corresponded with people that have had similar experience. What is normal when it comes to God's plans?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Play nice to whoever you desire. Don't instruct me to.

Stranger

You'll be instructed by me or by God. I'm a lot easier and a lot less painful.

 

[Stranger]

You'll be instructed by me or by God. I'm a lot easier and a lot less painful.

Really? You and God. Impressive. So its not a Trinity, but a Fourfold. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Michael V Pardo?

Sorry, sounds too strange for me. Save your breath. Turn me into the moderators if you like, there are those who will hear you. But I don't need your instruction.

Stranger

 

[michaelvpardo]

Really? You and God. Impressive. So its not a Trinity, but a Fourfold. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Michael V Pardo?

Sorry, sounds too strange for me. Save your breath. Turn me into the moderators if you like, there are those who will hear you. But I don't need your instruction.

Stranger

It must be wonderful being you. Have you ever read the scripture?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Maybe we can make an attempt to get back to the topic; that would be God's rules for the prophet. Would it surprise you that Jesus' rule for approaching a sinning brother applies to the prophet as well?
15. "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16. "But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.'
17. "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17
What Jesus said here applies specifically to the congregation of God and not to those who are outside the covenant of God's grace, but this was the basic pattern for the Old testament prophets. That is, God sent them to the kings and rulers of His people first, one on one (or in Moses case with a spokesman.) While we don't find stories of prophets working together (beyond those verses which mention the school of the prophets) in the Old Testament, we do find God sending more than one prophet to unrepentant rulers, and the working of signs in public (for the congregation) when those rulers remained intransigent and unrepentant. When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the gospel of the kingdom through Israel, He sent them out two by two, and the last witnesses of the testimony, the two witnesses that we find prophesying in the book of the Revelation again are two (for the satisfaction of God's law quoted in Matthew 18:16.)
The Apostle Paul uses the same principle of law in his pastoral epistle that we call 1st Timothy: 19. Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
20. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. 1 Timothy 5:19-20 (Keep in mind that the epistle is written to Timothy, a Pastor, the individual who is primarily responsible for "shepherding" the flock of God and all that this implies.)
The prophet, whose primary function in God's congregation is to point the leadership back to the word of God when they are leading the people astray, should know that at least two witnesses are required in matters of law (though one might be the scripture itself) and if God is revealing something specific and not specifically addressed in His word, then there should be at least two prophets with the same message to "establish" the matter. Even the bible based cults seem to understand this point in that they typically send their missionaries out by two or more. The situation, however, is different when God sends a prophet to "the heathen." The heathen, by definition, are entirely without God or knowledge of His word, and in the examples of scripture we typically find a single prophet giving his message to a single ruler or proclaiming the message openly in the streets. In such a case the second witness is typically God Himself through the working of a sign, such as the storm that came up and threatened the boat that Jonah took when fleeing God's command and which ended when Jonah was cast overboard and swallowed by the "great fish."
I'll step back here and leave room for comment, disagreement, additional edification, etc. I'd just ask that objections be accompanied by specific verses that apply to the point.

 

[Stranger]

It must be wonderful being you. Have you ever read the scripture?

It is. Once or twice.

Stranger

 

[michaelvpardo]

It is. Once or twice.

Stranger

Good.
Perhaps you can tell me what this means: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

 

[Stranger]

Good.
Perhaps you can tell me what this means: "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

Sure.... After you tell me what this means. (Acts 15:37-39). " And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;"

Stranger

 

[michaelvpardo]

Sure.... After you tell me what this means. (Acts 15:37-39). " And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;"

