Christians say the darnedest things!

[steve]

Emmet,

It does indeed seem disingenuous of you to express disapproval of Christians standing by a fellow Christian in a discussion of Christian beliefs. If you feel like you are alone in a den of lions (or, more likely, from your condescending point of view, in a den of mice), remember that you came in voluntarily. Don't be surprised to find mostly Christian participants in a Christian forum.

You are usually considerably more reasonable than you have shown yourself to be in your last post. I think you are undermining your own former reputation for civility and cool rationality—a reputation which, I think, is very important to you. On every thread, discussions are open to all participants. You are welcome to participate here, but you are not authorized to make new rules for our forum. You may direct your comments toward any participant you like, but you must know that everyone else has the same rights as you have here, including the right to direct their comments to you, or to critique your posts.

[kaufmannphillips]

Emmet,

It does indeed seem disingenuous of you to express disapproval of Christians standing by a fellow Christian in a discussion of Christian beliefs. If you feel like you are alone in a den of lions (or, more likely, from your condescending point of view, in a den of mice), remember that you came in voluntarily. Don't be surprised to find mostly Christian participants in a Christian forum.

You are usually considerably more reasonable than you have shown yourself to be in your last post. I think you are undermining your own former reputation for civility and cool rationality—a reputation which, I think, is very important to you. On every thread, discussions are open to all participants. You are welcome to participate here, but you are not authorized to make new rules for our forum. You may direct your comments toward any participant you like, but you must know that everyone else has the same rights as you have here, including the right to direct their comments to you, or to critique your posts.

Jason certainly has a right to post an interjection. I have a right to ask him not to cut in. Just because it's a public dance doesn't mean that I can't ask for some one-on-one time.

I am not an administrator here, so I do not speak with authority. Jason can disregard my objection. And I can ignore his further attempts at interjection.

[kaufmannphillips]

Quick to brody here:

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
Are you really implying childish behavior on the part of the participants here who joined the discussion? ...On a public bible forum?

(a) The same behavior is evident amongst adults as well. But I work with children thirty-odd hours a week, and that is where I encounter it - a lot.

(b) Joining a discussion is not childish behavior per se. And you were already attempting the "what about you" maneuver before Jason interjected with the same sort of move.

I may be up for fielding "what about you" questions - after the current line of inquiry has been finished. But I am disinclined to indulge such questions - from children or adults - when they divert from a current (and apparently unwelcome) line of inquiry.

Now, if I had posted a thread mocking a person for her idea about Pauline inspiration, then we could focus on my position. But you broached this topic. So we are engaging your stance. What I believe or do not believe is diversionary from an examination of your position.

After we have finished this first matter, go ahead and hit me up for my ideas. Or you can read my backlog of posts.

brody196 wrote:
Forgive me for saying this, but you seem somewhat condescending and you really have nothing to be proud of so to speak.

I did not open this thread with a face-palm lament over some woman’s hermeneutic. What was the caption again? Let me jog your memory: “Because expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn’t work.”

Was this really supposed to be a condescension-free thread? Or is it that you only like the flavor when you’re dishing it up?

brody196 wrote:
That is just it Bro, you have not deconstructed anything! Simply saying stuff and presenting arguments to the contrary is not refuting anything.

Deconstruction is not refutation. It is taking apart pieces, and analyzing their character and how they are put together.

You assume my purpose is to refute you. I want for you to make a close appraisal of what you think and why you think it. And part of the appraisal process is considering your thought in comparison to competing thoughts.

In the end, I may not refute you, or at least to your satisfaction. But I will be gratified if in the end you aren’t quite so cavalier about face-palming that Methodist lady because she thinks of scripture in a different way than you.

[kaufmannphillips]

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?

kaufmannphillips worte:
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!

brody196 wrote:
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.

(a) Please indulge to clarify here. Please answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?" with a statement that begins “We know if something is the word of God by...”

(b) You may be frustrated in trying to obtain a declaration of belief from me on various subjects. Belief is a rather Christian preoccupation. I do not always operate in terms of belief, even in the religious/spiritual sphere.

(c) Before I post an answer your question, I would welcome your defining what it means to “know.” Then I can respond according to your semantic.

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?

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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
Apples and oranges. The issue is whether or not Paul wrote scripture, which is the word of God. Please stay on course.

(a) Please review the thread of discourse. You will find that I simply addressed a point that you introduced. If you want me to stay on some “course” of your imagining, then don’t introduce points that you don’t want answered.

(b) You have invoked an idiom here, but to no substantial effect. The essential point is the same whether the comparison is construed as “apples to apples” or as “apples to oranges” – viz., that lack of dissonance with NT doctrine does not demonstrate a document to be the word of G-d.

(c) Actually, we field more than one issue here. On one hand, we have a question of whether or not Paul wrote scripture. On another hand, we have a question of whether or not scripture equates to the word of G-d.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
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.

Paul’s statement does not imply that that everything else he has said has G-d’s imprimatur. You have merely inferred this.

Indeed, the first time Paul makes such a clarification (in verse 10), he does so to indicate that the command is not merely his, but the Lord’s. By your reasoning, this “implies” that everything else he had said was merely his say.

