PDA

View Full Version : Is Paulís writing hard to be understood.



oha
Nov 10th 2013, 10:53 AM
Peter said Paul's writing is hard to be understood, why? or is those who read Paul writings considered unlearned or are learned and twist Paul's writing.

God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paulís writing.

2Peter:3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
are we to take heed to this warning, we canít ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verse out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paulís writing is hard to be understood.

oha
Nov 10th 2013, 11:00 AM
"Paul concerning the Sabbath"

(Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God. Paul is a minister (servant) of Jesus Christ.

Paul is a servant; just as you and I are suppose to be.
Paul is the created he is not the creator.

Listening to some of the preachers of today you would think the words of Paul have more authority than the words of (God) Jesus.

It was Jesus that gave us the seventh day Sabbath,
Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

Gen. 2:1 THUS the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

It was God that sanctified (set apart) the seventh day of the week. The first six days of the week didn’t have names (they are now all named after Roman pagan gods) they were called by numbers 1-6.

But the seventh day was called the sabbath which simply means “rest”.

(Ex. 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thou thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thou maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is the sabbath day of the Lord God of this bible and every seventh day of the week (Saturday) is holy, that’s what hallowed means.

oha
Nov 10th 2013, 11:04 AM
Paul understood this he knew and kept Gods law including the seventh day sabbath.

(Acts 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paí-phus, they came to Perí-ga in Pam-phylí-I-a: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. (v.14) But when they departed from Perí-ga, they came to Aní-ti-och in Pi-sidí-I-a, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Paul went into the church (synagogue) on the sabbath day the seventh day not the first day (Sunday).

15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. 42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

The Gentiles didnít asked Paul to come preach us something different next Sunday. They wanted Paul to preach to them the same thing that he taught the Jews, the next sabbath.

Even the Gentiles knew that if they were going to serve the same God that Paul and the Jews served that they would have to serve him on the day that God had set up.

oha
Nov 10th 2013, 11:08 AM
42 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. Not the next Sunday but the next sabbath.

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphip’-o-lis and Ap-ol-lo’-ni-a, they came to Thes-sa-lo-ni’-ca, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,"

Now Paul evidently was around Thes-sa-lo-ni'-ca for a few weeks and as his manner was he went into the synagogue three sabbath days.

the word manner means; a characteristic or customary mode of acting: custom: fashion.

It was the law.

Paul went into the synagogue every sabbath, not every Sunday people, this is the apostle Paul, and it said that Paul reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

oha
Nov 10th 2013, 11:12 AM
(Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Why is Paul continuing to go into the church on the sabbath? Because that’s when everybody that dealt with the God of this bible held their holy convocations, every sabbath (Saturday). That’s why you had the Israelites and the Greeks (strangers) in the church on the sabbath day. We have read in several places that proved Paul without any doubt whatsoever kept the seventh day sabbath which is Saturday.

Why is Paul's writing concerning the Sabbath hard to understand?

Why have the churches twisted Paul's writings?

oha
Nov 10th 2013, 11:23 AM
"SAVED BY HOPE"

Are we to believe that as soon as we accept Jesus in our lives that our salvation is secure? Again people are quick to run to the Apostle Paul’s writing, grabbing a couple of verse that preachers have grossly mistaught. And they have built a false teaching regarding “once saved always saved”.

Just as you freely accepted Jesus in your life you can also freely choose to stop serving him.

Jesus said with his own mouth;

Matt. 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
That is until the end of your life, or until the Second Coming of the Lord. People are being taught that once you are quote “saved” that you can never fall to the spiritually lost condition. This is not true and totally unbiblical; this teaching is a damnable heresy brought in by man.

oha
Nov 10th 2013, 11:25 AM
Many who teach eternal security teach that once a man is saved no matter how wicked he becomes he is still saved.

Thus the teaching "once saved always saved".

Then we asked them what are you saved from? Or how did you obtain your salvation? And most cannot answer these questions. Some even say that sense Iíve been "saved" Iím living a sinless life.

(1John:1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

According to bible we canít be living a sinless life if we make such a statement, because we just lied.

mailmandan
Nov 10th 2013, 01:19 PM
Many who teach eternal security teach that once a man is saved no matter how wicked he becomes he is still saved. Thus the teaching "once saved always saved".

I believe in eternal security of the believer, but I don't believe in eternal security of the wicked. 1 John 3:9,10 - No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. There is no such thing as wicked saved. The idea of "practice" sin is to perform repeatedly or habitually and thus describes repetition or continuous action. Paul uses the present tense in Galatians 5:21 which describes the practice as habitual, as one's lifestyle or bent of life. Those who continue to practice such sins demonstrate that they are not born of God. There is certainly a difference between "practice" sin (no repentance just bring it on) and commit an act of sin but pursue repentance.


Then we asked them what are you saved from? Or how did you obtain your salvation? And most cannot answer these questions. Some even say that sense I’ve been "saved" I’m living a sinless life. (1John:1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. No one who is born of God practices sin, but this doesn't mean that we never sin at all, as you pointed out in 1 John 1:10 (alse see verse 8).


According to bible we can’t be living a sinless life if we make such a statement, because we just lied. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:8,10). Strong words for those who claim to be without sin. ;)

TrustGzus
Nov 10th 2013, 01:46 PM
"Paul concerning the Sabbath"

(Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God. Paul is a minister (servant) of Jesus Christ.

Paul is a servant; just as you and I are suppose to be.
Paul is the created he is not the creator.

Listening to some of the preachers of today you would think the words of Paul have more authority than the words of (God) Jesus.

I think you make a misstep here. Remember Peter said that some people misunderstand Paul and they twist him as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

So Peter is calling the writings of Paul Scripture.

All Scripture is God-breathed.
Paul's writings are Scripture.
Therefore, Paul's writings are God-breathed.

To set Paul's words up against Jesus' words is to set up the Word of God v. the Word of God. The red letters aren't more Bible than the rest. We must take all of it as the Word of God.


It was Jesus that gave us the seventh day Sabbath,
Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

And Jesus is God of the New Testament too and since Paul's writings are God-breathed, then Jesus breathed Paul's writings too along with the OT. So we must take it all.

If anybody would have stuck with a Jewish custom if that was what God intended, would you stick more to your guns than Paul? I assume you don't have the kind of training like the Pharisaical training Paul received.

Paul seemed most interested in simply being where the people were on whatever day that was. In many places, that was the Sabbath. Now Paul, being very Jewish, if Saturday was the day for everything, Paul would have taught this. Acts 20 would have been a great place for him to set this straight where they assembled on the first day of the week.


Acts 20:7 (AV)
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.


Paul could have commented there. "Hey, I know it's not the Sabbath, but this was the only time I could meet with you" or whatever. He could have set the record straight.

Paul isn't confusing on this issue at all.


Romans 14:5 (AV)
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.


And he's clear in Colossians


Colossians 2:16Ė17 (AV)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


So there is nothing wrong with worshiping on the Sabbath. There's nothing wrong with worshiping on the first day of the week, or the second or third. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. The Sabbath isn't the substance. The substance is Jesus. The Sabbath was just a shadow of things to come -- which was Jesus.

You can do what you like. Others can do what they like. Paul is clear. And Paul is Scripture according to Jesus.

Boo
Nov 10th 2013, 02:33 PM
And the scriptures are to be understood for what they were. To make them into something else has caused many problems for Christians.

episkopos
Nov 10th 2013, 02:53 PM
Those who twist the word and ignore the plain meaning of the biblical thought in order to justify themselves are like a driver with a 10 foot high truck trying to go through a 5 foot tunnel when no one is looking.

Neanias
Nov 10th 2013, 04:37 PM
Those who twist the word and ignore the plain meaning of the biblical thought in order to justify themselves are like a driver with a 10 foot high truck trying to go through a 5 foot tunnel when no one is looking.

:lol: ................

Nick
Nov 10th 2013, 06:39 PM
Paul's letters were often hard to follow. Imagine trying to create alignment in all these recently planted churches that cut through their customs, traditions, and beliefs. It wasn't an easy task.

jayne
Nov 10th 2013, 07:14 PM
God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paul’s writing.

NO. God did not warn us about Paul's writings. God, via Peter, warned us about those who because of ignorance and instability twist Paul's words and the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction.


Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found at peace with Him without spot or blemish. Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

Boo
Nov 10th 2013, 08:31 PM
NO. God did not warn us about Paul's writings. God, via Peter, warned us about those who because of ignorance and instability twist Paul's words and the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction.

And it still happens today. Sometimes, the people are not untaught. It is just that they have been taught wrong.

jayne
Nov 10th 2013, 08:45 PM
And it still happens today. Sometimes, the people are not untaught. It is just that they have been taught wrong.

Yes. I can attest to being taught wrongly before and holding to wrong beliefs until I read and studied for myself. It definitely still happens today.

ChangedByHim
Nov 10th 2013, 11:46 PM
To the first century Jewish mindset, I'm sure that Paul's writings were hard to understand.