Stranger

Sure, easy one. What this verse means is that John Mark deserted the missionary trip of Paul at Pamphylia and this left Paul believing that John Mark was unfit for the work, while Barnabus, John Mark's relative, being gifted as an encourager must have believed that he could encourage John Mark to be strong and stand with Paul in the continuing mission. If you need a reason for Paul's apparently self righteous decision, none is specifically given, but scripture tells us a few things that would explain the disagreement. Paul, having been a religious zealot and a student of one of the great teachers of the Law of his time, Gamaliel, would no doubt be familiar with the law with regard to war.
In the book of Numbers, we are told that two of the tribes requested that their inheritance be on the east side of the Jordan river. Moses, when first hearing this was concerned that this would discourage the remaining tribes from entering into the promised land:
6. And Moses said to the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben: "Shall your brethren go to war while you sit here? 7. "Now why will you discourage the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which the Lord has given them? Numbers 32:6-7
Paul, who obviously thought of himself as a soldier in God's army fighting a spiritual war, probably considered that John Mark's decision to depart from the mission was a discouragement to the rest going forward. He may have considered what Christ Himself had said:
61. And another also said, "Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.''
62. But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'' Luke 9:61-61 (remember Luke was part of Paul's associates and his chronicler).

The book of Deuteronomy gives us some specific instructions with regard to warfare and the exemptions that God allowed:
2. "So it shall be, when you are on the verge of battle, that the priest shall approach and speak to the people.
3. "And he shall say to them, `Hear, O Israel: Today you are on the verge of battle with your enemies; do not let your heart faint, do not be afraid, and do not tremble or be terrified because of them;
4. `for the Lord your God is He who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.'
5. "Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying: `What man is there who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it.
6. `And what man is there who has planted a vineyard and has not yet eaten of it? Let him also go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man eat of it.
7. `And what man is there who is betrothed to a woman and has not yet married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man marry her.'
8. "Then the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, `What man is there who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, lest the heart of his brethren faint like his heart.' Deuteronomy 20:2-8
Its unlikely that Paul would have been offended for any of these reasons except by cowardice which according to God can be spread by one who is a coward (consider the pre-trib rapture doctrine as an example of spreading fear and lack of faith.) I have no proof that this was the case, but this is one that I can understand based upon scripture and one that pits discouragement (by John Mark's decision to leave) against encouragement (through Barnabas the Spirit filled encourager.) This makes the most sense to me, because eventually Paul repented of his attitude and found John Mark useful to him (encouragement wins out.)
Your turn.

 

[Stranger]

Michael V. Pardo

Nothing is said that Paul's decision was 'self righteous'. That's you.

Nothing is said of Paul 'repenting' . Again, that's you.

I really don't care what makes most sense to you. That is just you being satisfied. I care about what Scripture is saying. And Scripture says nothing of Paul being self righteous or repenting of this.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

1. Is the Bible complete and if so, does this mean that God no longer speaks to His people?

Only God knows if the bible is complete.

Maybe, for some reason only known to him, he will reveal to us The Gospel of Matthias or Bartholomew and it will reveal some new prophetic information that we will have to add it to the current bible.

I will not put any restrictions on God and how he plans to reveal The Truth and His Word to us.

 

[mjrhealth]

I will not put any restrictions on God and how he plans to reveal The Truth and His Word to us.

Joh_14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Joh_15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh_16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

God doesnt need the bible its just a man thing.

Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph_1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Its teh bit you leave out

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Being around for centuries ignored by the religious treated like a puppet by teh church...

Act_7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

 

[bbyrd009]

Only God knows if the bible is complete.

Maybe, for some reason only known to him, he will reveal to us The Gospel of Matthias or Bartholomew and it will reveal some new prophetic information that we will have to add it to the current bible.

I will not put any restrictions on God and how he plans to reveal The Truth and His Word to us.

nice. I'm guessing that the unvarnished truth would burn me like a furnace, lol. Plenty of truth in the Book that i can barely comprehend as It is.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Michael V. Pardo

Nothing is said that Paul's decision was 'self righteous'. That's you.

Nothing is said of Paul 'repenting' . Again, that's you.

I really don't care what makes most sense to you. That is just you being satisfied. I care about what Scripture is saying. And Scripture says nothing of Paul being self righteous or repenting of this.

