The Narrow Path Ministries

I have been thinking about making this thread for sometime. Remember the show "Kids say the darnedest things"?..Well I have personally heard some of the craziest stuff ever flow from the mouth of some of the most godly people you will ever meet. I have even said some things that I look back on and just shake my head. These moments are known as "Face-Palm" moments.




And just to point out, this thread is meant to be a light hearted discussion of funny things that you have heard your Christian Brothers or Sisters say. Below are some examples of "Christians say the darnedest things".. And the top three go to....

3.) When I am around witches, I get a ball in my stomach...I got a ball in my stomach right now..

This beauty came from a local "Spiritual Warfare" minister in my town who thought that I was operating in rebellion, which is the sin of witchcraft. His reason for thinking such? I started a youth meeting in our local park where Christian youth could come and study the bible and fellowship together. I still love the guy, but I have to "face-palm" every time I think of that conversation.

2.) Well maybe that's just Paul's opinion!

This gem came from a local Methodist preachers wife who is on the fence regarding the ordaining of Homosexual ministers in the United Methodist church. She personally doesn't see much wrong with it, and when I pointed out what the Apostle Paul had to say on the subject....Out popped our number two example of "Christians say the darnedest things".

And finally. Are number one spot goes to none other than.....

1.) Its not really his fault, our son is struggling with the spirit of Elvis!

My friend was involved with a church where a young man who was married decided to leave his wife and pursue other interest. The family of the young man was fairly prominent in the church and subscribe to the hyper charismatic view of spiritual warfare(see example 1). In an attempt to down-play their sons actions, they reasoned that because he was obsessed Elvis as a kid, that he some how let in the spirit of Elvis(who was known for his promiscuity).



There you have it folks. Feel free to post you own. Hope you enjoyed.

Who knows? Maybe that Elvis music did cultivate a lustful spirit in their son. You are what you eat! Maybe now he's a hunka hunka burnin love...

As for "Paul's opinion" - well, this rasies the problem of discerning what in the bible is the word of G-d. The answer to this is more often assumed than thought about carefully.

kaufmannphillips wrote:Who knows? Maybe that Elvis music did cultivate a lustful spirit in their son. You are what you eat! Maybe now he's a hunka hunka burnin love...

As for "Paul's opinion" - well, this rasies the problem of discerning what in the bible is the word of G-d. The answer to this is more often assumed than thought about carefully.

What do you find in Paul that was questionable?..

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Who knows? Maybe that Elvis music did cultivate a lustful spirit in their son. You are what you eat! Maybe now he's a hunka hunka burnin love...

As for "Paul's opinion" - well, this rasies the problem of discerning what in the bible is the word of G-d. The answer to this is more often assumed than thought about carefully.

brody196 wrote:
What do you find in Paul that was questionable?

What do you find in Paul that claims to be the word of G-d?

kaufmannphillips wrote:

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Who knows? Maybe that Elvis music did cultivate a lustful spirit in their son. You are what you eat! Maybe now he's a hunka hunka burnin love...

As for "Paul's opinion" - well, this rasies the problem of discerning what in the bible is the word of G-d. The answer to this is more often assumed than thought about carefully.

brody196 wrote:
What do you find in Paul that was questionable?

What do you find in Paul that claims to be the word of G-d?

The letters that Paul wrote are the word of God. But we have to define what we mean by "word of God". I believe that the letters Paul wrote to churches and individuals had God's message for them. And the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority. First, we have Luke giving us the account of Paul's conversion to the faith via supernatural revelation from Jesus(Acts 9), and then he goes on in great detail to describe Paul's ministry.

Then we have the following written by Peter " 14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So I think a strong case can be made for the writings of Paul that are contained in our bibles.

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

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

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

(a) Lots of people believe lots of things. So?

(b) 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:
And the other writers of scripture acknowledged Paul's authority.

(a) Really? Moses? David? Ezekiel? Mark? Or do you mean some of the other writers of scripture acknowledged his authority?

(b) Does acknowledgment of a person's authority make the entirety of the content to their letters the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
Then we have the following written by Peter " 14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

(a) And on what basis do we regard this quotation as an entirely reliable comment?

(b) On what basis do we regard "Scriptures" as being equivalent to the word of G-d?

The letters that Paul wrote are the word of God.

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

How do we know if anything is the word of God? 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."

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

Lots of people believe lots of things. So?

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

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?

Im confused, What is God's message, if it isn't God's word? Also, Paul's letters were often personal, so that accounts for the salutations and such.

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

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

Moses, David and Ezekiel all recognized the authority of Christ, who personally sent Paul. And are you seriously suggesting that some of the scripture writers would have rejected Paul?...

Does acknowledgment of a person's authority make the entirety of the content to their letters the word of G-d?

Nope. But that is apples and oranges in this case. Paul wrote God's word/message to his recipients.

(a) And on what basis do we regard this quotation as an entirely reliable comment?

So you reject Peter also?

(b) On what basis do we regard "Scriptures" as being equivalent to the word of G-d?

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

Is it just me - or has the purpose of this thread taken something of a detour?

AaronBDisney wrote:Is it just me - or has the purpose of this thread taken something of a detour?

Well maybe, but I like it.

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?

A very good question. Care to opine?

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"?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:
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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Does acknowledgment of a person's authority make the entirety of the content to their letters the word of G-d?

brody196 wrote:
Nope. But that is apples and oranges in this case. Paul wrote God's word/message to his recipients.

Even if Paul held apostolic authority, it does not necessarily follow from this that the entirety of the content to his letters was the word of G-d. And even if Paul wrote G-d’s message or even G-d’s word to his recipients, it does not necessarily follow that the entirety of the content to his letters was G-d’s message or G-d’s word.

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?

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.

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?

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).