The sixth epistle to the congregation of Chelm

See what bold letters I type to you with my new font package.

All dogs do not go to heaven, for some try to get there by their own works. You know – fetching slippers, barking at strangers, and not skubaloning on the carpet. All that effort shows how much they don’t love G-d. And real saints don’t vote for that political party. You know which one I’m talking about. And the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

And regarding whether or not to buy a copy of “Mulan” for the congregational library – well, G-d hasn’t told me anything specific about that. But I wouldn’t spend a shekel on anything with Eddie Murphy in it, and G-d helps me make good choices.

But you can buy that copy of “Mulan” if you want. It won’t be a sin. But I think you’ll be better off if you don’t. And I have the indwelling of the holy spirit. Just saying, you know. But not quite saying, you know. But saying as much as I can, without saying too much, you know.

And the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. And when people die, their souls refract into the second dimension, where they are preserved from entropy and are isolated from Catholics and Mormons, who are trying to solicit their prayers and get their baptisms squared away. As if water could enter the second dimension! What skubalon!

Lastly, please reprimand whoever left those green M&Ms in the candy bowl. Really – how many times do I have to write to you about that?

P.S.: Did I mention that the letter I wrote to you last month was scripture? Hope you didn’t line the birdcage with it. Guess I should’ve made a copy. The one before that was not so big a deal. Of course, it was written by me. Just saying, you know. Without quite saying, you know.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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?

brody196 wrote:
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?

You say “both.” I’m not sure if that is a clever response or a sloppy one. Are you acknowledging that sometimes Paul spoke merely according to his own fallible understanding? If so, let me forge ahead with the next question: how are we to distinguish between (a) Paul’s comments that are the word of G-d and (b) Paul’s comments that are spoken merely according to his own understanding?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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?

brody196 wrote:
Berate Paul? I believe what he wrote. Let me ask you, do you believe anything Paul wrote?

Why not directly answer the question, brody: 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? If your answer is “yes,” then please explain why we should assume so. If your answer is “no,” I would like to hear it.

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?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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:
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.

G-d’s message might be contained in this (hypothetical) book on your understanding, but such would not necessarily mean that the entirety of your book was G-d’s word or G-d’s message. Elements that you supplied could be your message, cohabiting with the word and/or message of G-d.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
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?

The assertion here is John’s, not Moses’. And Moses writing about an unnamed somebody is not the same thing as Moses acknowledging Jesus to be that somebody.

Beyond this – what do my beliefs have to do with your reasons for thinking the way you do? But none of my religious thought hinges upon believing Moses.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.”

brody196 wrote:
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.

So – you can claim that the OT writers acknowledged Paul’s authority without needing to produce a single verse from them that clearly establishes this point. And the burden of proof rests with whomever might balk at swallowing your assertion without such primary evidence.

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

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

brody196 wrote:
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?

(a) Follow this - Benjamin Franklin writes some things about a coming president. In 2012, Ralph Nader claims to be the true president of the United States, though 95% of Americans reject his claim. In 2014, a guy named Brad shows up in Guam, saying that Nader met him alone in his apartment and named him governor. brody then claims that Benjamin Franklin acknowledged Brad’s authority. And kaufmannphillips calls “skubalon.”

(b) I am not suggesting that the OT writers should have named an apostle, else they should not be believed. I am objecting to your statement that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.” We have no clear evidence from either Testament to indicate what an OT writer thought about Paul of Tarsus. Probably because no OT writer ever thought about Paul of Tarsus!

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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Your sloppiness with truth and handling of evidence thus far does not recommend you as an diagnostician of truth.

brody196 wrote:
The readers can note who is being sloppy or not.

Indeed. A casual review of this thread will illustrate relative attention to detail. Do you proofread your formatting?

brody196 wrote:
Truth is not found in legalistic rituals and such, it is found in a person.

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

brody196 wrote:
Nope. I contend that Christ fulfilled the law and its requirements.

So, if you believe that the Torah had legally-obligated ritual observances that foreshadowed Christ, then would you not say that his truth was/is found in them?

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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
So John was confused? LOL....Where do you get this stuff?

I am not looking to divert into a discussion of the canonicity of John here, though it is a worthwhile topic. I have dealt with verse 46 above in a fashion sufficient to our line of discussion: “Moses writing about an unnamed somebody is not the same thing as Moses acknowledging Jesus to be that somebody.”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

brody196 wrote:
So Moses would reject the Messiahs authority?

Moses was not infallible even when he was alive, so he could reject a true messiah, as well as a false one.

But speculation as to what Moses would or would not do is immaterial. You did not claim that “the other writers of scripture would have acknowledged Paul's authority.” You claimed that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.” So the bottom line is about what they did, not what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done.

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?

kaufmannphillips worte:
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 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?

I don’t want to quibble over it. I want you to recognize that your quotes don’t necessarily connote what you might like them to.

brody196 wrote:
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:
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 wrote:
God's word and his message all convey the same thing...God's thoughts on a certain matter.

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]

(a) The same behavior is evident amongst adults as well. But I work with children thirty-odd hours a week, and that is where I encounter it - a lot.

(b) Joining a discussion is not childish behavior per se. And you were already attempting the "what about you" maneuver before Jason interjected with the same sort of move.

