Agreed. First off Paul preformed the signs of an Apostle, secondly the Apostle Peter says that the writings of Paul are scripture. I’m not sure how anyone can get around that.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Does a husbands authority wax and wane?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
I would take Paul’s writings seriously... as seriously as scripture, because they are.
2 Peter 3:15-17 KJV
[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. [17] 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.
C
Cap
Guest
I never said I didn't take his writings serious. My only question is whether he is one of the twelve. I don't doubt that the Apostle's to Christ vetted him to make sure he was preaching a sound doctrine. By the way, the word 'scripture' could also mean 'writings' as in "also the other writings". Since Paul and Peter were writing letters about the same time, they probably were aware of each others letters. And also, as far as I know, the 'scriptures' hadn't been put together yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
If that passage isn’t a spiritual kick to the sack, I don’t know what is.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
I think I modified my post before this.
The woman who chooses to utilize "irreconcilable differences" is not "harmed by the failed system". She's the one perpetrating the harm. We need to stop seeing every divorced woman as a victim in need of saving. We live in a matriarchy, women have all the power today. More often than not the only true victim is the man and his children.
It's about preaching the truth. Stay single or go back to your husband. That is the Biblical solution to the mess.
One can get there via Acts or the Gospels or church tradition. But Paul's writings make it easier.
I agree in so far as many pastors like to talk Paul all day long but rarely touch on what Christ said about the Gospel. The false Gospel the American church preaches today is founded primarily upon over focus on a c
Christ = God, so clearly he can. He can do anything he wants to do.
I mean Christ could meet one of us on the road to Dallas or whereever, share all the good stuff, and have new apostles, etc.
The big question is, does he or did he? And the answer appears to be no. Everyone who has claimed such (Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc.) have been imposters. Name one single apostle since the 1st century?
I am not sure where you get that one must be one of the 12 to be authoritative. He is not one of the 12 but he is just as authoritative as any of the 12. If you do not believe me, maybe you will belive one of the 12. Peter himself called Paul's writing scripture. 2 Peter 3:15,16.
No the Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. Paul was an authoritative apostle from the 1st century. See Peter's testimony above.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Like Luke who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts? You don't have to be an apostle to write authoritative scripture. He could have been just another guy, like Luke, but the Bible clearly says Paul was an apostle. I am not sure Luke's writings were considered scripture in his lifetime, but Paul's were. Peter said so, or are you going to question Peter, too?
Not sure where you are going with this. We have no way of knowing everything he shared with the 12 and everything he shared with Paul and whether they were the same or not.
Not sure what you mean here, either. Paul was not elevated by the church later. He was at the top of the heap in the 1st century. And what is that slander about Moses about? Moses was pretty top of the heap himself.
Just plain wrong. Peter is a witness for Paul, too as I noted above.
Last edited:
Irrelevant. You are elvating the 12 too much. It does not say that there can only be 12 apostles, or that Paul is in any sense a lessor apostle. Further, the 12 in all cases seem to support the full apostleship of Paul. The 12 testify against what you are teaching which is directly opposed to the teaching of Galations. They were not unaware of each other. They worked together. As you say yourself they must have vetted his teaching, and his teaching clearly states that he was an apostle in every sense of the word. I say again, Paul was either a full apostle (equal to Peter, James, and John) or he was a false apostle. There is no middle ground.
Paul is either telling the truth or he is a liar. Again there is no middle ground.
Last edited:
Peter writes:
"16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Peter said that the people that people who distort what Paul wrote (like Paul's claim to apostleship for example?) are ignorant and unstable. How serious is it to ignore the writings of Paul? It looks like Peter says that leads to ones "own destruction" which I am assuming is bad.
I am not sure whether scripture here is with a capital "S' or a little 's' but it seems to me that Peter is saying that it is imperative that you read it, pay close attention to it and do what it says.
