Christians say the darnedest things!

[brody196]

The letters that Paul wrote are the word of God.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And how do we know that they are the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
How do we know if anything is the word of God?

A very good question. Care to opine?

I believe that God's word is his message. What do you believe?

brody 196 wrote:
Paul's letters were written under apostolic authority given by Jesus Himself, who was "God in flesh". Jesus said "Jhn 13:20 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."

Does apostolic authority imply infallibility? Should the statement in John be construed as a blanket endorsement for every statement and/or action by his emissary? Are we to imagine that Paul was so impeccable as "God in the flesh"?

The answer to all three questions are "no". But you have yet to show where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine. If Jesus gave Paul instructions to give the church, and I believe He did, then Paul gave God's word to the church.

brody196 wrote:
I believe that the letters Paul wrote to churches and individuals had God's message for them.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Lots of people believe lots of things. So?

brody196 wrote:
But I am giving arguments, so does that count for anything?

Arguments count variously, depending upon the quality of the argument. But I'm not keeping a tally.

Neither am I.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Even if we were to grant that Paul's letters had G-d's message in them, does this make the entirety of their contents the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
Im confused, What is God's message, if it isn't God's word?

There is a distinction between G-d’s message and G-d’s word. Putatively, good preachers bring G-d’s message to their people every Sunday. But should their homiletics be identified as the word of G-d? An effective sermon may convey G-d’s message to people, while still containing a percentage of error and imprudence.

How then can you trust anything that any "inspired" writer wrote? Forgive the expression, but you have "shot yourself in the theological foot". The same argument can be made against the very writers you believe in. I am not saying that every thee and thou that Paul wrote was God standing there speaking, but I am affirming that Paul was inspired of God to give the message that he gave. I think I am starting to see your argument. Here is a breakdown, correct me if I am wrong. Here is an example of God's word from your standpoint:

The epistle of Kaufmann

God Says "Eat your Wheaties"-The phrase "God says" is not God's word, but what man wrote to tell you what God says.

Is this a fair assessment of what you are arguing?

brody196 wrote:
Also, Paul's letters were often personal, so that accounts for the salutations and such.

This sort of thing is not limited to Paul’s letters. Should every incidental detail of a scriptural document be identified as the word of G-d? Each salutation, each historical remembrance, each piece of rhetoric, each comment as to date or incidence of travel?

I say it is all part of God's message. The historical stuff and travel stories all paint a very personal picture, and give the scriptures a familiar feel. If the bible was written in a manner like "Do this and don't do that", with no kind of human element, do you think it would be more relevant?

brody196 wrote:
And the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Really? Moses? David? Ezekiel? Mark? Or do you mean some of the other writers of scripture acknowledged his authority?

brody196 wrote:
Moses, David and Ezekiel all recognized the authority of Christ, who personally sent Paul.

Here we run into a number of assumptions. I won’t identify every one, but they include: (1) that Moses, David , and Ezekiel would have recognized Jesus of Nazareth as having authority; (2) that Jesus personally sent Paul to do anything whatever; and (3) that Moses, David, and Ezekiel would then have acknowledged Paul’s authority.

But the point here is simple. Moses, David, and Ezekiel were dead at the time of Paul’s activities. They could not have acknowledged the existence of a bluebird, much less his putative authority. So “the other writers of scripture” did not acknowledge Paul’s authority. Most could not have, being dead.

Wrong. The scripture teaches that the OT writers all spoke of Christ. The NT writers acknowledge this, and Moses and Elijah both appeared to Christ on the mount. David spoke of Christ according to Peter "Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: " As a believer in the NT, I also recognize that Jesus is God, and therefore was identified in the OT as such.

Too many Christians speak in these sloppy ways. What does it matter? Well, rhetorically there is a significant punch to “the other writers of scripture acknowledged such-and-such,” as compared to “some other writers of scripture acknowledged such-and-such,” which would be a more fair explanation of things. Speaking the first way is not only sloppy; it is not using an honest hin, as it were. It invokes a comprehensive measure of support that simply does not exist.

As shown above, I was absolutely right in speaking the way I did.

Furthermore, speaking the first way glosses over the possibility that other writers of scripture (whose opinions of Paul are not recorded, some for obvious reason) might not have been inclined to endorse Paul or his comments. A single sloppy assertion, then, has closed the door to an important avenue of consideration.

Concern for truth demands greater sensitivity and care.

Jesus is the truth. I know that you reject this, but that does not invalidate the affirmation of the NT. Truth is not found in legalistic rituals and such, it is found in a person.

brody196 wrote:
And are you seriously suggesting that some of the scripture writers would have rejected Paul?