So by asking what your positive stance is on a subject, Jason and I gave become childish? Gotcha..

I may be up for fielding "what about you" questions - after the current line of inquiry has been finished. But I am disinclined to indulge such questions - from children or adults - when they divert from a current (and apparently unwelcome) line of inquiry.

Silly me, I thought we were having a discussion where both parties interact.

Now, if I had posted a thread mocking a person for her idea about Pauline inspiration, then we could focus on my position. But you broached this topic. So we are engaging your stance. What I believe or do not believe is diversionary from an examination of your position.

If you go back to the original post, you will see the word light-hearted.

After we have finished this first matter, go ahead and hit me up for my ideas. Or you can read my backlog of posts.

Why not discuss it here?

I did not open this thread with a face-palm lament over some woman’s hermeneutic. What was the caption again? Let me jog your memory: “Because expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn’t work.”

Was this really supposed to be a condescension-free thread? Or is it that you only like the flavor when you’re dishing it up?

Light hearted definition: Adj. 1. lighthearted - carefree and happy and lighthearted; "was loved for her blithe spirit"; "a merry blithesome nature"; "her lighthearted nature"; "trilling songs with a lightsome heart"

Deconstruction is not refutation. It is taking apart pieces, and analyzing their character and how they are put together.

For the purpose of...(drum roll please)....REFUTING!

You assume my purpose is to refute you. I want for you to make a close appraisal of what you think and why you think it. And part of the appraisal process is considering your thought in comparison to competing thoughts.

I see it differently. You would like to convince me that Paul did not mean what he said, and that the writers of the NT are unreliable. When your arguments simmer, that is what floats to the top.

In the end, I may not refute you, or at least to your satisfaction. But I will be gratified if in the end you aren’t quite so cavalier about face-palming that Methodist lady because she thinks of scripture in a different way than you.

First off, the Methodist lady in question does not care one bit about exegesis. She simply does not want to rock the boat on the politically incorrect position of homosexuality in the church. She has made this clear by repeatedly affirming the notion of "not offending" gays and lesbians. As far as me being cavalier about face-palming folks, I guess you took it the wrong way. This thread was started to bring a little humor to the board. I even mention that I have said many things that are worthy of the face palm. So please drop trying to paint me as a rude person who runs around making fun of people.

[brody196]

(a) Please indulge to clarify here. Please answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?" with a statement that begins “We know if something is the word of God by...”

We know something is the word of God by....God spoke it.

(b) You may be frustrated in trying to obtain a declaration of belief from me on various subjects. Belief is a rather Christian preoccupation. I do not always operate in terms of belief, even in the religious/spiritual sphere.

In other words, you don't have a position? Or if you do, its something you invented that has been hidden since the foundation of the world?

(c) Before I post an answer your question, I would welcome your defining what it means to “know.” Then I can respond according to your semantic.

I asked a simple question, which you ducked, and now you think I should answer all your questions? I am not in your class Emmet! If you want to go back and forth, that is cool, but please start answering my questions. Also, how far would our discussion go if I used your standard of dialogue?

(a) Please review the thread of discourse. You will find that I simply addressed a point that you introduced. If you want me to stay on some “course” of your imagining, then don’t introduce points that you don’t want answered.

You did not address it, you gave an irrelevant comparison that didn't seem to fit the conversation.

(b) You have invoked an idiom here, but to no substantial effect. The essential point is the same whether the comparison is construed as “apples to apples” or as “apples to oranges” – viz., that lack of dissonance with NT doctrine does not demonstrate a document to be the word of G-d.

(c) Actually, we field more than one issue here. On one hand, we have a question of whether or not Paul wrote scripture. On another hand, we have a question of whether or not scripture equates to the word of G-d.

What is a word? What is a thought? If I write my thoughts down, are the thoughts my words? If I ask Steve to write down a summary of Brody's lecture on Ju Jitsu, would that be my thought? My words?

Paul’s statement does not imply that that everything else he has said has G-d’s imprimatur. You have merely inferred this.

Indeed, the first time Paul makes such a clarification (in verse 10), he does so to indicate that the command is not merely his, but the Lord’s. By your reasoning, this “implies” that everything else he had said was merely his say.

If Paul has to point out that he has not heard from the Lord on a certain issue, then would it not logically follow that he did hear from the Lord on the issues he is certain about?...As far as your second, do you think Paul commanded something that God disapproved of?

The sixth epistle to the congregation of Chelm

See what bold letters I type to you with my new font package.

All dogs do not go to heaven, for some try to get there by their own works. You know – fetching slippers, barking at strangers, and not skubaloning on the carpet. All that effort shows how much they don’t love G-d. And real saints don’t vote for that political party. You know which one I’m talking about. And the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

And regarding whether or not to buy a copy of “Mulan” for the congregational library – well, G-d hasn’t told me anything specific about that. But I wouldn’t spend a shekel on anything with Eddie Murphy in it, and G-d helps me make good choices.

But you can buy that copy of “Mulan” if you want. It won’t be a sin. But I think you’ll be better off if you don’t. And I have the indwelling of the holy spirit. Just saying, you know. But not quite saying, you know. But saying as much as I can, without saying too much, you know.