Stranger

The text means exactly what it says and I've given you God's explanation for possible reasons, and the text doesn't use the word repent, but that is what the text tells us Paul did (if you take the time to read the whole book of Acts.).
AS far as Paul's self righteous attitude, its evident through most of the things that he writes and he understood that sin very well as God taught him before teaching others (see the book of Romans.) God preaches to us about our sin so that we may preach the message to others to give them understanding. You might want to consider reading the Bible through a few more times, I would say 7 at a minimum for a solid complete number honored by God.

 

[Stranger]

The text means exactly what it says and I've given you God's explanation for possible reasons, and the text doesn't use the word repent, but that is what the text tells us Paul did (if you take the time to read the whole book of Acts.).
AS far as Paul's self righteous attitude, its evident through most of the things that he writes and he understood that sin very well as God taught him before teaching others (see the book of Romans.) God preaches to us about our sin so that we may preach the message to others to give them understanding. You might want to consider reading the Bible through a few more times, I would say 7 at a minimum for a solid complete number honored by God.

Yes the text means what it says. It just doesn't say what you say it does. The text not only doesn't use the word 'repent' but it is not speaking of repentance at all. Paul never repented for not taking John Mark, and he shouldn't have. Just because later when Mark was able and Paul recognized it, doesn't prove any repentance for refusing Mark the first time.

Paul had no self righteous attitude. He was given a great revelation from Jesus Christ and was given a thorn in the flesh to insure he would not have such an attitude. Paul was willing to suffer eternal separation from God if his brethren in the flesh, Israel, might be saved. That's a small crowd that ever willed to do that. Yet you call him self-righteous.

Stranger

 

[michaelvpardo]

Yes the text means what it says. It just doesn't say what you say it does. The text not only doesn't use the word 'repent' but it is not speaking of repentance at all. Paul never repented for not taking John Mark, and he shouldn't have. Just because later when Mark was able and Paul recognized it, doesn't prove any repentance for refusing Mark the first time.

Paul had no self righteous attitude. He was given a great revelation from Jesus Christ and was given a thorn in the flesh to insure he would not have such an attitude. Paul was willing to suffer eternal separation from God if his brethren in the flesh, Israel, might be saved. That's a small crowd that ever willed to do that. Yet you call him self-righteous.

Stranger

Cliff note theology.
Paul, though he cites his own merit on at least two occasions (under the law a Hebrew of the Hebrews), was in fact and by his own admission the "chief of sinners." This wasn't referring to his life before he met Christ on the road to Damascus, but after. He even chose to transgress the "moral" law of God as stated in the book of Deuteronomy. You claim to have read the bible once or twice so you must have read the very short epistle of Paul called "Philemon." This letter is written as a personal request to Philemon to accept back another man, a christian brother, named Onesimus who apparently was Philemon's slave and ran away. The letter is interesting for a number of reasons, but Paul's action was a direct transgression of the law of Moses: "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. Deuteronomy 23:15
For whatever reason Paul had in mind, he obviously thought it was more important to restore relationships in the church than to obey God's law. Whatever righteousness Paul might have thought that he had under the law was wiped out entirely by that one act (if by no other) as failure in any part of the law makes one a transgressor of the law. Now, if you don't see Paul's self righteous attitude in scripture (demonstrated in confrontations with Barnabas and Peter to name only two) perhaps that is because you have an unresolved issue of your own.
Here's a little news flash for you. Every word of scripture that we have now was penned by a man who was a sinner by nature, and in some cases even by murderers and men condemned by the law itself; e.g. Moses and King David as two examples.
By the way, Paul tells us that the thorn in the flesh was to keep him from pride, not self righteousness. Did you know that the only other place we find references to thorns in the side or flesh is in the book of Joshua, and in that book the thorn represents compromise with the Canaanites who were not driven completely out of the land (as was commanded by God.) Many expositors consider the book of Joshua as being a type of the Christian life, and the thorns then become compromise with sin rather than with people, so what does this say about the "great" apostle?
Perhaps you were raised in a Roman Catholic church and were taught to revere the saints. I know that I was. It wasn't until I was saved that I could understand that all genuine born again believers are saints, and all the term really means is that God has chosen them for redemption from their sin and has made them holy with His presence and in the person of His Spirit. What does a man have except that which he has been given (or that which he has stolen?) And if all we have is a gift, what do we have to boast in of ourselves?
Perhaps you should really considering reading the bible a few more times, so you can write from real knowledge rather than what you imagine to be true.

