|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 17:29:25 GMT -8
I am sure that if you read Acts and Romans you will agree that Paul adds a lot of commentary and meaning to the words of Christ whom he only new via first and second hand accounts. His achoring may be in the words of Christ, but when he comments or adds ideas, which he must do, otherwise, why bother even publishing the letters, I am not sure what where his authority comes from?  Other than the church. Well, firstly, he did see the risen Christ first hand. Secondly, his authority comes from the Holy Spirit, not the church. God purposed to build his Scripture through Paul and the other disciples. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 17:36:14 GMT -8
yeshuafreak wrote:
This is complicated. Let me try and clear up a few things from my perspective.
1) I agree that not all "commandments" in Scripture apply equally to everyone. But my point is that all of Scripture is authoritative (holds Gods authority), inspired, and useful for teaching, correction, training, etc.. (2 Tim. 3:16)
2) Where do we disagree on what counts as Scripture? Just curious.
3) As to infallibility, I actually don't use the term, as it's not a concept found in Scripture and I think misses the point. In general, I think the Bible stands up well to any charge of error on fine points of science and history, but I don't think it's super important that the Bible not contain such minor, technical errors.
But as far as life and faith, yes, I believe the Bible in it's entirety is authoritative and inspired by God.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 20:08:01 GMT -8
We have it all screwed up. I was visited Earlier this evening by two very nice ladies representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints. It turns out that God told this guy via an angel named Moroni where to find golden plates and gave him magical spectacles. IT PROVIDES A NEW RACIST GOSPEL AND TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST!!!!! www.mormon.org I am sure that if we accept the Book of Mormon as scripture it will make this whole crazy world make sense!!!Atleast that is what the incredibly conservatively dressed 2 18 year old women who on a mission from Ogden, UT told me!!! |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Oct 19, 2011 17:15:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2011 17:50:16 GMT -8
Watched the clip, and again I have some strong agreements and disagreements  First off, I appreciate what he says about Paul and how we must not elevate the "red letters" of Jesus over and against what God spoke through Paul. Rather, in Paul we get the most complete, finished, and balanced understanding of the significance of the life of Jesus. But as to disagreements, you can find those on this thread: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=christianliving&action=display&thread=3293&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Oct 26, 2011 10:41:07 GMT -8
I would disagree with the statement of putting Paul on the same level of Jesus. I think that Paul would also have problems with that. I firmly believe that Paul was inspired and important for our daily life, but that Jesus was the Word of God, and Paul was interpreting that Word. Jesus is the true revelation and Paul and the others are reflections of that Truth. Perhaps this needs to be taken to another thread |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Oct 26, 2011 17:34:45 GMT -8
Totally agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 26, 2011 17:52:14 GMT -8
I would disagree with the statement of putting Paul on the same level of Jesus. I think that Paul would also have problems with that. I firmly believe that Paul was inspired and important for our daily life, but that Jesus was the Word of God, and Paul was interpreting that Word. Jesus is the true revelation and Paul and the others are reflections of that Truth. Perhaps this needs to be taken to another thread Steve, I moved this part of our conversation on the other thread (High on Jesus) here. Before I reply to your statement, would you be willing to peruse what I said on this topic earlier in the thread? I'm curious what you might agree with or disagree with in what I've already said here. |
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Oct 27, 2011 11:49:23 GMT -8
For the most part I agree with you, Josh. I do not want to exclude Paul from the canon, he certainly belongs there. However, I think that we must interpret Paul through Jesus, not the other way around. Paul is greatly misunderstood as being in opposition to Jesus, or that Jesus is more 'legalistic' than Paul. Rather, Paul is saying the same thing as Jesus, in a context of Gentiles being taught that they must be Jews first. Paul, having received a different gospel from Jesus himself is disagreeing.
However, Paul is not teaching antinomianism, nor is he teaching "grace alone". Paul's gospel is different than the Protestant gospel and the best way to get back to Paul's original teaching is to assume that he is teaching exactly what Jesus taught. If we assume we know what Paul taught, and put that back upon Jesus, we end up changing the message of Jesus. Like, for instance, some Christians teaching that Jesus was "legalistic" and, at the very least, that Jesus' teachings is not normative for Christians.
I agree with the statement above that Jesus died for our sins, not Paul. That Jesus is our Lord, not Paul. We must obey Jesus first and Paul will then assist us in following Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 28, 2011 11:39:23 GMT -8
And I agree that with what you're saying and think we should be leery of explaining away Jesus ethical demands and teachings as not normative for the Christian life, as Crowder is suggesting. Paul himself sets the ethical standards for christians high, and is, as you say definitely not antinomians. There is no "cheap grace" in the gospels or in Paul.
My main point, though, is that Jesus didn't hand down any writings. Paul AND the gospels are both second hand witnesses of the teachings of Jesus- Paul being an earlier source but the gospels containing more direct teachings of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Oct 28, 2011 12:12:37 GMT -8
Historically, I would agree with you.
As far as authority, the life and teaching of Christ takes precedence. Paul's initial teaching of discipleship was similar if not the same to the first three gospels (we can see him repeating some of this teaching in I cor 11, using the phrase "as I passed on to you"). The letters were supplementary to the "teaching of the apostles" which is contained in the gospels.
The teaching of the gospels were primarily oral, and the written forms are just representations of the oral teaching. Also, canonically, the four gospels were accepted before the 13 letters of Paul (although not much before). The gospels were quickly accepted as representative of the teaching of the apostles, and mark the earliest tradition of the early church.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 28, 2011 17:41:57 GMT -8
Agreed about the firsthand teaching of Jesus holding a special place of authority. But even though the gospels reflect the original oral tradition, they have been arranged and rearranged in ways that also reflect the needs of the communities to which they were written, and this must be taken into account. Thus they aren't as simplistic in their context as we might sometimes imagine. Also, though Paul received this teaching third-hand through the disciples, he considered that to be secondary to his direct revelations from Jesus. But I don't think we're really much in disagreement, but it helps to tease out the nuances this way.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Oct 28, 2011 21:33:40 GMT -8
We can spend all day dissecting the basic message out of the NT texts. What about the influence of Paul's amanuensis on his writing? What about the context of the churches he was writing to?
I think part of the significance of having four gospels is the likelihood of being able to get back at Jesus' original message. We have four interpretations of original statements, four witnesses writing to four contexts (which, btw, aren't certain at all). Thus, recognizing this we can acheive the original message, which we may or may not be able to get at with Paul (although I think we can-- maybe I'll spend a little time expouding at my theory of Paul's simple message behind his complex theology)
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 30, 2011 8:21:10 GMT -8
The last thing I want to do is elevate Paul above the gospels. I'm just trying to point out that both Paul and the Gospels have their own substantial rights to be considered authoritative. I would love to hear more from you on your perspective on Paul, btw! |
|
Other than the church.