And the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. And when people die, their souls refract into the second dimension, where they are preserved from entropy and are isolated from Catholics and Mormons, who are trying to solicit their prayers and get their baptisms squared away. As if water could enter the second dimension! What skubalon!

Lastly, please reprimand whoever left those green M&Ms in the candy bowl. Really – how many times do I have to write to you about that?

P.S.: Did I mention that the letter I wrote to you last month was scripture? Hope you didn’t line the birdcage with it. Guess I should’ve made a copy. The one before that was not so big a deal. Of course, it was written by me. Just saying, you know. Without quite saying, you know.

Your mockery of Paul is lame and not funny at all. But you have shown what you really think of his writings, which is good. The readers can see that you merely don't just disagree with Paul, you think he was an idiot.

You say “both.” I’m not sure if that is a clever response or a sloppy one. Are you acknowledging that sometimes Paul spoke merely according to his own fallible understanding? If so, let me forge ahead with the next question: how are we to distinguish between (a) Paul’s comments that are the word of G-d and (b) Paul’s comments that are spoken merely according to his own understanding?

Maybe you misunderstood me. Paul could give his thoughts on a matter and it not be contrary to scripture, and be perfectly just in doing so. Much like today when someone ask me about cigarette smoking. I always tell them that the bible has no command not to smoke, but it is a terrible way to treat your body. And Paul also was an Apostle, so his words to the churches were binding.

Why not directly answer the question, brody: 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? If your answer is “yes,” then please explain why we should assume so. If your answer is “no,” I would like to hear it.

Why not answer my question Emmet? I still don't understand why you think that Paul has to preface everything with "This is God's word". If Paul were to tell me "Brody, don't cheat on your wife!"..Would I have to ask..."Paul, is that God's word, or your own?"

G-d’s message might be contained in this (hypothetical) book on your understanding, but such would not necessarily mean that the entirety of your book was G-d’s word or G-d’s message. Elements that you supplied could be your message, cohabiting with the word and/or message of G-d.

How do you know which is which when it comes to the NT? Are you assuming?

The assertion here is John’s, not Moses’. And Moses writing about an unnamed somebody is not the same thing as Moses acknowledging Jesus to be that somebody.

Beyond this – what do my beliefs have to do with your reasons for thinking the way you do? But none of my religious thought hinges upon believing Moses.

So you say you are a Jew, but you reject Moses? Who created your religion?

And before you say I ducked the question....I accept the claims of Jesus, so I believe John was absolutely fine when applying the words of Moses to Jesus.

So – you can claim that the OT writers acknowledged Paul’s authority without needing to produce a single verse from them that clearly establishes this point. And the burden of proof rests with whomever might balk at swallowing your assertion without such primary evidence.

If the OT writers recognized the authority of Christ, then it would logically follow that they would have recognized the ones who Jesus authorized.

(a) Follow this - Benjamin Franklin writes some things about a coming president. In 2012, Ralph Nader claims to be the true president of the United States, though 95% of Americans reject his claim. In 2014, a guy named Brad shows up in Guam, saying that Nader met him alone in his apartment and named him governor. brody then claims that Benjamin Franklin acknowledged Brad’s authority. And kaufmannphillips calls “skubalon.”

(b) I am not suggesting that the OT writers should have named an apostle, else they should not be believed. I am objecting to your statement that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.” We have no clear evidence from either Testament to indicate what an OT writer thought about Paul of Tarsus. Probably because no OT writer ever thought about Paul of Tarsus!

I showed were Luke and Peter acknowledged Paul, and Jesus himself sent Paul, so your point above is moot. You just ain't seeing it Bro.

Indeed. A casual review of this thread will illustrate relative attention to detail. Do you proofread your formatting?

Ah, a cheap shot at my typing and grammar skills. Not everybody is as smart as you Emmet. But for whats its worth, your comment did not offend me. My wife and I laugh at my grammar skills all the time. But I believe that you understand what I am getting across.

So, if you believe that the Torah had legally-obligated ritual observances that foreshadowed Christ, then would you not say that his truth was/is found in them?

Of course they are true, but they have no power to make a man right in God's eyes today. That is where Jesus comes in.


brody196 wrote:
So Moses would reject the Messiahs authority?[/quote]

Moses was not infallible even when he was alive, so he could reject a true messiah, as well as a false one.

Thank God Moses choose the right one! See Matt 17.

But speculation as to what Moses would or would not do is immaterial. You did not claim that “the other writers of scripture would have acknowledged Paul's authority.” You claimed that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.” So the bottom line is about what they did, not what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done.

Beating a dead horse.

I don’t want to quibble over it. I want you to recognize that your quotes don’t necessarily connote what you might like them to.

They claim that Paul was giving the word of God.

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]

I have answered.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I may be up for fielding "what about you" questions – after the current line of inquiry has been finished. But I am disinclined to indulge such questions - from children or adults - when they divert from a current (and apparently unwelcome) line of inquiry.

brody196 wrote:
Silly me, I thought we were having a discussion where both parties interact.

{also}

kaufmannphillips wrote:
After we have finished this first matter, go ahead and hit me up for my ideas. Or you can read my backlog of posts.

brody196 wrote
Why not discuss it here?