Yes – in part if not in whole. It is feasible that some writers from the “Old Testament” would have found some of Paul’s ideas to be outlandish. Some might have also found him to be less than compelling; in some “Old Testament” contexts, there was no shortage of untrustworthy mystics, sophists, and/or wonderworkers.

I disagree. Jesus said "Jhn 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. Therefore, if Jesus sent Paul, then I am sure that Moses would have recognized his authority.



Let us get down to brass tacks. Where in Paul’s letters does Paul himself identify his comment(s) as the word of G-d? And where in Paul’s letters does Paul himself identify his comment(s) as the message of G-d?

Ok. 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (KJV)

Need more?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And on what basis do we regard this quotation as an entirely reliable comment?

brody196 wrote:
So you reject Peter also?

I'm Jewish, so I don’t fawn over these people. But my comment engages the quotation.

So were the Apostles and Jesus.

We may brush past the matter of whether 2 Peter as a whole is rightly canonical – an issue which you might be aware of. Like Paul’s putative authority does not necessarily validate every scintilla of his letters, so also Peter’s putative authority would not necessarily validate every scintilla of his letters.

Let us take an “Old Testament” example. David holds G-d-given authority, or so the story goes. Does this mean that every pronouncement and action by David is trustworthy?

Nope. But we sure do learn a ton by reading of David's mistakes. So we see that God's message included telling us of the life of imperfect people. Or do you only accept the parts of the OT where it says "thus saith the Lord"?..I am having trouble seeing where you are coming from again. Paul also argued this way. He says to the Corinthians "1Cr 10:11 Now all [fn] these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Paul makes a strong assertion here, Israels shortcomings were written for the churches benefit. So Paul is arguing that the written word of the OT was God's way of warning and instructing the NT church.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
On what basis do we regard "Scriptures" as being equivalent to the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
Seeing as "scripture" is God's message written down, I think we can safely assume that scripture is God's word.

More assumption here. I refer back to my discussion above concerning G-d’s message and G-d’s word. The question is whether scripture is G-d’s message, contains G-d’s message, and/or conveys G-d’s message – and to what extent(s).

No baseless assumptions, I gave you in scripture where I draw my assumptions from.

[kaufmannphillips]

brody196 wrote:
The letters that Paul wrote are the word of God.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And how do we know that they are the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
How do we know if anything is the word of God?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
A very good question. Care to opine?

brody196 wrote:
I believe that God's word is his message. What do you believe?

Once again a statement of belief. Beliefs are a dime a dozen. So what if you believe this or I believe that?

Why not answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?"? After all, you posed it!

brody 196 wrote:
Paul's letters were written under apostolic authority given by Jesus Himself, who was "God in flesh". Jesus said "Jhn 13:20 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Does apostolic authority imply infallibility? Should the statement in John be construed as a blanket endorsement for every statement and/or action by his emissary? Are we to imagine that Paul was so impeccable as "God in the flesh"?

brody196 wrote:
The answer to all three questions are "no". But you have yet to show where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine. If Jesus gave Paul instructions to give the church, and I believe He did, then Paul gave God's word to the church.

(a) It is not necessary to show where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine. I could hand you a manual to my ’67 Chevy, and if nothing in it were out of line with NT doctrine, this would not make it the word of G-d.

(b) It is clear from Paul himself that not every word of his letters is an instruction given from the Lord. You may have anticipated already my reference to I Corinthians 7:12ff. & 25ff. In the course of his ministries, Paul probably had hundreds if not thousands of occasions where he spoke on various topics. As a leader, his say would have been sought on numerous issues. Are we to imagine that in every case his comments were the word of G-d? Or should we imagine, in light of I Corinthians 7, that at times he spoke according to his own understanding?

We need not berate Paul merely for tendering his own opinion. Sometimes a leader may have to lead even when he does not know the mind of G-d. But in the absence of a specific claim to be imparting the word of G-d, should we assume that certain comments are more than his own?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
There is a distinction between G-d’s message and G-d’s word. Putatively, good preachers bring G-d’s message to their people every Sunday. But should their homiletics identified as the word of G-d? An effective sermon may convey G-d’s message to people, while still containing a percentage of error and imprudence.

brody196 wrote:
How then can you trust anything that any "inspired" writer wrote? Forgive the expression, but you have "shot yourself in the theological foot". The same argument can be made against the very writers you believe in.

I have not shot myself in the theological foot, because my theological feet are not where you imagine them to be.

brody196 wrote:
I think I am starting to see your argument. Here is a breakdown, correct me if I am wrong. Here is an example of God's word from your standpoint:

The epistle of Kaufmann

God Says "Eat your Wheaties"-The phrase "God says" is not God's word, but what man wrote to tell you what God says.

Is this a fair assessment of what you are arguing?

But rather more so:

The second epistle to the congregation of Chelm

See what large letters I type with my own hand.