It is clear that questioning Paul is just needless sophistication, unless you are willing to question Peter, too. And if you go there, then you are not going to have a whole lot of Christianity left.
Last edited:
Indeed. In fact that is part of Paul's argument that he is not a lessor apostle, because he contended against Peter to his face, and he was right and Peter was wrong. See Galatians 2.
You do not seem to fully accept him either, despite Peter vouching for him. I find that odd.
I do not see the argument here. Of course the message can be shared today. It is being shared today by Christians all around the globe. From the pulpit to missionaries in far off lands. What has that to do with Paul's apostleship?
Unless....UNLESS...you are saying we can come up with some sort of new Gospel, some sort of new revelation. Something not found in the Bible. Something delivered by Angels or on golden plates perhaps?
What are you suggesting? Who are the candidates? What is this new message? Put in on the table and let us consider it.
Again, there is no argument that God can. Indeed God can do anything.
The more important question is did God, and is God doing this? If the answer is yes, than we need to see who and when to properly consider it. No one has, yet, stepped forward with specifics.
C
Cap
Guest
I can say this, you are misunderstanding what I am say, but since you have decided to pick a part every sentence I have tried to share, no doubt my lack of ability to transfer information, it will take a little time to respond as I a few things going on. Thank you for your attempts to clear this up.
I will say this, I am not afraid to question the group narrative, it has helped me find a greater truth for myself in the things of God. Like polygamy. I don't believe we are called to have blind faith. Question everything.
For the record, I was wrong about the date the BT was written by a lot.
There’s a lot more to say about this, but I’m not gonna respond to this claim on this thread. For those interested in my reply you can find it here
C
Cap
Guest
Fair enough brother. I can certainly agree with you here.
P.S. Notice the happy smiley face in accordance with the new forum rules.
I saw that and raise you two.
C
Cap
Guest
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but what follows is an attempt to clarifying statements as I remember them happening. Not sure who said what.
At some point, in this thread or another, a quesiton was asked about anointed singers. Then it further developed into a discussion about the offices of the church. Within that discussion a statement was made that Paul was one of the Apostles. My interpretation was it was a statement saying that Paul was one of the 12 Apostles that actually operated under the ministries of the Son of God while He was on Earth. Within the context of someone being anointed to sing reference was made about anointed messengers, apostles (apostates to some), being able to share a message from God in the present day. The only reference I was trying to make was that there are no Apostles today (served on earth with Christ) BUT since Paul received his message, a commentary about the Good News, AFTER the Death and resurrection of the Son of God, the same thing could be done today. But only as a commentary, with no new revelations. An anointed preacher can receive a message from the Holy Spirit today just as Paul did, and John, after the Ascension. No one is capable of receiving a message directly (physically) from Christ. But there are those who can see or hear visions or dreams from the Holy Spirit for the edification of the body, or even individuals. Just like Paul. Paul is no more special than any believer that God chooses to reveal Himself too, accept that he happened to have what he said put down in words and recorded in the Bible.
If I come to your house and ask for directions to grandma's house and you tell them to me then I have heard directly from you how to get there. If I see a flash of light and somewhere in my mind I hear directions to get to grandma's house then it could either be directions I have heard from somewhere else, or I made it up. The test will be in the verification. No doubt those who learned of the directions first hand will verify that I know what I am talking about. I may know of a shortcut when I understand the complete directions, but still they must match the overall directions I received to get me to the right place.
Paul was a human and he made a lot of mistakes in his interruptions of the directions he received. If he had figured it out and the message he received was clear then why did he argue with so many people. Why was it different than what the other Apostles received? Nevertheless, the original Apostles found that his message was for the most part valid and,
2 Peter 3:15-17 KJV
[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 (writings), unto their own destruction. [17] 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.
The word 'scripture' here could very well be a group of letters already written and therefore the word 'writings' could have been used. And since the 'scriptures' hadn't quite been put together collectively at this time, I go with the idea of of letters. So, yes, Paul's writings were becoming as important as the Gospels, and other writings, but they had not yet become 'scripture'.