(a) There is no need to distract from the current line of inquiry. My beliefs are not germane to an examination of your stance, and there is no reason why an engagement of them cannot wait until we have finished discussing your stance.

You should be delighted. Here you have an opportunity to pursue a discussion that focuses intently on your own stance. And, you have the close attention of a person who does not share your view. On one hand, you have the benefit of testing your stance against somebody who won’t be a bobble-head. And on another hand, you have the chance to impress a non-Christian with substantial reasons for holding your stance. So why not focus on this opportunity? And when we’ve done with this, I can be delighted by the opportunity to test and impress when the shoe is on the other foot.

(b) On a practical note, we already are posting exchanges of wearisome length, just engaging the current line of inquiry.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Now, if I had posted a thread mocking a person for her idea about Pauline inspiration, then we could focus on my position. But you broached this topic. So we are engaging your stance. What I believe or do not believe is diversionary from an examination of your position.

brody196 wrote:
If you go back to the original post, you will see the word light-hearted.
{also}
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I did not open this thread with a face-palm lament over some woman’s hermeneutic. What was the caption again? Let me jog your memory: “Because expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn’t work.”

Was this really supposed to be a condescension-free thread? Or is it that you only like the flavor when you’re dishing it up?

brody196 wrote:

Light hearted definition: Adj. 1. lighthearted - carefree and happy and lighthearted; "was loved for her blithe spirit"; "a merry blithesome nature"; "her lighthearted nature"; "trilling songs with a lightsome heart"

{also}

brody196 wrote:
As far as me being cavalier about face-palming folks, I guess you took it the wrong way. This thread was started to bring a little humor to the board. I even mention that I have said many things that are worthy of the face palm. So please drop trying to paint me as a rude person who runs around making fun of people.

So – disclaiming that one is “light-hearted” is supposed to take the sting out of describing somebody’s idea as so stupid that words can’t express it. Do you think only somber people can be condescending?

And saying “I’ve made staggeringly dumb statements, too” is supposed to remove the sting? It is supposed to wash away the smack of superiority?

It would appear that humor is in the eye of the beholder. You describe my little epistles to Chelm as "lame and not funny at all," but I had fun with them. Maybe you and I could team up and do a tour of mosques under the heading “Worst. Comedy Night. Ever.”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Deconstruction is not refutation. It is taking apart pieces, and analyzing their character and how they are put together.

brody196 wrote:
For the purpose of...(drum roll please)....REFUTING!

Well, since we’re invoking dictionaries:

de-con-struct - verb (used with object)

To break down into constituent parts; dissect; dismantle.

{Dictionary.com Unabridged; based on the Random House Dictionary, 2009}

No definitive purpose mentioned here.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You assume my purpose is to refute you. I want for you to make a close appraisal of what you think and why you think it. And part of the appraisal process is considering your thought in comparison to competing thoughts.

brody196 wrote
I see it differently. You would like to convince me that Paul did not mean what he said, and that the writers of the NT are unreliable. When your arguments simmer, that is what floats to the top.

I would like to convince you that the text does not establish what you think it establishes. And as thrilled as I would be to convince you that some writers of the NT are less than fully reliable, that is probably a tangent I did not need to touch upon. We can tackle that topic, if you will, after we have hashed over my beliefs.

But whether or not I convince you of this or that, I want for you to go through the process of closely appraising your stance. Even if I don’t convince you to think differently than you do, you may emerge from the process with a better appreciation for why other persons hold different opinions from your own. And that alone would be worthwhile.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Please indulge to clarify here. Please answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?" with a statement that begins “We know if something is the word of God by...”

brody196 wrote:
We know something is the word of God by....God spoke it.

Thank you for indulging me here. Please elucidate further with a statement that begins “We know if G-d spoke something by...”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You may be frustrated in trying to obtain a declaration of belief from me on various subjects. Belief is a rather Christian preoccupation. I do not always operate in terms of belief, even in the religious/spiritual sphere.

brody196 wrote:
In other words, you don't have a position? Or if you do, its something you invented that has been hidden since the foundation of the world?

I do not hold positions on some subjects. And on some subjects I work from positions without putting a faith in them that amounts to belief.

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

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Before I post an answer your question, I would welcome your defining what it means to “know.” Then I can respond according to your semantic.

brody196 wrote:
I asked a simple question, which you ducked, and now you think I should answer all your questions? I am not in your class Emmet! If you want to go back and forth, that is cool, but please start answering my questions. Also, how far would our discussion go if I used your standard of dialogue?

Apparently you do not recognize the necessity of my question. People construe “knowing” and “knowledge” in different ways. If you define the term for me, so that I am aware of the semantic you have in mind, then I can respond to the question you intend to ask. This could save me the trouble of spending time and effort on drafting a bootless answer, and it could save you the frustration of getting a response that appears to sidestep your question.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Please review the thread of discourse. You will find that I simply addressed a point that you introduced. If you want me to stay on some “course” of your imagining, then don’t introduce points that you don’t want answered.

brody196 wrote:
You did not address it, you gave an irrelevant comparison that didn't seem to fit the conversation.