When Shoshanah went down the cereal aisle, she reached out her hand for the generic wheat flakes; for lo, they were a bargain. But when she reached for these flakes, verily there was a pang in her breast. The Lord of heaven had sent his angel to put his hand upon her, that she might not buy those generic flakes. And lo, when Shoshanah reached for the wheat flakes that were under the banner of General Mills, the angel withdrew his hand from her breast, and she felt peace.

When Shoshanah awoke in the morning, her eyes discovered that a Rolls Royce Silver Phantom VI had broken down in front of her house. Bedecking herself quickly but modestly, she rushed from her door to offer succor to the occupant of the vehicle. She allowed the occupant to use her wireless phone, and finding that he had not yet broken his fast, she brought to him a hefty bowl of the bannered wheat flakes. As the towing company carried the Phantom VI and its occupant away, Shoshanah gave thanks that she had not had to offer the occupant generic flakes. For surely G-d has said, “When you seek to honor a person, try not to be cheap about it.”

Give my love to Moishe and his gentle ocelot. Tell Yeshayahu to get his act together. I’m coming at the end of the month, so please pick the green M&Ms out of the candy bowl.

Now, what in this epistle is the word of G-d? Everything? Nothing? But let us ask, then, what in this epistle claims to be the word of G-d? Only part of the last sentence of the second paragraph. If we declare that any other part of the epistle is the word of G-d, we do so without the imprimatur of the epistle itself.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Should every incidental detail of a scriptural document be identified as the word of G-d? Each salutation, each historical remembrance, each piece of rhetoric, each comment as to date or incidence of travel?

brody196 wrote:
I say it is all part of God's message. The historical stuff and travel stories all paint a very personal picture, and give the scriptures a familiar feel. If the bible was written in a manner like "Do this and don't do that", with no kind of human element, do you think it would be more relevant?

You say it is all part of G-d’s message. Based upon what? Might not the humans who conveyed the message have supplied their own human elements to make their product more user-friendly?

brody196 wrote:
And the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Really? Moses? David? Ezekiel? Mark? Or do you mean some of the other writers of scripture acknowledged his authority?

brody196 wrote:
Moses, David and Ezekiel all recognized the authority of Christ, who personally sent Paul.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Here we run into a number of assumptions. I won’t identify every one, but they include: (1) that Moses, David , and Ezekiel would have recognized Jesus of Nazareth as having authority; (2) that Jesus personally sent Paul to do anything whatever; and (3) that Moses, David, and Ezekiel would then have acknowledged Paul’s authority.

But the point here is simple. Moses, David, and Ezekiel were dead at the time of Paul’s activities. They could not have acknowledged the existence of a bluebird, much less his putative authority. So “the other writers of scripture” did not acknowledge Paul’s authority. Most could not have, being dead.

brody196 wrote:
Wrong. The scripture teaches that the OT writers all spoke of Christ. The NT writers acknowledge this, and Moses and Elijah both appeared to Christ on the mount. David spoke of Christ according to Peter "Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: " As a believer in the NT, I also recognize that Jesus is God, and therefore was identified in the OT as such.

Perhaps you do not watch enough procedural dramas. If Susan tells Detective Friday that Harold endorsed the highway project, who is Detective Friday’s source? Not Harold! When the NT states that the OT writers spoke of Christ, this tells us what NT writers spoke, not what the OT writers spoke.

Just because certain OT writers mention an anointed figure does not mean that they would have acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth to be that figure. And a claim one way or the other is quite simply speculative, for they were long dead by his time. (Incidentally, a certain context would support the idea that Moses and Elijah appearing on the mount was a vision, q.v., Matthew 17:9.)

Beyond this, please endeavor to produce a verse from even one OT writer that clearly indicates the writer’s acknowledgment of Paul’s authority. Not just a vague acknowledgment of an anointed person’s agents, which could apply to anybody – rather, a verse that clearly acknowledges Paul. And if you manage to do this, I welcome you to do the same for every OT writer. When you have done so, then you can turn to the NT writers. When you are done, then you will have a basis for stating that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Too many Christians speak in these sloppy ways. What does it matter? Well, rhetorically there is a significant punch to “the other writers of scripture acknowledged such-and-such,” as compared to “some other writers of scripture acknowledged such-and-such,” which would be a more fair explanation of things. Speaking the first way is not only sloppy; it is not using an honest hin, as it were. It invokes a comprehensive measure of support that simply does not exist.

brody196 wrote:
As shown above, I was absolutely right in speaking the way I did.

“Shown”? Hardly. You asserted the OT writers spoke of Christ. You did not even mention Paul.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Furthermore, speaking the first way glosses over the possibility that other writers of scripture (whose opinions of Paul are not recorded, some for obvious reason) might not have been inclined to endorse Paul or his comments. A single sloppy assertion, then, has closed the door to an important avenue of consideration.