Curtis
Nov 11th 2013, 12:30 AM
Revelation knowledge which Paul had required the spiritual mind to comprehend by the Holy Spirit. Trying to logically analyze and reason it with the physical mind will always end in error.

Nick
Nov 11th 2013, 02:14 AM
To the first century Jewish mindset, I'm sure that Paul's writings were hard to understand.

If not hard to follow, definitely very difficult to swallow and digest as truth, especially if they weren't around to see or hear about the miraculous works.

Boo
Nov 11th 2013, 10:19 AM
If not hard to follow, definitely very difficult to swallow and digest as truth, especially if they weren't around to see or hear about the miraculous works.

It is even more difficult to follow when we don't realize how we are to understand his words.

His words were written to the first century Christians. There real problem was that they had grown up under a few different cultural backgrounds as he was usually speaking to both Jews and Gentiles who had lived under different spiritual and cultural arenas. Paul's words were most advice given to those who tried to oversee groups of believers from these different areas. His words were mostly to them and for them.

That is what makes his words difficult today. The words of Jesus were timeless. That is not necessarily the case with Paul.

Eyelog
Nov 11th 2013, 11:07 AM
The words of Jesus were timeless. That is not necessarily the case with Paul.

Paul is the greatest theologian who ever lived. His theological writings are, indeed, timeless. His apparently great intellect was inspired by the Spirit, and he was given great revelations. He passed these on to us, who would be largely clueless about many, many things without God preserving his writings.

--Edited point--

Didn't mean to suggest that Jesus was not the greatest theologian, but second to Him, Paul is it. Indeed, God is the greatest theologian, but I think you know what I mean.

Eyelog
Nov 11th 2013, 11:18 AM
I think you make a misstep here. Remember Peter said that some people misunderstand Paul and they twist him as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

So Peter is calling the writings of Paul Scripture.

All Scripture is God-breathed.
Paul's writings are Scripture.
Therefore, Paul's writings are God-breathed.

To set Paul's words up against Jesus' words is to set up the Word of God v. the Word of God. The red letters aren't more Bible than the rest. We must take all of it as the Word of God.



And Jesus is God of the New Testament too and since Paul's writings are God-breathed, then Jesus breathed Paul's writings too along with the OT. So we must take it all.

If anybody would have stuck with a Jewish custom if that was what God intended, would you stick more to your guns than Paul? I assume you don't have the kind of training like the Pharisaical training Paul received.

Paul seemed most interested in simply being where the people were on whatever day that was. In many places, that was the Sabbath. Now Paul, being very Jewish, if Saturday was the day for everything, Paul would have taught this. Acts 20 would have been a great place for him to set this straight where they assembled on the first day of the week.



Paul could have commented there. "Hey, I know it's not the Sabbath, but this was the only time I could meet with you" or whatever. He could have set the record straight.

Paul isn't confusing on this issue at all.



And he's clear in Colossians



So there is nothing wrong with worshiping on the Sabbath. There's nothing wrong with worshiping on the first day of the week, or the second or third. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. The Sabbath isn't the substance. The substance is Jesus. The Sabbath was just a shadow of things to come -- which was Jesus.

You can do what you like. Others can do what they like. Paul is clear. And Paul is Scripture according to Jesus.

Great post, TrustGzus!

Boo
Nov 11th 2013, 11:20 AM
Paul is the greatest theologian who ever lived. His theological writings are, indeed, timeless. His apparently great intellect was inspired by the Spirit, and he was given great revelations. He passed these on to us, who would be largely clueless about many, many things without God preserving his writings.

I guess it depends on what one means by "timeless."

People believe that Paul's instructions to the churches are applicable to all churches forever and for all people everywhere. I don't. Jesus' instructions are.

People believe that Paul's instructions on selecting Elders and Deacons are to be followed forever, and then some people seem to misunderstand the phrases that Paul used. What I have personally seen is that local churches focus on only one phrase and ignore the rest.

I don't believe that Paul was the greatest theologian that ever lived. He was an apostle who wrote many letters which people have retained. From many other Apostles, we have nothing. Because of that, we don't know what they wrote or what they had to say. There were thirteen of them, not one or two. However, because of the large number of letters that Paul wrote, more people pay attention to Paul and tend to bypass the words of Jesus. Instead of learning from the Master, we listen to the student.

We can guess at many reasons for all of this. When the day comes that we can all know things for sure, it probably will no longer matter.

I will agree that Paul's letters shed light for us. I study what Paul said as he explains his theology in his letters. When I run into a snag, I go back to the words of Jesus.

Eyelog
Nov 11th 2013, 11:42 AM
Revelation knowledge which Paul had required the spiritual mind to comprehend by the Holy Spirit. Trying to logically analyze and reason it with the physical mind will always end in error.

What is a "physical" mind?

Curtis, I know we need to elevate the spiritual mind over the "natural" mind. But there is an important distinction to be made here. Let's take excerpts of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 for example:


17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

ďI will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.Ē

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, ďLet him who boasts, boast in the Lord.Ē

2 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak Godís wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,

ďThings which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.Ē

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

This is a highly important passage, you would agree. No where does it say that a physical mind is the problem, or a brain, or the fact that the person is a human. Rather, it says human wisdom is a problem.

It is not the mind itself, nor that humanity of our minds, which is the problem. Indeed, the whole point about becoming regenerate in mind is to have a renewing of the mind, that we would then be able to appraise things spiritually. The mature mind in Christ is able to understand spiritual principles in spiritual words. it can even appraise things from a spiritual point of view.

This repeated denigration of humans on this forum is really misplaced. it is not that we are human and finite and imperfect in our thinking as created beings that is the problem for us. Rather, it is the extent to which we remain entrenched in the thinking and wisdom derived from the sin nature, the world and the lies of Satan.

A renewed mind is no longer entrenched in those things. Once we are born again and regenerate, we receive the Spirit and our spirit is made alive. We are then open to and understanding of spiritual things, increasingly so. They are no longer foolishness to us, because we are no longer the "natural man". Now, we are the New Creation, and we partake of what belongs to the new man, the new anthropos.

Thus, it is incorrect to denigrate the human mind. It is human reasoning which is greatly inferior to the wisdom of God. But those who have the Spirit can reason over the Scriptures in a spiritual way. they need human brains to do that, human minds. So, denigrating the so-called 'physical mind' is really misplaced, and it covers up what we in fact are supposed to do:

Use our regenerate minds to renew our minds via the Word, and to grow in maturity of our human minds, so they can appraise what is spiritual and not, and we can more and more have the mind of Christ.

If we take away our mind from the equation, we are left with nothing but impartations of direct revelation from God. Clearly, that is not what Paul is talking about in the above passage. He received such, but he was chosen to pass that on to us. This is not to say we won't get some direct impartations during our lives, but the vast majority of spiritual wisdom comes to us through the Word, as the Spirit helps us to comprehend it and apply it.

episkopos
Nov 11th 2013, 04:52 PM
What is stopping any unregenerate bible enthusiast from claiming an eternal salvation for a mental assent of the gospel message?

moonglow
Nov 11th 2013, 05:19 PM
Peter said Paul's writing is hard to be understood, why? or is those who read Paul writings considered unlearned or are learned and twist Paul's writing.

God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paulís writing.

2Peter:3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
are we to take heed to this warning, we canít ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verse out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paulís writing is hard to be understood.


It doesn't say Paul's writings personally are hard to understand...

15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 16 speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

jayne already pointed this out...people were twisting ALL scriptures, including what Paul wrote which is also scripture. What we are reading here is also scripture...;) And part of history as Paul was actively at that time, writing to the churches. He wasn't saying Paul was a bad writer, though some English teachers might object to his hugely long sentences! I image he might get some marks off for that. :lol: He covers numberous ideas just in one sentence! He had a lot to pour out from the Holy Spirit that is for sure. :) I love reading his writings. :)

Why would God warn us about His own Words? Wouldn't make sense! Just because Paul wrote them doesn't mean they are somehow not God's word.

chad
Nov 11th 2013, 09:58 PM
Yes, I would agree that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand. IMO however there are reasons for this.

1) Some of Paul’s writings require knowledge of the Old Testament to be able to understand what Paul is writing about.

2) Sometimes Paul only briefly covers a topic in some of his writings, but behind this topic is a very complex logic and understanding of scripture that is required to understand what Paul is writing about.

3) Paul’s writing includes milk and meat. Some new Christians or those new in the faith who are still maturing may find it hard to understand some of Paul’s writings.

4) The literal style of how Paul’s writes, his questioning and reasoning is not written in a way that flows logically. Therefore, some of it is hard for some to understand.

5) Not All new believers were Jews. Paul’s ministry was first to the Jewish people, then in Acts 18:5-6 while in Macedonia the Jews kept opposing Paul, so he decided to only go to the Gentiles. Gentiles, did not have the Jewish heritage and culture, upbringing and knowledge that the Jewish people did.
Therefore they may have difficulty understanding some of the teaching – for example the covenants and promises given to Israel.