I quoted the thread of discourse for you. Let me attempt a paraphrase and augment things a bit, and we’ll see if that is useful:

(a) You argued that we know Paul’s letters are the word of G-d because they were written under apostolic authority. You also quoted John 13:20.

(b) I asked if apostolic authority implied infallibility. I also asked if your verse was a blanket endorsement of everything an apostle said or did. I also asked if Paul was as impeccable as Jesus.

(c) You answered “no” to all of these questions. {As such, you agreed that Paul’s (putative) authority does not imply that he was infallible. Accordingly, Paul could have been fallible when he wrote his letters, though he (putatively) did so while holding apostolic authority.}

{You also agreed that not everything Paul said or did was endorsed by the verse you referred to. Accordingly, Paul could have said something in his letters that was not endorsed by the verse you quoted.}

{You also agreed that Paul was not impeccable. Accordingly, Paul could have written something flawed in his letters.}

{Incidentally, these points open the door for your Methodist lady’s question – maybe Paul wrote something that was just his fallible, unendorsed, flawed opinion?}

(d) Then you objected that I had not shown where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine.

(e) My illustration would hopefully point out that it is not necessary to show whether a document is out of line with NT doctrine. {This is because a document can avoid transgressing NT doctrine, without being the word of G-d. The Chevy manual is an example of such a document. (What is more – a document can even have falsehoods in it, and avoid transgressing NT doctrine, because NT doctrine does not specify every truth in the universe.)

Accordingly, it would not matter if Paul did not transgress NT doctrine – this would not demonstrate that his letters were the word of G-d. And accordingly, there is no need for me (in our particular topic) to attempt to show where Paul was out of line with NT doctrine – because even if I were unable to do so, this would not demonstrate that his letters were the word of G-d.}

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Actually, we field more than one issue here. On one hand, we have a question of whether or not Paul wrote scripture. On another hand, we have a question of whether or not scripture equates to the word of G-d.

brody196 wrote
What is a word? What is a thought? If I write my thoughts down, are the thoughts my words? If I ask Steve to write down a summary of Brody's lecture on Ju Jitsu, would that be my thought? My words?

“Ju jitsu,” hmmm... Maybe I'd better be careful about how aggressive I get here!

But really, this is good. Here we are getting to fundamental questions.

If you write your thoughts down, your words may be better or worse representations of your thoughts, depending upon how well you are performing as a communicator. But if Steve writes down a summary of your lecture, then what we potentially have is some mixture of the following:

(a) Brody’s thoughts as expressed by Brody in words through his lecture (being quoted or recounted incidentally by Steve);

(b) Steve’s summarizing thoughts about Brody’s words, as expressed in Steve’s words; and

(c) additional thoughts that Steve might incorporate into his finished product (e.g., introductory and/or supplementary and/or editorial remarks), as expressed in Steve’s words.

If I have a passing interest in Ju jitsu, or more particularly in Brody’s take on the art, then I may be content to review Steve’s summary and glean what I like from it. But if I am profoundly interested in understanding what Brody thinks about Ju jitsu, then I will not be content with merely reading Steve’s second-hand summary.

I also will not be content with a verbatim transcript of Brody’s lecture. Rather, I will want to find a variety of lectures/interviews/etc. that Brody has done; and if possible I will want to observe Brody speaking about Ju jitsu and demonstrating/practicing the art; and beyond this, if possible, I will want to converse with Brody at length and on multiple occasions; and ultimately, if possible, I will want to experience training and sparring with Brody.

And beyond this, I will want to familiarize myself with other approaches to Ju jitsu, so that I can appreciate the comparison and contrast between those approaches and Brody’s way of pursuing the art.

But to loop back – if I were sensitive and serious, I would not assume that Steve’s summary was a fully accurate representation of Brody’s approach to Ju jitsu. I would recognize that the filters of both Steve’s understanding and his communicative ability stood between me and Brody.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Paul’s statement does not imply that that everything else he has said has G-d’s imprimatur. You have merely inferred this.

Indeed, the first time Paul makes such a clarification (in verse 10), he does so to indicate that the command is not merely his, but the Lord’s. By your reasoning, this “implies” that everything else he had said was merely his say.

brody196 wrote:
If Paul has to point out that he has not heard from the Lord on a certain issue, then would it not logically follow that he did hear from the Lord on the issues he is certain about?...As far as your second, do you think Paul commanded something that God disapproved of?

(a) If Paul has to point out that a command is not his own, but the Lord’s – as in verse 10, which precedes the verse you have focused upon – would it not follow, by your sort of reasoning, that Paul’s other commands were not assumed to be the Lord’s?

To me, there is a natural way of understanding this sort of phenomenon in the chapter. Paul remarks in the first case that the command is not his own, but the Lord’s. He probably expects his audience to recognize that command already as part of their sacred tradition; and if there were anybody in his audience who might question his authority or trustworthiness, then they could acknowledge that this command did not hinge upon Paul anyway.

Having made this interjection, then Paul is sensitive for a while about clarifying the basis for his comments. Thus we find closer attention to this sort of thing in the remainder of the chapter. But in most of the Pauline epistles, Paul is not so explicit as this. Where Paul is not so explicit, it is up to the audience to decide what manner of inspiration they wish to ascribe to various comments.