Concern for truth demands greater sensitivity and care.

brody196 wrote:
Jesus is the truth. I know that you reject this, but that does not invalidate the affirmation of the NT. Truth is not found in legalistic rituals and such, it is found in a person.

(a) Your sloppiness with truth and handling of evidence thus far does not recommend you as an diagnostician of truth.

(b) If truth is not found in legalistic rituals, have you invalidated the affirmation of the OT? (Check out Psalm 119:142 & 151.)

brody196 wrote:
And are you seriously suggesting that some of the scripture writers would have rejected Paul?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Yes – in part if not in whole. It is feasible that some writers from the “Old Testament” would have found some of Paul’s ideas to be outlandish. Some might have also found him to be less than compelling; in some “Old Testament” contexts, there was no shortage of untrustworthy mystics, sophists, and/or wonderworkers.

brody196 wrote:
I disagree. Jesus said "Jhn 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. Therefore, if Jesus sent Paul, then I am sure that Moses would have recognized his authority.

John 5:46 tells us what John says, not what Moses wrote. It also does not tell us that Jesus sent Paul, nor that Moses would recognize that Jesus sent Paul.

But even if we were to imagine that Moses was alive and willing to acknowledge Paul’s authority (meshugaas), Moses still could reject some of what Paul taught. As you have acknowledged, Paul’s (putative) apostolic authority was not a blank check.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Let us get down to brass tacks. Where in Paul’s letters does Paul himself identify his comment(s) as the word of G-d? And where in Paul’s letters does Paul himself identify his comment(s) as the message of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
Ok. 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (KJV)

Need more?

Rather.

In your first quote, Paul asserts that his audience received the word of G-d from him. But your quote does not identify what this word of G-d was, specifically. Everything Paul said? That might seem a bit much. (Really? Even “Please pass the hummus”?)

In your second quote, we have another vague claim. Are we to construe this to apply to Paul’s every word? And if not, how are we to know exactly which comments are covered by this claim, and which are not?

So keep the passages coming. Let’s have some crystal-clear identification of specific comments as the word and/or message of G-d. And then let’s turn and see what material in Paul’s letters has not been covered by these specific claims.

brody196 wrote:
So you reject Peter also?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I'm Jewish, so I don’t fawn over these people. But my comment engages the quotation.

brody196:
So were the Apostles and Jesus.

(a) Aren’t they still Jewish, by your imagination?

(b) And Joseph Smith and Oral Roberts were Christians. So?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Let us take an “Old Testament” example. David holds G-d-given authority, or so the story goes. Does this mean that every pronouncement and action by David is trustworthy?

brody196 wrote:
Nope. But we sure do learn a ton by reading of David's mistakes. So we see that God's message included telling us of the life of imperfect people. Or do you only accept the parts of the OT where it says "thus saith the Lord"?..I am having trouble seeing where you are coming from again. Paul also argued this way. He says to the Corinthians "1Cr 10:11 Now all [fn] these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Paul makes a strong assertion here, Israels shortcomings were written for the churches benefit. So Paul is arguing that the written word of the OT was God's way of warning and instructing the NT church.

Outside of the claim “Thus saith the Lord,” where do we come off saying “thus saith the Lord”? There are plenty of worthwhile examples to be found in historical narratives, even from up to the very near past. Are these all to be considered the word of G-d?

I will reiterate: The question is whether scripture is G-d’s message, contains G-d’s message, and/or conveys G-d’s message – and to what extent(s).

[brody196]

brody196 wrote:
I believe that God's word is his message. What do you believe?

Once again a statement of belief. Beliefs are a dime a dozen. So what if you believe this or I believe that?

Why not answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?"? After all, you posed it!

I did answer! And you have failed to answer the question I posed to you. Just to answer again in a different way, I believe that God's word is the written word contained in the OT and the NT. Now you answer.

brody196 wrote:
The answer to all three questions are "no". But you have yet to show where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine. If Jesus gave Paul instructions to give the church, and I believe He did, then Paul gave God's word to the church.

(a) It is not necessary to show where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine. I could hand you a manual to my ’67 Chevy, and if nothing in it were out of line with NT doctrine, this would not make it the word of G-d.

Apples and oranges. The issue is whether or not Paul wrote scripture, which is the word of God. Please stay on course.

(b) It is clear from Paul himself that not every word of his letters is an instruction given from the Lord. You may have anticipated already my reference to I Corinthians 7:12ff. & 25ff.