6) Because some of Paul’s writings come from revelation, the carnal mind and the carnal worldly thinking cannot understand it. If we view Paul’s writings with our carnal mind and understanding – with our worldly view of things, we may find it difficult to understand and accept Paul’s writing.


>>> Listening to some of the preachers of today you would think the words of Paul have more authority than the words of (God) Jesus.

(Gal 1:11 NIV) I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. (12) I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

>>> Regarding the Sabbath

(Col 2:16 NIV) Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

(Col 2:17 NIV) These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.







Peter said Paul's writing is hard to be understood, why? or is those who read Paul writings considered unlearned or are learned and twist Paul's writing.

God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paul’s writing.

2Peter:3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
are we to take heed to this warning, we can’t ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verse out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paul’s writing is hard to be understood.

Curtis
Nov 11th 2013, 11:22 PM
What is a "physical" mind?

Curtis, I know we need to elevate the spiritual mind over the "natural" mind. But there is an important distinction to be made here. Let's take excerpts of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 for example:



This is a highly important passage, you would agree. No where does it say that a physical mind is the problem, or a brain, or the fact that the person is a human. Rather, it says human wisdom is a problem.

It is not the mind itself, nor that humanity of our minds, which is the problem. Indeed, the whole point about becoming regenerate in mind is to have a renewing of the mind, that we would then be able to appraise things spiritually. The mature mind in Christ is able to understand spiritual principles in spiritual words. it can even appraise things from a spiritual point of view.

This repeated denigration of humans on this forum is really misplaced. it is not that we are human and finite and imperfect in our thinking as created beings that is the problem for us. Rather, it is the extent to which we remain entrenched in the thinking and wisdom derived from the sin nature, the world and the lies of Satan.

A renewed mind is no longer entrenched in those things. Once we are born again and regenerate, we receive the Spirit and our spirit is made alive. We are then open to and understanding of spiritual things, increasingly so. They are no longer foolishness to us, because we are no longer the "natural man". Now, we are the New Creation, and we partake of what belongs to the new man, the new anthropos.

Thus, it is incorrect to denigrate the human mind. It is human reasoning which is greatly inferior to the wisdom of God. But those who have the Spirit can reason over the Scriptures in a spiritual way. they need human brains to do that, human minds. So, denigrating the so-called 'physical mind' is really misplaced, and it covers up what we in fact are supposed to do:

Use our regenerate minds to renew our minds via the Word, and to grow in maturity of our human minds, so they can appraise what is spiritual and not, and we can more and more have the mind of Christ.

If we take away our mind from the equation, we are left with nothing but impartations of direct revelation from God. Clearly, that is not what Paul is talking about in the above passage. He received such, but he was chosen to pass that on to us. This is not to say we won't get some direct impartations during our lives, but the vast majority of spiritual wisdom comes to us through the Word, as the Spirit helps us to comprehend it and apply it.

The human mind was never intended to be the means of gaining spiritual insight. It is only a tool used by man so he can be able to walk in this physical world, but not guided by it. Spiritual truth can never be discovered by using man's physical mind, but it can believe truth once it is told what to believe. The physical brain only believes what you tell is to believe. It can believe a lie if you tell it to. This is why it is so important because .....

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

The things we want to do is believe the truth, but you can not when the flesh is lusting against the spirit. Only when the heart and mind of man are in agreement can there be confidence to receive from the Lord......

1Jn 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jn 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Only when there is agreement between the mind and heart can there be confidence to receive what we ask for from the Lord.
Our spirit in which God speaks to knows and understands what the Holy Spirit says to us, but our mind is unfruitful. Understanding is of the heart not the mind.
The mind will accept truth if you tell it to what to believe Even after the physical mind has been renewed it still can not be used to discovered new truth. God speaks to us by his Spirit to our new birthed spirit, not the mind.

Eyelog
Nov 11th 2013, 11:45 PM
The human mind was never intended to be the means of gaining spiritual insight. It is only a tool used by man so he can be able to walk in this physical world, but not guided by it. Spiritual truth can never be discovered by using man's physical mind, but it can believe truth once it is told what to believe. The physical brain only believes what you tell is to believe. It can believe a lie if you tell it to. This is why it is so important because .....

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

The things we want to do is believe the truth, but you can not when the flesh is lusting against the spirit. Only when the heart and mind of man are in agreement can there be confidence to receive from the Lord......

1Jn 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jn 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Only when there is agreement between the mind and heart can there be confidence to receive what we ask for from the Lord.
Our spirit in which God speaks to knows and understands what the Holy Spirit says to us, but our mind is unfruitful. Understanding is of the heart not the mind.
The mind will accept truth if you tell it to what to believe Even after the physical mind has been renewed it still can not be used to discovered new truth. God speaks to us by his Spirit to our new birthed spirit, not the mind.

How were u able to express all that?

keck553
Nov 12th 2013, 04:20 AM
Those who twist the word and ignore the plain meaning of the biblical thought in order to justify themselves are like a driver with a 10 foot high truck trying to go through a 5 foot tunnel when no one is looking.

Been there. Done that. Now I have a flat forehead.

keck553
Nov 12th 2013, 04:21 AM
Paul's letters were often hard to follow. Imagine trying to create alignment in all these recently planted churches that cut through their customs, traditions, and beliefs. It wasn't an easy task.

Lately I haven't had much trouble understanding Paul's writings.

ewq1938
Nov 12th 2013, 04:44 AM
God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paul’s writing.


No, he isn't warning us of Paul, he is warning us about people who would say things like that.

LandShark
Nov 12th 2013, 05:10 AM
Peter said Paul's writing is hard to be understood, why? or is those who read Paul writings considered unlearned or are learned and twist Paul's writing.

God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paulís writing.

2Peter:3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
are we to take heed to this warning, we canít ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verse out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paulís writing is hard to be understood.


I don't think this is any more complicated than this...

Peter was not illiterate, he was an intelligent man, but I would not call him college material, he was a fisherman. Paul on the other hand was college material, in fact, he could have been a dean over the college. He attended Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and was taught all manner of Hermeneutics and other exegetical methods as well as made use of the culture (he even quoted a theatrical play) and used the language, using many Hebraic figures of speech, idioms, and other abstract forms of communication. Paul used in his writings the Rules of Hillel, and most in that day (and almost everyone today) didn't not even know they existed, let alone recognized Paul's use of them which effected context greatly. Peter understood all of this and knew people would simply not get it, that Paul would go over the head of many, and has, even unto this day.

ewq1938
Nov 12th 2013, 05:23 AM
Peter was not illiterate, he was an intelligent man, but I would not call him college material, he was a fisherman.

Um, I don't see any reason to say that nor anything evidence to support it.

Boo
Nov 12th 2013, 10:58 AM
I don't think this is any more complicated than this...

Peter was not illiterate, he was an intelligent man, but I would not call him college material, he was a fisherman. Paul on the other hand was college material, in fact, he could have been a dean over the college. He attended Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and was taught all manner of Hermeneutics and other exegetical methods as well as made use of the culture (he even quoted a theatrical play) and used the language, using many Hebraic figures of speech, idioms, and other abstract forms of communication. Paul used in his writings the Rules of Hillel, and most in that day (and almost everyone today) didn't not even know they existed, let alone recognized Paul's use of them which effected context greatly. Peter understood all of this and knew people would simply not get it, that Paul would go over the head of many, and has, even unto this day.

God does not require anyone be "a brilliant man." That is why Jesus selected those whom he did. He intentionally did not select those "geniuses" of the day.

How many men walking around with PhD certificates from seminary can you find who have what you would call inaccurate exegesis?

Brain power does not equate to understanding of God.

Too often I see word games with Hebrew and Greek used to change the meaning of a verse. Beware of those who claim authority of scripture based on certificates given by men.

I disagree with your assessment of Paul. He was just a man - like Peter and John - who were just as Godly. The words Peter and John wrote are just as authoritative for me, in fact, more so.

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 11:22 AM
Hi Mail,

When are we born of God, and when does this eternal security starts?

Paul said all men have sinned
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Eyelog
Nov 12th 2013, 11:27 AM
God does not require anyone be "a brilliant man." That is why Jesus selected those whom he did. He intentionally did not select those "geniuses" of the day.

How many men walking around with PhD certificates from seminary can you find who have what you would call inaccurate exegesis?

Brain power does not equate to understanding of God.

Too often I see word games with Hebrew and Greek used to change the meaning of a verse. Beware of those who claim authority of scripture based on certificates given by men.

I disagree with your assessment of Paul. He was just a man - like Peter and John - who were just as Godly. The words Peter and John wrote are just as authoritative for me, in fact, more so.

Hope you don't mind if I say this here, bro. (Not to you).

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 11:43 AM
I think you make a misstep here. Remember Peter said that some people misunderstand Paul and they twist him as they do the rest of the Scriptures.

So Peter is calling the writings of Paul Scripture.

All Scripture is God-breathed.
Paul's writings are Scripture.
Therefore, Paul's writings are God-breathed.

To set Paul's words up against Jesus' words is to set up the Word of God v. the Word of God. The red letters aren't more Bible than the rest. We must take all of it as the Word of God.