As far as Luke is concerned, he traveled and became friends with Paul, so what he wrote was influenced by Paul. Luke was only a witness to Paul's life, AFTER the Damascus road.
@Cap Paul had disagreements with the Apostles. Odd.
@cnystrom Indeed. In fact that is part of Paul's argument that he is not a lessor apostle, because he contended against Peter to his face, and he was right and Peter was wrong. See Galatians 2.
Galatians 2 is written by Paul, so of course he is going to say that. And Something strange was going on here in regards to the Paul's relationship with some of the original Apostles.
@Cap but I am saying that I believe Paul has a message to declare that came from Christ, no different than can be done TODAY for someone that God chooses to use to share His message TODAY.
@cnystrom I do not see the argument here. Of course the message can be shared today. It is being shared today by Christians all around the globe. From the pulpit to missionaries in far off lands. What has that to do with Paul's apostleship?
Misunderstanding here. Yes. of course the message that Paul proclaimed is being shared today. No argument from me. A very important message I might add.
@Cap But if Paul is elevated to 'A'psotle then that leaves little room to accept an understanding that God can use a man today to send a message.
@cnystrom Unless....UNLESS...you are saying we can come up with some sort of new Gospel, some sort of new revelation. Something not found in the Bible. Something delivered by Angels or on golden plates perhaps? What are you suggesting? Who are the candidates? What is this new message? Put in on the table and let us consider it.Again, there is no argument that God can. Indeed God can do anything.The more important question is did God, and is God doing this? If the answer is yes, than we need to see who and when to properly consider it. No one has, yet, stepped forward with specifics.
And this is where we have come. No one said there was a new message, either from Angels or Gold Plates. There are no new 'A'postles. The only thing that was said, or implied, was that just as God revealed Himself to Paul after the ascension, that I believe (read I believe and you don't have to) he can do the same today if He has a message that would help someone on their path to a greater relationship with Him. I have wept at a message I knew that came straight form God through a man to me, so I know perfectly well that God revealed something to him, for me and who knows who else. And nope, he was not an 'A'postle.
At some point, in this thread or another, a quesiton was asked about anointed singers. Then it further developed into a discussion about the offices of the church. Within that discussion a statement was made that Paul was one of the Apostles. My interpretation was it was a statement saying that Paul was one of the 12 Apostles that actually operated under the ministries of the Son of God while He was on Earth. Within the context of someone being anointed to sing reference was made about anointed messengers, apostles (apostates to some), being able to share a message from God in the present day. The only reference I was trying to make was that there are no Apostles today (served on earth with Christ) BUT since Paul received his message, a commentary about the Good News, AFTER the Death and resurrection of the Son of God, the same thing could be done today. But only as a commentary, with no new revelations. An anointed preacher can receive a message from the Holy Spirit today just as Paul did, and John, after the Ascension. No one is capable of receiving a message directly (physically) from Christ. But there are those who can see or hear visions or dreams from the Holy Spirit for the edification of the body, or even individuals. Just like Paul. Paul is no more special than any believer that God chooses to reveal Himself too, accept that he happened to have what he said put down in words and recorded in the Bible.
If I come to your house and ask for directions to grandma's house and you tell them to me then I have heard directly from you how to get there. If I see a flash of light and somewhere in my mind I hear directions to get to grandma's house then it could either be directions I have heard from somewhere else, or I made it up. The test will be in the verification. No doubt those who learned of the directions first hand will verify that I know what I am talking about. I may know of a shortcut when I understand the complete directions, but still they must match the overall directions I received to get me to the right place.
Paul was a human and he made a lot of mistakes in his interruptions of the directions he received. If he had figured it out and the message he received was clear then why did he argue with so many people. Why was it different than what the other Apostles received? Nevertheless, the original Apostles found that his message was for the most part valid and,
2 Peter 3:15-17 KJV
[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 (writings), unto their own destruction. [17] 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.