I did expect it, and must say that it does not help your case one bit. Why? Because Paul acknowledged that he had received no commandment of the Lord on that particular issue, which implies that everything else he said to the Corinthians had a seal of approval from God, thus making it God's message to them. Also note what Paul says in the same chapter "1Cr 7:25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy [has made] trustworthy. .

Seeing that you reject Paul, you probably wouldn't trust him either way.

In the course of his ministries, Paul probably had hundreds if not thousands of occasions where he spoke on various topics. As a leader, his say would have been sought on numerous issues. Are we to imagine that in every case his comments were the word of G-d? Or should we imagine, in light of I Corinthians 7, that at times he spoke according to his own understanding?

Both. But let me ask, are you presupposing that Paul sometime did speak the word of God given directly to him? If so, what did Paul speak that was good, and what did he speak according to his own understanding?

We need not berate Paul merely for tendering his own opinion. Sometimes a leader may have to lead even when he does not know the mind of G-d. But in the absence of a specific claim to be imparting the word of G-d, should we assume that certain comments are more than his own?

Berate Paul? I believe what he wrote. Let me ask you, do you believe anything Paul wrote?

brody196 wrote:
How then can you trust anything that any "inspired" writer wrote? Forgive the expression, but you have "shot yourself in the theological foot". The same argument can be made against the very writers you believe in.

I have not shot myself in the theological foot, because my theological feet are not where you imagine them to be.[/quote]

Maybe if you would explain it, I could better understand your position. And you did not address my argument. How can we believe any writer is from God using your standards?

brody196 wrote:
I think I am starting to see your argument. Here is a breakdown, correct me if I am wrong. Here is an example of God's word from your standpoint:

The epistle of Kaufmann

God Says "Eat your Wheaties"-The phrase "God says" is not God's word, but what man wrote to tell you what God says.

Is this a fair assessment of what you are arguing?

But rather more so:

The second epistle to the congregation of Chelm

See what large letters I type with my own hand.

When Shoshanah went down the cereal aisle, she reached out her hand for the generic wheat flakes; for lo, they were a bargain. But when she reached for these flakes, verily there was a pang in her breast. The Lord of heaven had sent his angel to put his hand upon her, that she might not buy those generic flakes. And lo, when Shoshanah reached for the wheat flakes that were under the banner of General Mills, the angel withdrew his hand from her breast, and she felt peace.

When Shoshanah awoke in the morning, her eyes discovered that a Rolls Royce Silver Phantom VI had broken down in front of her house. Bedecking herself quickly but modestly, she rushed from her door to offer succor to the occupant of the vehicle. She allowed the occupant to use her wireless phone, and finding that he had not yet broken his fast, she brought to him a hefty bowl of the bannered wheat flakes. As the towing company carried the Phantom VI and its occupant away, Shoshanah gave thanks that she had not had to offer the occupant generic flakes. For surely G-d has said, “When you seek to honor a person, try not to be cheap about it.”

Give my love to Moishe and his gentle ocelot. Tell Yeshayahu to get his act together. I’m coming at the end of the month, so please pick the green M&Ms out of the candy bowl.

Now, what in this epistle is the word of G-d? Everything? Nothing? But let us ask, then, what in this epistle claims to be the word of G-d? Only part of the last sentence of the second paragraph. If we declare that any other part of the epistle is the word of G-d, we do so without the imprimatur of the epistle itself.[/quote]

So you make a distinction between the message of God, and the words? That was exactly what I said! I can't help but recall the words of Paul when he said "1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 1Ti 6:4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions,...

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Should every incidental detail of a scriptural document be identified as the word of G-d? Each salutation, each historical remembrance, each piece of rhetoric, each comment as to date or incidence of travel?

brody196 wrote:
I say it is all part of God's message. The historical stuff and travel stories all paint a very personal picture, and give the scriptures a familiar feel. If the bible was written in a manner like "Do this and don't do that", with no kind of human element, do you think it would be more relevant?

You say it is all part of G-d’s message. Based upon what? Might not the humans who conveyed the message have supplied their own human elements to make their product more user-friendly?

That still makes it the word of God! If God told me to write a book on the understanding that He gave me on guitar playing, I would do so in my own writing style(kindergarten sloppy stuff with crayons), but it would still be God's message for whoever I wrote it to.

brody196 wrote:
Wrong. The scripture teaches that the OT writers all spoke of Christ. The NT writers acknowledge this, and Moses and Elijah both appeared to Christ on the mount. David spoke of Christ according to Peter "Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: " As a believer in the NT, I also recognize that Jesus is God, and therefore was identified in the OT as such.

Perhaps you do not watch enough procedural dramas. If Susan tells Detective Friday that Harold endorsed the highway project, who is Detective Friday’s source? Not Harold! When the NT states that the OT writers spoke of Christ, this tells us what NT writers spoke, not what the OT writers spoke.[/quote]

Here we see where both of our assumptions lay. You assume that the NT writers were either liars, or severely deluded, and I assume they were truth tellers and honest men. When the NT writers quoted the OT and applied it to Christ, I believe them. You don't. So my arguments using the NT are pointless really...