And Jesus is God of the New Testament too and since Paul's writings are God-breathed, then Jesus breathed Paul's writings too along with the OT. So we must take it all.

If anybody would have stuck with a Jewish custom if that was what God intended, would you stick more to your guns than Paul? I assume you don't have the kind of training like the Pharisaical training Paul received.

Paul seemed most interested in simply being where the people were on whatever day that was. In many places, that was the Sabbath. Now Paul, being very Jewish, if Saturday was the day for everything, Paul would have taught this. Acts 20 would have been a great place for him to set this straight where they assembled on the first day of the week.



Paul could have commented there. "Hey, I know it's not the Sabbath, but this was the only time I could meet with you" or whatever. He could have set the record straight.

Paul isn't confusing on this issue at all.



And he's clear in Colossians



So there is nothing wrong with worshiping on the Sabbath. There's nothing wrong with worshiping on the first day of the week, or the second or third. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. The Sabbath isn't the substance. The substance is Jesus. The Sabbath was just a shadow of things to come -- which was Jesus.

You can do what you like. Others can do what they like. Paul is clear. And Paul is Scripture according to Jesus.

Hi Trust

actually the scriptures are from Genesis to Malachi and the testimony is from Matthew to Revelation.

tell me what does Colossians have to do with keeping the Sabbath or not keeping the Sabbath.

God commanded what at the creation?

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Paul kept this day and he taught the Gentiles to observe and keep it long after Jesus died and rose.

where is it written in Colossians where we can worship any day, or did the pastors twist this chapter?

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 11:46 AM
No, he isn't warning us of Paul, he is warning us about people who would say things like that.


2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 11:55 AM
1Cor. 15:1 MOREOVER, brethren, I declare unto the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Paul is telling us right here that we are saved by the gospel that he preached unto us if you keep it in memory.
So what happens if we donít keep it in memory? Then we have believed in vain we have believed for nothing thatís what vain means.

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 11:59 AM
1Cor. 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible.
Paul says that when we run in a race every body is running for a prize. But this prize that he is referring to is eternal life, thatís what he means by an incorruptible, heís talking about an incorruptible body, a heavenly body.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly, so fight, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Paul knew exactly what was going on that why he says he has to bring his body under subjection. Under subjection to what? To Godís Law, Paul knew that if he didnít continue to keep Gods law that even after he had preached to many that he himself could still become a castaway. This doesnít sound like Paul thinks that he has guarantee salvation.

mailmandan
Nov 12th 2013, 12:02 PM
1Cor. 15:1 MOREOVER, brethren, I declare unto the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Paul is telling us right here that we are saved by the gospel that he preached unto us if you keep it in memory.
So what happens if we don’t keep it in memory? Then we have believed in vain we have believed for nothing that’s what vain means.

To believe in vain is to believe without cause or without effect, to no purpose. If, as some are saying in Corinth, there is no resurrection, then faith is vain and worthless (vs. 14). In Matthew 6:7, we read - And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. In Matthew 15:9, we read - And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Do the people who fail to keep in memory what Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 demonstrate that they did not truly believe? Their faith was not firmly rooted and established in the gospel? It's only natural for Paul to say "IF you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain." Paul is addressing large groups of people without being able to know the actual state of every person's heart. How can Paul avoid giving them false assurance that they will be eternally saved when in fact they may not? What is the evidence of receiving the gospel by which also ye are saved? - IF ye keep in memory what I preached unto you. Saving belief keeps in memory what he preached and is not some vain or shallow temporary belief that has no root.

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 12:06 PM
Don’t allow yourself to be deceived into believing that once you believe in the Lord that your work is finished, it has just started.

Heb. 10:35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. 36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

We must have patience when dealing with the word of God. And we must do the will of God, which is the keeping of his law, if we expect to receive the promise, which is eternal life in the kingdom of God, which will be established on this earth.

NO ONE IS GOING TO HEAVEN.

And it’s strange that most people who consider themselves “once saved always saved” are the same ones that tell you that God’s commandments were nailed to the cross.

37 FOR YET A LITTLE WHILE, AND HE THAT SHALL COME WILL COME, AND WILL NOT TARRY. 38 NOW THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH: BUT IF ANY MAN DRAW BACK, MY SOUL SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM.

What does Paul mean by if any man draw back?

You mean that once you are quote “saved” that you can draw back.

According to the apostle Paul you can.

we choose by our own free will to start serving the lord, we can by that same free will stop serving the lord or as Paul put it draw back.

39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

That’s what we must do, we must have faith (believe) unto the saving of the soul. And our soul is not saved as soon as you start to believe on Jesus, salvation is works in progress, not a one step solution.

oha
Nov 12th 2013, 12:17 PM
To believe in vain is to believe without cause or without effect, to no purpose. If, as some are saying in Corinth, there is no resurrection, then faith is vain and worthless (vs. 14). In Matthew 6:7, we read - And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. In Matthew 15:9, we read - And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

Do the people who fail to keep in memory what Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 demonstrate that they did not truly believe? Their faith was not firmly rooted and established in the gospel? It's only natural for Paul to say "IF you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain." Paul is addressing large groups of people without being able to know the actual state of every person's heart. How can Paul avoid giving them false assurance that they will be eternally saved when in fact they may not? What is the evidence of receiving the gospel by which also ye are saved? - IF ye keep in memory what I preached unto you. Saving belief keeps in memory what he preached and is not some vain or shallow temporary belief that has no root.

if we don't keep the word of God in memory we will forget.

Proverbs 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:

Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

the Lord tells us not to forget, letting me know that we can forget,

lets read it again


1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


Paul said we are saved if we keep in memory what he preached, this less me know that they have to keep in mind everyday what Paul has preached, they can not forget, if they forget what Paul has preached unto them, it was all in vain or for nothing

jayne
Nov 12th 2013, 02:51 PM
actually the scriptures are from Genesis to Malachi and the testimony is from Matthew to Revelation.

Well, Luke is considered to be scripture, so why not the rest of the New Testament?

Paul said in 1 Timothy - "For the Scripture says: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, the worker is worthy of his wages."

"The worker is worthy of his wages" is only found in Luke 10:7

And in your passage that you started this thread with, Peter includes Paul's writings with "other scriptures". Some translations say "rest of the scriptures". The obvious assertion is that the Old Testament alone does not constitute the totality of scripture.

keck553
Nov 12th 2013, 02:57 PM
Well, Luke is considered to be scripture, so why not the rest of the New Testament?

Paul said in 1 Timothy - "For the Scripture says: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, the worker is worthy of his wages."

"The worker is worthy of his wages" is only found in Luke 10:7

It's common in Gentile based Messianic Judaism circles to disregard the Apostolic Writings as Scripture.

ewq1938
Nov 13th 2013, 02:56 AM
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


Zec 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

Boo
Nov 13th 2013, 10:35 AM
Well, Luke is considered to be scripture, so why not the rest of the New Testament?

Paul said in 1 Timothy - "For the Scripture says: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, the worker is worthy of his wages."

"The worker is worthy of his wages" is only found in Luke 10:7

And in your passage that you started this thread with, Peter includes Paul's writings with "other scriptures". Some translations say "rest of the scriptures". The obvious assertion is that the Old Testament alone does not constitute the totality of scripture.

Jayne, I love your posts and find them worthy of my note collection. I take your views seriously.

I tell you that so that you understand that my next point is not in any way an accusation about your view.

I wish to tell you that not everyone makes that "obvious assertion" that "the Old Testament alone does not constitute the totality of scripture."

I don't wish to play word games at all, but I would hope you understand that the word "scripture" has more than one meaning and can be understood differently. Peter's words are one statement about Paul's writing. Do you know of anyone else in the bible that claims that Paul's letters are "scripture" as you understand it? That would make a big difference to me.

I often wonder why it is so important to assign the idea of "biblical scripture" to Paul's letters. Paul's letters can be true writings of Paul's thoughts addressed to the recipients and instructions to those who had questions and problems and still be informative to us. Yet,, this is not the first time that people debated on the word "scripture" as if that makes his letters something else entirely. His letters don't change because of the noun we use when we refer to them.

By the way, I am not a Messianic Jew. (I think some of my understanding might be seen as Anabaptist, as well.)

pekoe
Nov 13th 2013, 12:17 PM
Hello oha.

2Peter:3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
Why does Peter think Paul is telling those who have already believed, that Gods patience has anything to do with their salvation? Doesn't Peter know that once you are saved, patience isn't necessary?

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.." (vs.16)

Who cares if believers fall from their own stedfastness and are led away with the error of the wicked? Doesn't Peter know that Paul teaches once you have believed in Jesus, you cannot become unsaved?

LandShark
Nov 13th 2013, 12:51 PM
Um, I don't see any reason to say that nor anything evidence to support it.