The word 'scripture' here could very well be a group of letters already written and therefore the word 'writings' could have been used. And since the 'scriptures' hadn't quite been put together collectively at this time, I go with the idea of of letters. So, yes, Paul's writings were becoming as important as the Gospels, and other writings, but they had not yet become 'scripture'.
As far as Luke is concerned, he traveled and became friends with Paul, so what he wrote was influenced by Paul. Luke was only a witness to Paul's life, AFTER the Damascus road.
@Cap Paul had disagreements with the Apostles. Odd.
@cnystrom Indeed. In fact that is part of Paul's argument that he is not a lessor apostle, because he contended against Peter to his face, and he was right and Peter was wrong. See Galatians 2.
Galatians 2 is written by Paul, so of course he is going to say that. And Something strange was going on here in regards to the Paul's relationship with some of the original Apostles.
@Cap but I am saying that I believe Paul has a message to declare that came from Christ, no different than can be done TODAY for someone that God chooses to use to share His message TODAY.
@cnystrom I do not see the argument here. Of course the message can be shared today. It is being shared today by Christians all around the globe. From the pulpit to missionaries in far off lands. What has that to do with Paul's apostleship?
Misunderstanding here. Yes. of course the message that Paul proclaimed is being shared today. No argument from me. A very important message I might add.
@Cap But if Paul is elevated to 'A'psotle then that leaves little room to accept an understanding that God can use a man today to send a message.
@cnystrom Unless....UNLESS...you are saying we can come up with some sort of new Gospel, some sort of new revelation. Something not found in the Bible. Something delivered by Angels or on golden plates perhaps? What are you suggesting? Who are the candidates? What is this new message? Put in on the table and let us consider it.Again, there is no argument that God can. Indeed God can do anything.The more important question is did God, and is God doing this? If the answer is yes, than we need to see who and when to properly consider it. No one has, yet, stepped forward with specifics.
And this is where we have come. No one said there was a new message, either from Angels or Gold Plates. There are no new 'A'postles. The only thing that was said, or implied, was that just as God revealed Himself to Paul after the ascension, that I believe (read I believe and you don't have to) he can do the same today if He has a message that would help someone on their path to a greater relationship with Him. I have wept at a message I knew that came straight form God through a man to me, so I know perfectly well that God revealed something to him, for me and who knows who else. And nope, he was not an 'A'postle.
I've been watching this because this is a point of view that I had only recently heard about from someone outside of the forum and was wondering what the evidence is for the understanding the Paul was not and Apostle.
I do have a question though. So it sounds like your saying that Paul exaggerated or mislead in Galatians 2. Or that the possibility is there for him to have done so. Am I understanding that correctly?
C
Cap
Guest
When the idea comes up that Paul was not a Apostle people quickly jump to, it's a claim that he is a False Apostle. There my by some who view him that way. But I don't hold that view. I don't believe he was exaggerating or making things up. I believe he was preaching a message that he received in his spirit and as time went by the fruit of his teaching was good. We today eat that fruit.
I don't believe him claiming to 'see' the Savior in a vision makes him one of the twelve, anymore than it does Stephen. But there are things that make me wonder how far all that really goes.
Galatians 2
6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.
Pretty arrogant talk here.
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
Aggressive talk to one who had seen Christ first hand, and even he himself (Paul) being responsible for killing Christians. (Why was Paul never stoned for his acts of murder?)
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
The way an Apostle seemingly stated in Mathew would deal with the situation and the way Paul did are two different things.
Anyway to answer you quesiton, I don't think Paul is a false apostle. Exaggerating may or may not be the term. I believe he was struggling in his message to try and understand his mission. But, for the most part I think he got a majority of it right and I thank God I have his words to read.
And again, the reason this is all important to me is that if God can reveal a message to an ordinary man (in his spirit) after the ascension, then he can do it today.