Just because certain OT writers mention an anointed figure does not mean that they would have acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth to be that figure. And a claim one way or the other is quite simply speculative, for they were long dead by his time. (Incidentally, a certain context would support the idea that Moses and Elijah appearing on the mount was a vision, q.v., Matthew 17:9.)

I believe Jesus was who he said he was. And He said "Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." Do you believe Moses?

Beyond this, please endeavor to produce a verse from even one OT writer that clearly indicates the writer’s acknowledgment of Paul’s authority. Not just a vague acknowledgment of an anointed person’s agents, which could apply to anybody – rather, a verse that clearly acknowledges Paul. And if you manage to do this, I welcome you to do the same for every OT writer. When you have done so, then you can turn to the NT writers. When you are done, then you will have a basis for stating that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.”

No need to. The faithful remnant of the OT recognized the Messiah, and Paul's authority came from the Messiah Himself, so the burden to prove Paul was not approved falls on you. But you are going to have a hard time proving anything, seeing you reject the NT.

brody196 wrote:
As shown above, I was absolutely right in speaking the way I did.

“Shown”? Hardly. You asserted the OT writers spoke of Christ. You did not even mention Paul.[/quote]

Your just saying stuff now. Follow me on this so I can clear it up for you. The OT writers spoke of a coming Messiah, that Anointed One was Christ. The Christ chose men to deliver His gospel to the world. One of those chosen people was Paul.

Are you seriously suggesting that the OT writers should have named all the names of the apostles before we could rightfully believe them?

brody196 wrote:
Jesus is the truth. I know that you reject this, but that does not invalidate the affirmation of the NT. Truth is not found in legalistic rituals and such, it is found in a person.

(a) Your sloppiness with truth and handling of evidence thus far does not recommend you as an diagnostician of truth.[/quote]

The readers can note who is being sloppy or not. You have not dealt with anything thus far, and can hardly be a "diagnostician of truth", seeing you reject the truth that is found in Jesus.

(b) If truth is not found in legalistic rituals, have you invalidated the affirmation of the OT? (Check out Psalm 119:142 & 151.)

Nope. I contend that Christ fulfilled the law and its requirements.

brody196 wrote:
I disagree. Jesus said "Jhn 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. Therefore, if Jesus sent Paul, then I am sure that Moses would have recognized his authority.

John 5:46 tells us what John says, not what Moses wrote. It also does not tell us that Jesus sent Paul, nor that Moses would recognize that Jesus sent Paul.[/quote]

So John was confused? LOL....Where do you get this stuff?

But even if we were to imagine that Moses was alive and willing to acknowledge Paul’s authority (meshugaas), Moses still could reject some of what Paul taught. As you have acknowledged, Paul’s (putative) apostolic authority was not a blank check.

So Moses would reject the Messiahs authority?..

brody196 wrote:
Ok. 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (KJV)

Need more?

Rather.

In your first quote, Paul asserts that his audience received the word of G-d from him. But your quote does not identify what this word of G-d was, specifically. Everything Paul said? That might seem a bit much. (Really? Even “Please pass the hummus”?)

In your second quote, we have another vague claim. Are we to construe this to apply to Paul’s every word? And if not, how are we to know exactly which comments are covered by this claim, and which are not?

So keep the passages coming. Let’s have some crystal-clear identification of specific comments as the word and/or message of G-d. And then let’s turn and see what material in Paul’s letters has not been covered by these specific claims.

So lets see, you ask for quotes from Paul, and I gave them to you, now you want to quibble over what Paul was talking about?

brody196:
So were the Apostles and Jesus.

(a) Aren’t they still Jewish, by your imagination?

(b) And Joseph Smith and Oral Roberts were Christians. So?[/quote]

Your just saying stuff again....

brody196 wrote:
Nope. But we sure do learn a ton by reading of David's mistakes. So we see that God's message included telling us of the life of imperfect people. Or do you only accept the parts of the OT where it says "thus saith the Lord"?..I am having trouble seeing where you are coming from again. Paul also argued this way. He says to the Corinthians "1Cr 10:11 Now all [fn] these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Paul makes a strong assertion here, Israels shortcomings were written for the churches benefit. So Paul is arguing that the written word of the OT was God's way of warning and instructing the NT church.

Outside of the claim “Thus saith the Lord,” where do we come off saying “thus saith the Lord”? There are plenty of worthwhile examples to be found in historical narratives, even from up to the very near past. Are these all to be considered the word of G-d?