He does not use the exegetical tools used by those who did attend places like Beit Hillel or Beit Shamai. Also, Peter was a fisherman, the equal to people in the area I grew up in who didn't have the grades to go to college so they got into construction, or in places in the south, where folks enter the military. This however is NOT a knock on Peter, he was VERY intelligent, just not as refined as Paul. And that isn't to say I am elevating Paul, I am not, I am making a simple observation... when it comes to a "scholarly approach," Paul was ahead of Peter in that area. Though I want to repeat, that isn't a knock on Peter. There are people on this forum who have much better command of the language than I... and I didn't attend college either.

LandShark
Nov 13th 2013, 12:56 PM
God does not require anyone be "a brilliant man." That is why Jesus selected those whom he did. He intentionally did not select those "geniuses" of the day.

How many men walking around with PhD certificates from seminary can you find who have what you would call inaccurate exegesis?

Brain power does not equate to understanding of God.

Too often I see word games with Hebrew and Greek used to change the meaning of a verse. Beware of those who claim authority of scripture based on certificates given by men.

I disagree with your assessment of Paul. He was just a man - like Peter and John - who were just as Godly. The words Peter and John wrote are just as authoritative for me, in fact, more so.

When did I say God desired a brilliant man? You have Peter saying that Paul's words are such that the UNLEARNED wrestle with the then to their own destruction. So what is the SCRIPTURAL difference between Paul's words and those that misuse his words? The ones misusing them are UNLEARNED.... Paul was learned. What did I say? I said (to paraphrase myself) that Paul was very intelligent, he attended Beit Hillel and sat under Gamaliel and his writings use certain exegetical tools most are not familiar with so those not taught in those areas (which by definition makes them unlearned) will wrestle with them. So this isn't about God desiring a high IQ, it is about a guy who had a high IQ who used methods most (even today) were not familiar with and as such, people misunderstand his work.

ewq1938
Nov 14th 2013, 02:44 AM
He does not use the exegetical tools used by those who did attend places like Beit Hillel or Beit Shamai. Also, Peter was a fisherman, the equal to people in the area I grew up in who didn't have the grades to go to college so they got into construction, or in places in the south, where folks enter the military. This however is NOT a knock on Peter, he was VERY intelligent, just not as refined as Paul. And that isn't to say I am elevating Paul, I am not, I am making a simple observation... when it comes to a "scholarly approach," Paul was ahead of Peter in that area. Though I want to repeat, that isn't a knock on Peter. There are people on this forum who have much better command of the language than I... and I didn't attend college either.

To state he wasn't "college material" is going beyond what you could possibly know and is knocking him. Now, that he had not attended college and didn't have that type of refinement would be factual.

LandShark
Nov 14th 2013, 02:50 AM
To state he wasn't "college material" is going beyond what you could possibly know and is knocking him. Now, that he had not attended college and didn't have that type of refinement would be factual.

Peter was a fisherman, in that culture in that day that job is like a high school kid in the south who doesn't have good enough grades and goes into the military. Peter was NOT stupid, he was obviously very intelligent, but he was not on the level of Paul who attended one of the two most prestigious schools in that day.

ewq1938
Nov 14th 2013, 02:53 AM
Peter was a fisherman, in that culture in that day that job is like a high school kid in the south who doesn't have good enough grades and goes into the military. Peter was NOT stupid, he was obviously very intelligent, but he was not on the level of Paul who attended one of the two most prestigious schools in that day.

I know but that doesn't mean he wasn't "college material" as far as his intellect is concerned. If he is as intelligent as you say he was, then he WAS college material, just not rich enough to attend.

To not be college material means you aren't smart enough for college.

LandShark
Nov 14th 2013, 02:56 AM
I know but that doesn't mean he wasn't "college material" as far as his intellect is concerned. If he is as intelligent as you say he was, then he WAS college material, just not rich enough to attend.

To not be college material means you aren't smart enough for college.

Brother (sister?) is was a FIGURE OF SPEECH! I was simply trying to draw a comparison between Paul who used rules of exegesis that are STILL not taught in churches with a man who was warning everyone that Paul was intelligent and that the UNLEARNED (Peter's own words) would wrestle against such things and stumble. PETER was who introduced the idea of "unlearned" not me.

Boo
Nov 14th 2013, 10:35 AM
I would like to point out as a view that all of Paul's education is what drove him to persecute Christians.

What enabled him to serve God was getting knocked off his high horse.

Peter did not have to get knocked off any horse - he just had to follow Jesus.

The remarks about youth in the South is very revealing to me, by the way.

Eyelog
Nov 14th 2013, 10:48 AM
I would like to point out as a view that all of Paul's education is what drove him to persecute Christians.

What enabled him to serve God was getting knocked off his high horse.

Peter did not have to get knocked off any horse - he just had to follow Jesus.

The remarks about youth in the South is very revealing to me, by the way.

Hi, Boo. Peter did get told, get behind me Satan, you don't have in mind the things of God but of man -- or such.

He also denied the Lord 3 times after the arrest. Finally, he did have to be rebuked by Paul himself for falling back into Jewish legalism, and that--after he had the revelation of the Gentiles and foods being clean, etc.

So, Peter did take a few bumps to humble him and keep him that way.

Boo
Nov 14th 2013, 10:57 AM
Hi, Boo. Peter did get told, get behind me Satan, you don't have in mind the things of God but of man -- or such.

He also denied the Lord 3 times after the arrest. Finally, he did have to be rebuked by Paul himself for falling back into Jewish legalism, and that--after he had the revelation of the Gentiles and foods being clean, etc.

So, Peter did take a few bumps to humble him and keep him that way.

As we all do, or at least as I have done. My view was the Paul's bump was a radical jump in his entire approach.

I suppose that my initial point is still taken? Paul's education didn't help him much.

Being college educated has little to do with our ability to serve God. However, a diploma really impresses some people. (So much, so, that these same people look down on those without a diploma.)

LandShark
Nov 14th 2013, 12:30 PM
I would like to point out as a view that all of Paul's education is what drove him to persecute Christians.

What enabled him to serve God was getting knocked off his high horse.

The remarks about youth in the South is very revealing to me, by the way.

Last first... it is true, many in the south who don't have the grades and money and where there are there is (sadly) less economic opportunities, do go into the military. The % per capita is skewed toward many more from the south entering the service. That doesn't mean they are ignorant, it means they either didn't carry the grades for 4 years, or lacked the resources to attend school. I went to the military after I graduated by the way!

I wouldn't say Paul's intellect is what caused persecution, his paradigm was the reason for his actions. He was raised to see through a certain lens and it caused him to act against believers. When he had his eyes opened and then went away to Arabia for 3 years, he didn't go get uneducated. The text doesn't say what happened Boo, but I think based on the disciples spending 3 years with Jesus, that Paul went away to the place where this started, Sinai (which is in Arabia) and got with the Spirit and just made better connections and developed a better paradigm. Intelligence or the lack of it is not an issue with God. AGAIN.... it was PETER who said the UNLEARNED wrestle with Paul's words! Why???? Because the unlearned do not know the exegetical methods used in Paul's writings, plain and simple. Neither do we by the way! He makes use of the 7 Rules of Hillel often, those rules effect context, and we are not even taught those rules exist, let alone understand the application of them. I am not saying we are unlearned, I am saying we don't fully understand his methods either, few churches teach his methods. So yes, Paul was a smart guy, that isn't a sin, it just means we have to study more! :) Peace!

Eyelog
Nov 14th 2013, 01:31 PM
As we all do, or at least as I have done. My view was the Paul's bump was a radical jump in his entire approach.

I suppose that my initial point is still taken? Paul's education didn't help him much.

Being college educated has little to do with our ability to serve God. However, a diploma really impresses some people. (So much, so, that these same people look down on those without a diploma.)

Yes, your point certainly is well taken about education not necessarily adding to one's ability to know and walk with the Lord. But it did position him to speak to many kinds of people.

percho
Nov 14th 2013, 06:11 PM
Peter was a fisherman, in that culture in that day that job is like a high school kid in the south who doesn't have good enough grades and goes into the military. Peter was NOT stupid, he was obviously very intelligent, but he was not on the level of Paul who attended one of the two most prestigious schools in that day.

Is this the most important school Paul attended?

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

LandShark
Nov 14th 2013, 06:17 PM
Is this the most important school Paul attended?

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Not sure of your point but if I do catch what you are saying, I basically already said this. I think Paul went to Arabia where the real Mountain of God is and relearned many things through the Spirit. That doesn't negate the fact that Paul was a learned man, who used various methods of exegesis not understand by the laymen, and the "unlearned" as Peter called them, have a hard time understanding Paul. Why and how that statement, which I have repeated now about 8 times, is an issue here is beyond me. This is what the text says regarding who wrestled with Paul's words, and since other indicators reveal Paul's level of education and "use of various exegetical methods" then this is what Peter was referring. This isn't a big deal here.... :)

percho
Nov 14th 2013, 07:45 PM
Not sure of your point but if I do catch what you are saying, I basically already said this. I think Paul went to Arabia where the real Mountain of God is and relearned many things through the Spirit. That doesn't negate the fact that Paul was a learned man, who used various methods of exegesis not understand by the laymen, and the "unlearned" as Peter called them, have a hard time understanding Paul. Why and how that statement, which I have repeated now about 8 times, is an issue here is beyond me. This is what the text says regarding who wrestled with Paul's words, and since other indicators reveal Paul's level of education and "use of various exegetical methods" then this is what Peter was referring. This isn't a big deal here.... :)

I agree with you that Paul was a well educated man, and that his wisdom came from God after being healed of blindness.