This is not unusual. In the Hebrew bible, for example, there are large stretches of text (even entire books!) where there is no explicit claim of inspiration or of being the word of G-d. There, as well, it is up to the audience to decide how they will understand the text.

Of course, even in areas where there is an explicit claim, it is up to the audience to accept that claim or not. But the situation is different for materials where there is no explicit claim. If Darrin declines to identify the book of Esther as the word of G-d, there is not a single line of the book itself that would dispute his stance. And he can decline to identify Esther as the word of G-d without calling it deceptive or even untrustworthy as a document of its genre.

(b) Regarding your second query – we may consider Paul’s treatment of the eucharist. If you care, you can review some of my words on this subject at this link.

brody196 wrote:
Your mockery of Paul is lame and not funny at all. But you have shown what you really think of his writings, which is good. The readers can see that you merely don't just disagree with Paul, you think he was an idiot.

Well, “idiot” is not my usual assessment of Paul. It might have been advantageous if he had been somewhat less brilliant, actually. But he was human, and imperfect.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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?

brody196 wrote:
Both.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You say “both.” I’m not sure if that is a clever response or a sloppy one. Are you acknowledging that sometimes Paul spoke merely according to his own fallible understanding? If so, let me forge ahead with the next question: how are we to distinguish between (a) Paul’s comments that are the word of G-d and (b) Paul’s comments that are spoken merely according to his own understanding?

brody196 wrote:
Maybe you misunderstood me. Paul could give his thoughts on a matter and it not be contrary to scripture, and be perfectly just in doing so. Much like today when someone ask me about cigarette smoking. I always tell them that the bible has no command not to smoke, but it is a terrible way to treat your body. And Paul also was an Apostle, so his words to the churches were binding.

(a) Yes, “Paul could give his thoughts on a matter and it not be contrary to scripture, and be perfectly just in doing so." This would not necessarily make his thoughts the word of G-d.

Paul could also give his thoughts on a matter and it not be contrary to scripture, and be less than perfectly accurate when doing so. Scripture does not contain the whole of truth, so a person can agree with it entirely and still promulgate a host of errors, in matters that scripture has not defined.

(b) If we should run (for the sake of discussion) with the premise that Paul was an apostle, and that his words were binding to the churches he wrote to, this still would not be the end of consideration.

Once Paul passed away, so would have his authority. By analogy, when David ruled, he probably issued a great number of commands that were binding while he was in leadership. But when David died, his commands did not continue to retain their force for ever. Or, somewhat nicking an analogy from Paul himself, a woman is not bound to her husband’s leadership after he has passed away. Accordingly, present-day churches are not directly bound by Paul’s commands.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Why not directly answer the question, brody: 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? If your answer is “yes,” then please explain why we should assume so. If your answer is “no,” I would like to hear it.

brody196 wrote:
I still don't understand why you think that Paul has to preface everything with "This is God's word". If Paul were to tell me "Brody, don't cheat on your wife!"..Would I have to ask..."Paul, is that God's word, or your own?"

Paul doesn’t have to preface everything with “This is G-d’s word.” But the reader is not beholden to understand Paul as claiming a statement to be G-d’s word, without Paul making a clear statement to that effect.

brody196 wrote:
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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
G-d’s message might be contained in this (hypothetical) book on your understanding, but such would not necessarily mean that the entirety of your book was G-d’s word or G-d’s message. Elements that you supplied could be your message, cohabiting with the word and/or message of G-d.

brody196 wrote:
How do you know which is which when it comes to the NT? Are you assuming?

This is the question, brody: how do I – or you, or the Methodist lady – know which is which? You should have a pretty good answer to this question, since you mocked the Methodist lady for entertaining a different perspective from your own.

For my part, I feel little compelled to identify any particular component of the NT (or OT) as the word of G-d, when that component itself never claims to be the word of G-d. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The assertion here is John’s, not Moses’. And Moses writing about an unnamed somebody is not the same thing as Moses acknowledging Jesus to be that somebody.

Beyond this – what do my beliefs have to do with your reasons for thinking the way you do? But none of my religious thought hinges upon believing Moses.

brody196 wrote:
So you say you are a Jew, but you reject Moses? Who created your religion?

And before you say I ducked the question....I accept the claims of Jesus, so I believe John was absolutely fine when applying the words of Moses to Jesus.

(a) You accept the claim of John that Jesus made such a statement. Jesus did not write John. But even if Jesus made such a statement, then what we would have is another assertion that was not Moses’. Only Moses can acknowledge for Moses.

(b) I do not say that I am a Jew. I say that I am Jewish. Jewish persons have created and continue to create Judaism, though they are not necessarily the exclusive creators of the religious tradition. What contribution the historical Moses made to Judaism, I do not know. I am not fundamentally concerned with that. It is not essential to my own faith.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So – you can claim that the OT writers acknowledged Paul’s authority without needing to produce a single verse from them that clearly establishes this point. And the burden of proof rests with whomever might balk at swallowing your assertion without such primary evidence.

brody196 wrote:
If the OT writers recognized the authority of Christ, then it would logically follow that they would have recognized the ones who Jesus authorized.