I will reiterate: The question is whether scripture is G-d’s message, contains G-d’s message, and/or conveys G-d’s message – and to what extent(s).[/quote]

God's word and his message all convey the same thing...God's thoughts on a certain matter.

[Sean]

brody196 wrote:
The letters that Paul wrote are the word of God.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And how do we know that they are the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
How do we know if anything is the word of God?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
A very good question. Care to opine?

Most matters we face in life are a matter of faith to one extent or another. One who accepts Jesus as the promised Messiah accepts those He has sent. Those who reject the Messiah reject those whom He has sent. Nearly all arguments used against the apostles can also be used against the OT writings as well.

By the way, why do you use the "word" "G-d"? If God = G-d then why not use a word that people understand (God) instead of a non-word that apparently equals the word you are trying not to use? Are you really avoiding anything with the "-" or just following the traditions of others? Is this not a matter of faith as well? But what is this based on?

[kaufmannphillips]

Short post first. Thus, Sean before brody196...

Sean wrote:
Nearly all arguments used against the apostles can also be used against the OT writings as well.

The same principles of analysis should be applied to both.

Sean wrote:
By the way, why do you use the "word" "G-d"? If God = G-d then why not use a word that people understand (God) instead of a non-word that apparently equals the word you are trying not to use? Are you really avoiding anything with the "-" or just following the traditions of others? Is this not a matter of faith as well? But what is this based on?

(a) I don't have a vendetta against tradition. I know some Christians get their Speedos in a twist over it, but most are naive in doing so. Their own Christian lives are shot through with tradition that they flow along with and/or even cling to - they're just too blind to recognize it. But tradition is an asset, to be stewarded and not squandered.

(b) Some Jewish tradition (it is not a universal practice) uses "G-d" to avoid putting the word "God" upon media where it might be mistreated (say, thrown into garbage or stepped upon). This is an opportunity to practically express reverence.

Myself, I don't terrifically favor the word "God." In our culture, it carries with it a raftload of Christian and popular assumptions that are not helpful. And etymologically, it may carry an unsavory pagan taint, though this is debatable.

And yet, getting around "God" in the conversation of our culture is rather difficult. If I use "the Lord," this is potentially confusing, because Christians apply this to Jesus as well as the Father. "The Father" is not really satisfactory: although the imagery of divine fatherhood has precedent in Jewish tradition, it is not a primary image, and it is unnecessarily evocative of Trinitarian thought; and, I myself will frequently engage G-d in a romantic sense, which does not mesh well with parental imagery. Using the tetragrammaton itself is potentially problematic, as its correct pronunciation is debatable. Among Jews, I can use Hashem/HSHM, but this is still more confusing for a general audience.

When I use "G-d," it is generally intelligible to most readers, but it introduces a measure of Jewish connotation (for those who are familiar with the practice), and it allows me to take a ritualized hair-step away from fully applying the term "God" to HSHM.

[Jason]

Sean wrote:
Nearly all arguments used against the apostles can also be used against the OT writings as well.


The same principles of analysis should be applied to both.

If I may....

Emmet, you hold that God is revealed (in a way that's significant) in small portions of Torah (with consideration given to the opinions of rabbinic writers) as well as a general trust that the Hebrew records you are reading have been recorded accurately. If your opinion is less than this, on what basis do you form opinions about God's dealings throughout history or about His nature in general? And if your view is similar to the above then can you demonstrate that the ground you are standing on is more firm than that which is under the feet of those whose records you scorn?

Brevity and wit can be advantageous in a discussion but don't overplay your hand. Transparency should be a basis of discussion if one is hoping to discover truth. The statement, "God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ" is a positive assertion, regardless of whether or not it's true. The statement, "We all have our beliefs, but yours are stupid" is pretty hard to argue against. And while the latter statement is made more eloquent by you, that's still pretty much the closest you've come to making a positive claim about anything. If God is found in the study of sociology and He is content with reverence for tradition and personal opining then I suppose you're on good ground. But if He's the kind of God who reveals Himself to the illiterate and poor (which constitutes most people throughout history) then maybe He's less interested in the former.

[Homer]

Jason,

Very well said!

Blessings, Homer

[brody196]

Sean wrote:
Nearly all arguments used against the apostles can also be used against the OT writings as well.


The same principles of analysis should be applied to both.

If I may....

Emmet, you hold that God is revealed (in a way that's significant) in small portions of Torah (with consideration given to the opinions of rabbinic writers) as well as a general trust that the Hebrew records you are reading have been recorded accurately. If your opinion is less than this, on what basis do you form opinions about God's dealings throughout history or about His nature in general? And if your view is similar to the above then can you demonstrate that the ground you are standing on is more firm than that which is under the feet of those whose records you scorn?