I also believe Peter understood Paul perfectly in the things of the Lord.

the Seeker
Nov 14th 2013, 07:53 PM
Peter said Paul's writing is hard to be understood, why? or is those who read Paul writings considered unlearned or are learned and twist Paul's writing.

God had Peter to clearly warn us about some of Paulís writing.

2Peter:3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
are we to take heed to this warning, we canít ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verse out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paulís writing is hard to be understood.


Personally, I do not like many of Paul's writings. They are sometimes difficult to understand, and the context of some of his passages indicate that he throws in his personal opinion a lot. Likes using words like "tradition" and such. He is, in light of our current societal values, was a sexist who refused to allow the notion of having women preach to a man. (I must admit, however, that I understand why he would feel that way.) IN spite of all of that, I refuse to be a roadblock for a woman who has obviously been chosen by God to teach me something. Men should be humble too, not just women. (personal note).

That said, I can understand where Paul was coming from. The original Disciples had little to no knowledge of how to create a regular church service. Most were fishermen and at least one tax collector. Paul had the unenviable task of combining the Jewish worship structure with the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, he had to make some decisions. Like them or not, part of the reason why we still know about the One called Jesus is because of Paul. He was a Pharisee who was well versed in Old Testament scripture. His conversion, especially in the light of what he was doing before that happened, made him the perfect candidate to create a vehicle for The Message to be proclaimed throughout the generations. His epistles are the accounts of how the Lord used Paul to do His will. Like it or not, it worked, because some 2000 years later, we are talking about Paul, Jesus, and the message on the internet.

the Seeker
Nov 14th 2013, 07:56 PM
I agree with you that Paul was a well educated man, and that his wisdom came from God after being healed of blindness.

I also believe Peter understood Paul perfectly in the things of the Lord.

I disagree. This may seem petty, and I apologize, but Paul had all of the Old Testament knowledge in his brain even while he was named Saul. Clarity came to him when he was blinded by Him. After that event, where he witnessed Lord Jesus in His glorified form, was when Saul, with his name changed to Paul, was able to put 2 and 2 together.

LandShark
Nov 14th 2013, 07:58 PM
I agree with you that Paul was a well educated man, and that his wisdom came from God after being healed of blindness.

I also believe Peter understood Paul perfectly in the things of the Lord.

I was never trying to say he didn't Percho... was just trying to draw a comparison and I admit, I didn't do so properly. But, one thing these forums allow us to do is hash things out, come up with better ways to say things, before we go and stick our foot in our mouth on video or something. :) So on that end it is all good. The intelligence part was brought by Peter, and even that is not saying "they are dumb people," in today's world we have plenty of doctors or engineers who think on a high level in their fields but in other areas don't think on such a high level. It's all good, it is part of the growing process. Peace!

ewq1938
Nov 15th 2013, 08:49 AM
Personally, I do not like many of Paul's writings. They are sometimes difficult to understand, and the context of some of his passages indicate that he throws in his personal opinion a lot. Likes using words like "tradition" and such. He is, in light of our current societal values, was a sexist who refused to allow the notion of having women preach to a man. (I must admit, however, that I understand why he would feel that way.) IN spite of all of that, I refuse to be a roadblock for a woman who has obviously been chosen by God to teach me something. Men should be humble too, not just women. (personal note).

That said, I can understand where Paul was coming from. The original Disciples had little to no knowledge of how to create a regular church service. Most were fishermen and at least one tax collector. Paul had the unenviable task of combining the Jewish worship structure with the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, he had to make some decisions. Like them or not, part of the reason why we still know about the One called Jesus is because of Paul. He was a Pharisee who was well versed in Old Testament scripture. His conversion, especially in the light of what he was doing before that happened, made him the perfect candidate to create a vehicle for The Message to be proclaimed throughout the generations. His epistles are the accounts of how the Lord used Paul to do His will. Like it or not, it worked, because some 2000 years later, we are talking about Paul, Jesus, and the message on the internet.


Had to LOL about the underlined part. BTW, they aren't hard to understand actually.

Boo
Nov 15th 2013, 10:27 AM
Had to LOL about the underlined part. BTW, they aren't hard to understand actually.

I have often found that some think that Paul's words are hard to understand because they have been told that Paul never disagreed with God. Paul's writings showed that sometimes, his words did disagree. The difficulty comes in trying to make them appear not to.

Also, those who think that Roman's chapter 6 has nothing to do with Romans chapter 10 may find it "difficult" to understand Paul.

I have not found that I have this problem at all.

percho
Nov 15th 2013, 08:31 PM
I disagree. This may seem petty, and I apologize, but Paul had all of the Old Testament knowledge in his brain even while he was named Saul.(What I said, he was a well educated man) Clarity ( his wisdom came from God. God showed him Jesus from the OT education) came to him when he was blinded by Him. After that event, where he witnessed Lord Jesus in His glorified form, was when Saul, with his name changed to Paul, was able to put 2 and 2 together.

Actually we agreed see in ()

ewq1938
Nov 16th 2013, 05:01 AM
I have often found that some think that Paul's words are hard to understand because they have been told that Paul never disagreed with God. Paul's writings showed that sometimes, his words did disagree. The difficulty comes in trying to make them appear not to.

You do not speak the truth about Paul. Paul NEVER disagrees with God. That is a foolish thing to believe in!

LandShark
Nov 16th 2013, 12:12 PM
I have often found that some think that Paul's words are hard to understand because they have been told that Paul never disagreed with God. Paul's writings showed that sometimes, his words did disagree. The difficulty comes in trying to make them appear not to.

Also, those who think that Roman's chapter 6 has nothing to do with Romans chapter 10 may find it "difficult" to understand Paul.

I have not found that I have this problem at all.

I agree with EWQ, Paul never conflicts, if he does, than his writings are not scripture. I have found that when we come across something that seems at odds with something else that is said in the bible, it is >>US<< that has the issue, not scripture. We are supposed to WAIT on God to make connections for us, not give up when we have exhausted a Strong's search. I run into people all the time who can't reconcile Paul, and to date, there hasn't been a case that has an answer. Not saying there aren't answers I would like to have better or deeper answers for, I would, but you'll be hard pressed to find a conflict I haven't heard of already. Peace!

Boo
Nov 16th 2013, 12:21 PM
You do not speak the truth about Paul. Paul NEVER disagrees with God. That is a foolish thing to believe in!

Actually, my brother, I posted those disagreements in another thread and asked people to compare the words of Jesus to the words of Paul. Jesus and Paul disagreed.

Would you believe that the responses ranged from the implication that Jesus' word were incomplete so Paul had to finish them up to a paraphrase of "Well, Jesus said that but He didn't mean that."

Yes, brother, Paul and Jesus disagreed. It is foolish to accuse me of being wrong just because you have not studied those referenced verses.

Boo
Nov 16th 2013, 12:28 PM
I agree with EWQ, Paul never conflicts, if he does, than his writings are not scripture. I have found that when we come across something that seems at odds with something else that is said in the bible, it is >>US<< that has the issue, not scripture. We are supposed to WAIT on God to make connections for us, not give up when we have exhausted a Strong's search. I run into people all the time who can't reconcile Paul, and to date, there hasn't been a case that has an answer. Not saying there aren't answers I would like to have better or deeper answers for, I would, but you'll be hard pressed to find a conflict I haven't heard of already. Peace!

There are two cases that do not have satisfactory answers. I posted them previously. However, neither case diminishes the Bible.

Once again, the issue is not that the Bible is wrong. It is not that there is error in the Bible. The Bible is a library of writings that provide the picture of God and His plan.

Nowhere except from the mouth of man has anyone ever said that there is never an occasion where Paul spoke for himself and not for God. That is a man-made philosophy and THAT is why people find it difficult to understand Paul.

The Bible is a supernatural collection of writings by people who followed God and Jesus. There is nothing wrong with it and it is the foundation of my faith. But man makes it to be something that it is not. Like the other poster, when asked about those conflicting verses between Jesus and Paul, the responses were insufficient.

Before you get accusatory, knowing that Paul write things that were not of God does not make Paul bad or unworthy. It is MAN's ruling that it cannot happen - but it did. Wrestling with a way to attempt to prove it didn't is what make things difficult.

TrustGzus
Nov 16th 2013, 01:31 PM
Actually, my brother, I posted those disagreements in another thread and asked people to compare the words of Jesus to the words of Paul. Jesus and Paul disagreed.

Would you believe that the responses ranged from the implication that Jesus' word were incomplete so Paul had to finish them up to a paraphrase of "Well, Jesus said that but He didn't mean that."

Yes, brother, Paul and Jesus disagreed. It is foolish to accuse me of being wrong just because you have not studied those referenced verses.