The OT writers could not have recognized the authority of Jesus. They were all dead before he was born.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
But speculation as to what Moses would or would not do is immaterial. You did not claim that “the other writers of scripture would have acknowledged Paul's authority.” You claimed that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.” So the bottom line is about what they did, not what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done.

brody196 wrote:
Beating a dead horse.

Yep - the one you’re riding.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I am not suggesting that the OT writers should have named an apostle, else they should not be believed. I am objecting to your statement that “the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.” We have no clear evidence from either Testament to indicate what an OT writer thought about Paul of Tarsus. Probably because no OT writer ever thought about Paul of Tarsus!

brody196 wrote:
I showed were Luke and Peter acknowledged Paul, and Jesus himself sent Paul, so your point above is moot. You just ain't seeing it Bro.

So (1) Luke and (2) Peter are “the other writers of scripture”? You’ve left out at least a couple dozen others. Where does the author of Esther acknowledge Paul? Or the author of Job?

The reason I “ain’t seeing it” is because it “ain’t” there.

brody196 wrote:
So Moses would reject the Messiahs authority?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Moses was not infallible even when he was alive, so he could reject a true messiah, as well as a false one.

brody196 wrote:
Thank God Moses choose the right one! See Matt 17.

Matthew states this was a “vision”; so even from the gospel text here, it cannot be assumed that Moses was actually involved. See verse 9.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Your sloppiness with truth and handling of evidence thus far does not recommend you as an diagnostician of truth.

brody196 wrote:
The readers can note who is being sloppy or not.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Indeed. A casual review of this thread will illustrate relative attention to detail. Do you proofread your formatting?

brody196 wrote:
Ah, a cheap shot at my typing and grammar skills. Not everybody is as smart as you Emmet. But for whats its worth, your comment did not offend me. My wife and I laugh at my grammar skills all the time. But I believe that you understand what I am getting across.

I was thinking of above, in your posting, where my comments are mixed in with your own. All you would have to do is review your post, and you would notice that in some of your comments you start to sound like me!

brody196 wrote:
Truth is not found in legalistic rituals and such, it is found in a person.

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

brody196 wrote:
Nope. I contend that Christ fulfilled the law and its requirements.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So, if you believe that the Torah had legally-obligated ritual observances that foreshadowed Christ, then would you not say that his truth was/is found in them?

brody196 wrote:
Of course they are true....

OK. So maybe now you’ve learned something about legalistic rituals. And/or maybe about trite rhetoric. And/or maybe conventional Christian wisdom.

brody196 wrote:
Of course they are true, but they have no power to make a man right in God's eyes today. That is where Jesus comes in.

Skubalon. Legalistic rituals can shape a person’s experience, which can shape the person’s heart. And the heart of a person is what G-d’s eyes look upon – not the bloody camouflage that some Christians imagine.

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?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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 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?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I don’t want to quibble over it. I want you to recognize that your quotes don’t necessarily connote what you might like them to.

brody196 wrote:
They claim that Paul was giving the word of God.

They do not claim that Paul was always giving the word of G-d.

[Homer]

Emmet,

Some time back you wrote:

(a) Please indulge to clarify here. Please answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?" with a statement that begins “We know if something is the word of God by...”

I would answer "by faith", the same way we know the majority of what we know.

And:

(b) You may be frustrated in trying to obtain a declaration of belief from me on various subjects. Belief is a rather Christian preoccupation. I do not always operate in terms of belief, even in the religious/spiritual sphere.

I will venture to say that you operate in terms of belief (faith) far more than you care to admit. Most of what we "know" we know by "faith". You think not? Then tell me how you know cyanide will kill you. Did you learn this by experiment (obviously not) or by believing what you were told by someone you considered credible? And a little reflection will bring to mind innumerable other things you know by faith, and this is very good and reasonable, as life would be very difficult otherwise.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Homer,

Here we enter into concepts of belief and knowledge. You may recall that I asked brody to define "know" for me. My further discussion along those lines will wait upon the definition he chooses.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Homer,

I suppose I need not wait any longer for brody to take his turn.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Please indulge to clarify here. Please answer the question "How do we know if anything is the word of God?" with a statement that begins “We know if something is the word of God by...”

Homer wrote:
I would answer "by faith", the same way we know the majority of what we know.

What is held by faith is “believed.” It is presumptuous to consider it “known.”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You may be frustrated in trying to obtain a declaration of belief from me on various subjects. Belief is a rather Christian preoccupation. I do not always operate in terms of belief, even in the religious/spiritual sphere.

Homer wrote:
I will venture to say that you operate in terms of belief (faith) far more than you care to admit. Most of what we "know" we know by "faith". You think not? Then tell me how you know cyanide will kill you. Did you learn this by experiment (obviously not) or by believing what you were told by someone you considered credible? And a little reflection will bring to mind innumable other things you know by faith, and this is very good and reasonable, as life would be very difficult otherwise.

I do not know that cyanide will kill me. Perhaps my body has an unusual biological means of neutralizing cyanide. Or perhaps not. I do not know.

Lacking knowledge of whether or not cyanide will kill me, when I am being mentally careful I think that cyanide may kill me.