Brevity and wit can be advantageous in a discussion but don't overplay your hand. Transparency should be a basis of discussion if one is hoping to discover truth. The statement, "God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ" is a positive assertion, regardless of whether or not it's true. The statement, "We all have our beliefs, but yours are stupid" is pretty hard to argue against. And while the latter statement is made more eloquent by you, that's still pretty much the closest you've come to making a positive claim about anything. If God is found in the study of sociology and He is content with reverence for tradition and personal opining then I suppose you're on good ground. But if He's the kind of God who reveals Himself to the illiterate and poor (which constitutes most people throughout history) then maybe He's less interested in the former.

I agree with Homer, well done Brother!

[kaufmannphillips]

Jason wrote:
Emmet, you hold that God is revealed (in a way that's significant) in small portions of Torah (with consideration given to the opinions of rabbinic writers) as well as a general trust that the Hebrew records you are reading have been recorded accurately. If your opinion is less than this, on what basis do you form opinions about God's dealings throughout history or about His nature in general? And if your view is similar to the above then can you demonstrate that the ground you are standing on is more firm than that which is under the feet of those whose records you scorn?

Well, Jason, you may already anticipate where I'm going with this. Haven't you and I already had this sort of discussion? Be a gentleman and let brody and I have our dance.

In this sort of discussion, Christians very commonly flip at a certain point to "Well, what about you?" As you may know, I work with young children. One of the most common tactics that children employ when they are called on the carpet is to point their finger at somebody else and attempt to deflect attention.

Now, while I am willing to discuss my own perspective(s) - and have done so previously on this forum - you will understand if I prefer to brush aside the attempt at deflection and ride the original line of inquiry to ground. I will respond - for the moment - as I do to the children: This is not about somebody else. This is about you. Who are you responsible for? So think about you and answer for yourself. If you are loath to answer for yourself, then you have come to a potential moment of self-discovery.

Jason wrote:
Brevity and wit can be advantageous in a discussion but don't overplay your hand. Transparency should be a basis of discussion if one is hoping to discover truth. The statement, "God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ" is a positive assertion, regardless of whether or not it's true. The statement, "We all have our beliefs, but yours are stupid" is pretty hard to argue against. And while the latter statement is made more eloquent by you, that's still pretty much the closest you've come to making a positive claim about anything. If God is found in the study of sociology and He is content with reverence for tradition and personal opining then I suppose you're on good ground. But if He's the kind of God who reveals Himself to the illiterate and poor (which constitutes most people throughout history) then maybe He's less interested in the former.

And high-fives from the home team!! But if you’re done now, boys…

At this point in discussion with brody, I am still working on deconstruction of his perspective. This is a worthwhile endeavor, though often discomfiting and unappreciated. But when we are done, hopefully we will encounter not merely what brody thinks, but also why he thinks that way.

This is hard work, and difficult enough to do with only one flailing, resentful correspondent. So perhaps you’ll understand why I turn you my shoulder on this dance floor.

[brody196]

Well, Jason, you may already anticipate where I'm going with this. Haven't you and I already had this sort of discussion? Be a gentleman and let brody and I have our dance.

Hey Bro, this is a public forum, Jason was not out of line. I don't mind if he cares to join us.

In this sort of discussion, Christians very commonly flip at a certain point to "Well, what about you?" As you may know, I work with young children. One of the most common tactics that children employ when they are called on the carpet is to point their finger at somebody else and attempt to deflect attention.

Are you really implying childish behavior on the part of the participants here who joined the discussion? ...On a public bible forum?

Now, while I am willing to discuss my own perspective(s) - and have done so previously on this forum - you will understand if I prefer to brush aside the attempt at deflection and ride the original line of inquiry to ground. I will respond - for the moment - as I do to the children: This is not about somebody else. This is about you. Who are you responsible for? So think about you and answer for yourself. If you are loath to answer for yourself, then you have come to a potential moment of self-discovery.

Forgive me for saying this, but you seem somewhat condescending and you really have nothing to be proud of so to speak. I have answered your statements line by line, and you have not bid me the same courtesy.

And high-fives from the home team!! But if you’re done now, boys…

There is no "home team" here really. If you are referring to the Christians here who have joined the discussion, then what do you expect? This is a bible forum..

At this point in discussion with brody, I am still working on deconstruction of his perspective. This is a worthwhile endeavor, though often discomfiting and unappreciated. But when we are done, hopefully we will encounter not merely what brody thinks, but also why he thinks that way.

That is just it Bro, you have not deconstructed anything! Simply saying stuff and presenting arguments to the contrary is not refuting anything.

This is hard work, and difficult enough to do with only one flailing, resentful correspondent. So perhaps you’ll understand why I turn you my shoulder on this dance floor.

Flailing? Resentful? Are you serious?