I hope you are oversimplifying, my friend. You and I went back and forth in this discussion. I backed down because it was getting a little lengthy and cumbersome for this kind of format and stated that was my reason. Part of your idea was built on how you interpret a verse from Revelation which I think you misinterpret. I countered with a passage from Mark 7 in which you think I misinterpret.

So I hope you're not including me in the "Jesus didn't really mean that" in discussion of Revelation 2 because I don't agree with how you interpret Revelation.

TrustGzus
Nov 16th 2013, 01:54 PM
Jayne, I love your posts and find them worthy of my note collection. I take your views seriously.

I tell you that so that you understand that my next point is not in any way an accusation about your view.

I wish to tell you that not everyone makes that "obvious assertion" that "the Old Testament alone does not constitute the totality of scripture."

I don't wish to play word games at all, but I would hope you understand that the word "scripture" has more than one meaning and can be understood differently. Peter's words are one statement about Paul's writing. Do you know of anyone else in the bible that claims that Paul's letters are "scripture" as you understand it? That would make a big difference to me.

I often wonder why it is so important to assign the idea of "biblical scripture" to Paul's letters. Paul's letters can be true writings of Paul's thoughts addressed to the recipients and instructions to those who had questions and problems and still be informative to us. Yet,, this is not the first time that people debated on the word "scripture" as if that makes his letters something else entirely. His letters don't change because of the noun we use when we refer to them.

Boo, I am wondering if you could explain how you conclude that the word "scripture" has more than one meaning and can be understood differently. Let me give you a couple of examples where I think you would need to explain these passages in question from this thread. Jayne brought up 1 Timothy 5:18 . . .

1 Timothy 5:18 (NASB95)
18* For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”


Notice Paul applies the word "Scripture" to two quotes. So what ever is true about the word "Scripture" of one quote is true of the other. In the first quote he brings up Deuteronomy 25:4 and in the second quote Luke 10:7. So Paul seems to give equal status to Luke as Deuteronomy. He uses the same word "Scripture" for both of them.

Then back to Peter, Peter writes . . .

2 Peter 3:15–16 (NASB95)
15* and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16* as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So the unlearned and unstable distort Paul's writings to their own distruction. The key phrase in question here then is the phrase "as they do also the rest of the Scriptures".

I'd have no problem with what you say if Peter said "as they do the Scriptures". However, that phrase "the rest of" changes significantly what Peter says and seems to place Paul's writings right up there with all the other writings regarded as sacred.

The Greek word for Scripture is the same word Peter used earlier in the book in chapter 1.

2 Peter 1:19–21 (NASB95)
19* So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20* But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21* for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So I don't see how to take the word Scripture differently in chapter 1 than in chapter 3 in addressing this topic. Could you explain how Scripture can mean anything different in 2 Peter and in 1 Timothy?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

LandShark
Nov 16th 2013, 07:53 PM
There are two cases that do not have satisfactory answers. I posted them previously. However, neither case diminishes the Bible.

Once again, the issue is not that the Bible is wrong. It is not that there is error in the Bible. The Bible is a library of writings that provide the picture of God and His plan.

Nowhere except from the mouth of man has anyone ever said that there is never an occasion where Paul spoke for himself and not for God. That is a man-made philosophy and THAT is why people find it difficult to understand Paul.

The Bible is a supernatural collection of writings by people who followed God and Jesus. There is nothing wrong with it and it is the foundation of my faith. But man makes it to be something that it is not. Like the other poster, when asked about those conflicting verses between Jesus and Paul, the responses were insufficient.

Before you get accusatory, knowing that Paul write things that were not of God does not make Paul bad or unworthy. It is MAN's ruling that it cannot happen - but it did. Wrestling with a way to attempt to prove it didn't is what make things difficult.

Where are they posted Boo? You say they do not have satisfactory answers, that doesn't mean you've heard every possible answer, respectfully.

ewq1938
Nov 17th 2013, 04:59 AM
Actually, my brother, I posted those disagreements in another thread and asked people to compare the words of Jesus to the words of Paul. Jesus and Paul disagreed.

Would you believe that the responses ranged from the implication that Jesus' word were incomplete so Paul had to finish them up to a paraphrase of "Well, Jesus said that but He didn't mean that."

Yes, brother, Paul and Jesus disagreed. It is foolish to accuse me of being wrong just because you have not studied those referenced verses.

Of course I have. I've dealt with people like you try to present as evidence of any disagreements. It always false. You are wrong.

Boo
Nov 17th 2013, 10:23 AM
I hope you are oversimplifying, my friend. You and I went back and forth in this discussion. I backed down because it was getting a little lengthy and cumbersome for this kind of format and stated that was my reason. Part of your idea was built on how you interpret a verse from Revelation which I think you misinterpret. I countered with a passage from Mark 7 in which you think I misinterpret.

So I hope you're not including me in the "Jesus didn't really mean that" in discussion of Revelation 2 because I don't agree with how you interpret Revelation.

I was looking forward to further discussion with you, but it never occurred. At the last of our discussion, the answers were not complete. The other answers that I received all basically were implying that the simple language that determines the results could not be understood the way that I understood them. In short, many responses to these statements actually seem to imply that Paul was correctly adding to the words of Jesus because the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were incomplete.

That is much harder to accept than the idea that Paul sometimes contradicted Jesus.

Jesus is God. Paul is not.

Boo
Nov 17th 2013, 10:45 AM
Boo, I am wondering if you could explain how you conclude that the word "scripture" has more than one meaning and can be understood differently. Let me give you a couple of examples where I think you would need to explain these passages in question from this thread. Jayne brought up 1 Timothy 5:18 . . .

1 Timothy 5:18 (NASB95)
18* For the Scripture says, ďYOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,Ē and ďThe laborer is worthy of his wages.Ē


Notice Paul applies the word "Scripture" to two quotes. So what ever is true about the word "Scripture" of one quote is true of the other. In the first quote he brings up Deuteronomy 25:4 and in the second quote Luke 10:7. So Paul seems to give equal status to Luke as Deuteronomy. He uses the same word "Scripture" for both of them.

Then back to Peter, Peter writes . . .

2 Peter 3:15Ė16 (NASB95)
15* and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16* as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So the unlearned and unstable distort Paul's writings to their own distruction. The key phrase in question here then is the phrase "as they do also the rest of the Scriptures".

I'd have no problem with what you say if Peter said "as they do the Scriptures". However, that phrase "the rest of" changes significantly what Peter says and seems to place Paul's writings right up there with all the other writings regarded as sacred.

The Greek word for Scripture is the same word Peter used earlier in the book in chapter 1.

2 Peter 1:19Ė21 (NASB95)
19* So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
20* But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of oneís own interpretation,
21* for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So I don't see how to take the word Scripture differently in chapter 1 than in chapter 3 in addressing this topic. Could you explain how Scripture can mean anything different in 2 Peter and in 1 Timothy?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

First off, my brother, the word scripture - used by people who speak English - has different meanings. Let that stand as the first truth. Any dictionary will prove that.

The way Paul uses the word scripture is not necessarily the same way that Peter uses it. It is no different than if you and I use the word. Scripture can mean simple letters, books, notes, articles, etc. It can also mean the Old Testament or we can intend for it to mean the New Testament.

Secondly, the common verse used to imply that everything that Paul writes comes from God is not necessarily the case. Paul has proved that with his own words. He admits that some things he wrote did not come from God.

Add to that, who wrote a letter that says that everything Peter wrote is Scripture? How about Mark, Luke, or James? Should we not evaluate their words since nobody said that their letters are "scripture?"

Then there is the issue of the date of Peter's writing and the dates of Paul's writings. How many of Paul's letters had Peter seen when he wrote that statement? We don't know how many existing letters that he had read, but we do know that there were letters written after Peter's letter.

Our definition and determination of what constitutes "scripture" comes from faith and understanding. It is not a black and white rule given by God. If it were, would the Apocrypha still be in our Bibles? The Apocrypha was "scripture" for nearly 2000 years - and now it is not. Somewhere, somehow, someone along the line said "these books should not be there." However, that will be hard to understand for people who have never seen the Apocrypha books. It is just natural for them that those books are not there. Adding them now would create quite an uproar.

As for the Old Testament being Scripture, I have many witnesses; I accept that as true. As for Paul's letters being Scripture, I have one who says that they are and Paul who shows that they are not. Paul's letters are Paul's letters to the people he addressed them to. They contain great wisdom and valuable teaching, but man has determined them to be something that they are not. How many denominations now exist because of how man has determined to use those words from Paul?

All of those denominations claim that Paul's words come from God, yet those denominations all do something different based on Paul's words. What would they look like if they were all based on Jesus' words?

Peter was definitely correct about how man twists the words of Paul to determine his own version of truth. I Love the words of Jesus. Those words fail to cause the error of man or the "us versus them" mentality.

Where Paul amplifies the words of Jesus, great. That is helpful. Where Paul's words cause us to say "wait a minute, but Jesus said....," it is not. Of course, if we never allow ourselves to look at those instances, we'd never have those thoughts.