 

[Wormwood]

Cliff note theology.
Paul, though he cites his own merit on at least two occasions (under the law a Hebrew of the Hebrews), was in fact and by his own admission the "chief of sinners." This wasn't referring to his life before he met Christ on the road to Damascus, but after. He even chose to transgress the "moral" law of God as stated in the book of Deuteronomy. You claim to have read the bible once or twice so you must have read the very short epistle of Paul called "Philemon." This letter is written as a personal request to Philemon to accept back another man, a christian brother, named Onesimus who apparently was Philemon's slave and ran away. The letter is interesting for a number of reasons, but Paul's action was a direct transgression of the law of Moses: "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. Deuteronomy 23:15
For whatever reason Paul had in mind, he obviously thought it was more important to restore relationships in the church than to obey God's law. Whatever righteousness Paul might have thought that he had under the law was wiped out entirely by that one act (if by no other) as failure in any part of the law makes one a transgressor of the law. Now, if you don't see Paul's self righteous attitude in scripture (demonstrated in confrontations with Barnabas and Peter to name only two) perhaps that is because you have an unresolved issue of your own.
Here's a little news flash for you. Every word of scripture that we have now was penned by a man who was a sinner by nature, and in some cases even by murderers and men condemned by the law itself; e.g. Moses and King David as two examples.
By the way, Paul tells us that the thorn in the flesh was to keep him from pride, not self righteousness. Did you know that the only other place we find references to thorns in the side or flesh is in the book of Joshua, and in that book the thorn represents compromise with the Canaanites who were not driven completely out of the land (as was commanded by God.) Many expositors consider the book of Joshua as being a type of the Christian life, and the thorns then become compromise with sin rather than with people, so what does this say about the "great" apostle?
Perhaps you were raised in a Roman Catholic church and were taught to revere the saints. I know that I was. It wasn't until I was saved that I could understand that all genuine born again believers are saints, and all the term really means is that God has chosen them for redemption from their sin and has made them holy with His presence and in the person of His Spirit. What does a man have except that which he has been given (or that which he has stolen?) And if all we have is a gift, what do we have to boast in of ourselves?
Perhaps you should really considering reading the bible a few more times, so you can write from real knowledge rather than what you imagine to be true.

Wow. You are making yourself a judge over the inspired Scriptures and Apostle Paul. Very dangerous, sir. I have no doubt that Paul sinned after his conversion, but to say his letters that compose the books of the New Testament are errant and contain sinful commands is simply not Christian. I suggest, when you find something you have difficulty reconciling in the Word of God, you first assume that you are mistaken, rather than the inspired author of Scripture.

Yes, Paul was a sinner by nature, but the letters of the NT are INSPIRED by God. Inspiration means that God worked through a man to communicate his message. To suggest that God cannot communicate honestly or reliably through sinful people is to go against the very notion of what inspiration means. Besides, if God cannot speak through a sinful man like Paul, why should anyone believe he would speak through a sinful man like you or me? Your teaching here flies in the face of the basic beliefs Christians have held about the reliability of Scripture and their authors for the last 2000 years and is simply heretical.

 

[tabletalk]

Michael Pardo explains above:
"The letter is interesting for a number of reasons, but Paul's action was a direct transgression of the law of Moses: "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. Deuteronomy 23:15
For whatever reason Paul had in mind, he obviously thought it was more important to restore relationships in the church than to obey God's law. Whatever righteousness Paul might have thought that he had under the law was wiped out entirely by that one act (if by no other) as failure in any part of the law makes one a transgressor of the law."

Paul would agree with you that "Whatever righteousness Paul might have thought that he had under the law was wiped out entirely by that one act..."
Because: Paul stated we are not under law, but under grace. He was declared righteous by his faith, not by being obedient to the law of Moses.