I know that many people have a need to take them as facts given by God, so anytime someone like me mentions the contradictions, there are emotional responses. I do appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me.

Boo
Nov 17th 2013, 11:43 AM
Where are they posted Boo? You say they do not have satisfactory answers, that doesn't mean you've heard every possible answer, respectfully.

I'll give you the same two that I presented before. To me, these stick out like a sore thumb, but there are actually several others that are not quite as obvious.

Here we see that Paul says that divorce is acceptable if your spouse does not like your Christianity. He also says that the Christianity of the one spouse somehow is made holy by remaining married. It seems to drip down on the children as well.

1 Cor 7: 10-15
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Jesus gives only one permissible reason.

Matthew 5: 31-32
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Jesus and the Apostles said that eating meat sacrificed to idols is immoral (not unhealthy - immoral).

Rev 2: 12-16
"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 'The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword. "'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

And again to the church in Thyatera

20
But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

However, in the following verses, the other Apostles taught the error of eating food sacrificed to idols.

Acts 15: 19-21, 28-29
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

However, Paul taught:

1 Corinthians 8:1-8
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

Or did he?

1 Corinthians 10:18-21
Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Boo
Nov 17th 2013, 11:46 AM
Of course I have. I've dealt with people like you try to present as evidence of any disagreements. It always false. You are wrong.

Well, that settles it then. I must be wrong.

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 03:40 PM
I don't think this is any more complicated than this...

Peter was not illiterate, he was an intelligent man, but I would not call him college material, he was a fisherman. Paul on the other hand was college material, in fact, he could have been a dean over the college. He attended Beit Hillel (School of Hillel) and was taught all manner of Hermeneutics and other exegetical methods as well as made use of the culture (he even quoted a theatrical play) and used the language, using many Hebraic figures of speech, idioms, and other abstract forms of communication. Paul used in his writings the Rules of Hillel, and most in that day (and almost everyone today) didn't not even know they existed, let alone recognized Paul's use of them which effected context greatly. Peter understood all of this and knew people would simply not get it, that Paul would go over the head of many, and has, even unto this day.

the bible says Peter and the apostles were considered ignorant men

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 03:43 PM
Well, Luke is considered to be scripture, so why not the rest of the New Testament?

Paul said in 1 Timothy - "For the Scripture says: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, the worker is worthy of his wages."

"The worker is worthy of his wages" is only found in Luke 10:7

And in your passage that you started this thread with, Peter includes Paul's writings with "other scriptures". Some translations say "rest of the scriptures". The obvious assertion is that the Old Testament alone does not constitute the totality of scripture.

the scriptures is the OT and Luke got it from here in the OT


.Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

LandShark
Nov 17th 2013, 03:45 PM
the bible says Peter and the apostles were considered ignorant men

Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus

I know, but some in the thread didn't seem to be able to handle that so I left it alone! But, I will warn you, ignorant doesn't mean stupid, it means lacking. If Paul used certain rules of exegesis and the other disciples did not know them or understand them, then they are ignorant of them and I think that is what it is mainly dealing with. It isn't dealing with a low IQ.

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 04:04 PM
Zec 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

the scriptures are not a man's opinion but the words of God


Quote Originally Posted by oha View Post

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 04:19 PM
Hello oha.

Why does Peter think Paul is telling those who have already believed, that Gods patience has anything to do with their salvation? Doesn't Peter know that once you are saved, patience isn't necessary?

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.." (vs.16)

Who cares if believers fall from their own stedfastness and are led away with the error of the wicked? Doesn't Peter know that Paul teaches once you have believed in Jesus, you cannot become unsaved?


where does Paul say this at?

Paul says this to the Hebrews

Hebrews 10: 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

even the people who have received the truth can sin willfully and if they don't repent can go to the lake of fire.

this don't sound like a person who received Jesus and his truth are saved.

I have more.

why don't the preachers teach this, its clear and no interpretation is needed

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 04:21 PM
I know, but some in the thread didn't seem to be able to handle that so I left it alone! But, I will warn you, ignorant doesn't mean stupid, it means lacking. If Paul used certain rules of exegesis and the other disciples did not know them or understand them, then they are ignorant of them and I think that is what it is mainly dealing with. It isn't dealing with a low IQ.


ignorance means not knowing

the disciples where men who were not knowing.

notice Jesus spent 3.5 years teaching them

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 04:44 PM
Let take a brief look at eternal security ďonce saved always savedĒ where it came from because it is surly not the teaching of the God of this bible.

"BRIEF HISTORY OF CALVINISM"

Calvinism is a system of religious doctrine made popular by the 16th century church reformer, John Calvin. Calvin was a brilliant logician who framed a coherent body of beliefs based on the former teachings of the 4th century monk, Augustine. Using belief in Total Human Depravity as its basis, Calvinism theology embraces these tenets (using the acrostic, TULIP):

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 04:47 PM
(1) Total Inherited Depravity. The teaching is simple that all men (including babies) have inherited Adam’s sin. Not only have all inherited Adam’s sin, but also man enters the world totally depraved (“Adam’s sinful nature”).

The bible, conversely teaches "(Eze. 18:20) the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” Furthermore, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die”. All have sinned, but it is because we ourselves have chosen to go astray.


Ezekiel 18:The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

“Babies” are not presented in the bible as depraved, but as pure and models of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3-6).

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

oha
Nov 17th 2013, 04:53 PM
Unconditional Election. Calvinism teaches that since man is so totally depraved when he is born, it is impossible for him to choose to serve God.

Therefore, God must arbitrarily choose who will be saved.

This teaching is sometimes referred to as predestination.

The bible teaches predestination, but not as taught by Augustine and Calvin. God is no respecter of persons and all who choose to be saved, and do the necessary things required will experience Godís forgiveness and blessings (Acts 10:34-35, John 3:16)

John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

LandShark
Nov 17th 2013, 06:32 PM
ignorance means not knowing

the disciples where men who were not knowing.

notice Jesus spent 3.5 years teaching them

No, I couldn't disagree with you more. There is a scriptural reason why being discipled takes that long and it has NOTHING to do with intelligence. Paul, by the way, also went away for 3 years to Arabia... I believe to relearn many things. I offer this this article (http://messianicpublications.com/ken-rank/orla-a-lesson-on-spiritual-maturity/) I wrote which takes all of 5 minutes to read. I won't spend the time re-writing it all here because I already wrote it. But if you want to see why it is set up this way and what OT picture points to this being the case, give it a read and we can go from there. But you can't read James, John, or Peter and think "not knowing." Not a chance!

LandShark
Nov 17th 2013, 06:34 PM
Let take a brief look at eternal security “once saved always saved” where it came from because it is surly not the teaching of the God of this bible.

"BRIEF HISTORY OF CALVINISM"

Calvinism is a system of religious doctrine made popular by the 16th century church reformer, John Calvin. Calvin was a brilliant logician who framed a coherent body of beliefs based on the former teachings of the 4th century monk, Augustine. Using belief in Total Human Depravity as its basis, Calvinism theology embraces these tenets (using the acrostic, TULIP):

Your next 3 posts have absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Once saved always saved and Calvinism need their own thread and don't need to be introduced into a thread about Paul's writings which are discussing PAUL'S WRITINGS not Paul's teachings.

ewq1938
Nov 18th 2013, 01:41 AM
the scriptures are not a man's opinion but the words of God

Is that so ?

ewq1938
Nov 18th 2013, 01:43 AM
ignorance means not knowing

the disciples where men who were not knowing.

notice Jesus spent 3.5 years teaching them

Talk about the blind leading the blind in this thread, sheesh!

Paul doesn't contradict scripture and the disciples were not ignorant.

ewq1938
Nov 18th 2013, 01:51 AM
Gill

and perceived that they were unlearned ignorant men; not by what they now said, but by what they heard and understood of them before: they were informed that they were "unlearned" men, or who did not understand letters; not but that they had learned their mother tongue, and could read the Scriptures; but they had not had a liberal education; they had not been brought up at the feet of any of the doctors, in any of the schools and universities of the Jews; they were not trained up in, and conversant with, the nice distinctions, subtle argumentations, and decisions of the learned doctors, in the interpretation of the law of Moses, and the traditions of the elders

BrianW
Nov 18th 2013, 03:40 AM
Just a little reminder in case it's been a while since people have read it.


III. Conduct

As this is a Christian message board, conduct becoming a Christian is what is expected. We all come from different backgrounds and convictions and each member has their own different personalities and style of communicating through the written word. Remember first and foremost that we come together because of Christ and stand under Him and are accountable in all you say and do. We do not have to agree but allow anothers disagreement to drive you into the Word for answers. Nobody has all the answers, and even in debates with gusto and passion remember that we cannot find the bottom of the knowledge of God in the flesh. We are called into fellowship in order to share, uplift and grow in our shared faith. Name calling, belittling, cutting down anothers beliefs, sour attitude or general conduct not becoming a brother or sister in the faith will not be tolerated. Keep your words well salted, in love and centered in the Light.