Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, Paul was not self promoting himself. He was a servant of the Lord and he suffered much for the Lord. He was given tremendous responsibility as an apostle, specifically to the Gentiles.. He loved the Lord and put Him first in all things. I am thankful that we have his inspired writings.
Philippians 3
3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and [f]the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus."
We should have the same attitude.
God bless.
Shana, try reading Paul without the influence of current day Pauline Christianity. If you look at his writings both critically and statistically he was actually the greatest self-promoter in the Bible. Even Jesus was more humble.
Paul was not at all shy about calling himself an apostle. In fact, in nine out of thirteen of his books, he introduces himself as an apostle of Jesus, and in each case states in some way that his apostleship is by heavenly decree.
Here is the question. Should we automatically believe the testimony of a person who makes grandiose claims about themselves when all we have for confirmation of their claim is little more than their word and maybe a statement or two from their best friend? If so, then we should likewise confirm those like Jim Jones and David Koresh. Unless there is obvious corroborative evidence to support such claims, all of them should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Unlike Paul, a true prophet or apostle does not have to go to such extraordinary lengths to convince the world they are who they say they are. Even Jesus said that if he alone bore witness of himself, his witness was invalid. John 5:31
Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Jesus, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!
No other epistle author in the Bible wrote like Paul. This would be true on a number of levels, but one aspect is of particular interest when we are considering how Paul views himself. He had a way of drawing attention to himself with his usage of personal pronouns. When it comes to how often he uses words like, "I", "me", "my", or "mine", the overall rate in his epistles is almost three times that of his next closest rival. There are a number of reasons why many scholars today believe Paul was not the author of the book of Hebrews. One obvious reason is, in the other epistles credited to him, Paul doesn't hesitate to identify himself along with his supposed credentials. The author of Hebrews is strangely silent on these matters.
The author of Hebrews refers to himself only 9 times, which is approximately 1.3 personal pronouns per thousand words. To help put this in perspective, let's compare the book of Hebrews to the book of Romans. They are both relatively large books of similar length, divided into 13 and 16 chapters respectively. Yet in only the first half of the first chapter of Romans, which is 16 verses worth, Paul uses twice as many personal pronouns as the author of Hebrews uses in his entire book! In the book of Romans, Paul refers to himself 103 times, which is rate of about 18.2 per thousand! That is 13x greater than Hebrews. In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to himself 175 times, in 2Corinthians 103 times again, and in the relatively short book of Galatians, he refers to himself 69 times which is a rate of 25 personal pronouns per 1000 words!
And this is why I see the Bible as certainly inspired, but neither inerrant nor infallible. Far too much "human" foibles to be the perfection of God. Was Paul a Christian? I believe so. Does he show the same weaknesses in his writings that other men display? I know so. Did he think his writings would be preserved and elevated to the point of being equal to the resurrection of Jesus? I think he would roll over in his grave.
Hi, Wardendresden, I accept Paul as an apostle of the Lord and I accept all of his writings. I have no problem with anything that he taught and I am inspired by his love for the Lord and all that he went through to bring the gospel to the Gentiles.. I have never seen anything in his writings that suggests to me that he promoted himself. He was about Jesus, not about himself, and he suffered greatly to bring the good news to the Gentiles. This is very inspiring to me. He loved the brethren.
2 Timothy 2
Remember Jesus Christ, raised out of the dead, of the seed of David, according to my good news,
9 in which I suffer evil -- unto bonds, as an evil-doer, but the word of God hath not been bound;
10 because of this all things do I endure,because of the choice ones, that they also salvation may obtain that [is] in Christ Jesus, withglory age-during.
11Steadfast [is] the word: For if we died together -- we also shall live together;
12 if we do endure together -- we shall also reign together; if we deny [him], he also shall deny us;
]13 ]if we are not stedfast, he remaineth stedfast; to deny himself he is not able. (YLT)
God bless.
Last edited by ShanaBrown; 09-20-2014 at 01:51 PM..
Um, yeah, thanks, I know who the author of Timothy is.
Actually we don't know who wrote 2 Timothy. Many scholars believe it was written by a follower of Paul and not Paul himself. There are substantive issues with wording, grammar etc. to put authorship in doubt. This is why 2 Timothy is referred to as a pseudepigraphic letter.
Hi Jg. You're right. It is important to define terms. Two people might use the same words but have entirely different definitions regarding those words.
As far as the term 'inspiration' is concerned, I always appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16.
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
The word translated as 'inspired' is the Greek word theopneustos which means 'God-breathed.' This means that the Scriptures originated with God who with regard to the original autographs communicated His message to the human writers of the scriptures and so superintended these writers that they wrote without error. This does not mean dictation, although in some cases dictation is involved. Therefore, inspiration applies to the original autographs and refers to the divine origin of the Scriptures.
'Inerrancy' simply means that the Bible is truthful in all that it says.
'Infallibility' means that the original autographs as written by the human writers of the Scriptures under the superintentance of the Holy Spirit are incapable of error and deception and therefore must be true. Since God is truth His word is incapable of being in error. Infallibility therefore implies inerrancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Fundamentalists have recently started making much of the fact that the root of the word that means "inspired" is literally translated, "god breathed." The word was not made up by the writers of the different letters in the Bible to describe the process under which they worked, it was in use by the populace to describe the same thing we describe when we say "inspired" in terms of art or any other recording of history or story, and the "god" being referred to as doing the "breathing" was whichever muse was responsible for the particular art being employed by the person "inspired."
"Inspired" means nothing more than that the artist (or letter writer) was impelled to record what he perceived. There was a social convention that the muse provided the words or the lines of art in each case and that convention was used as a literary device but no one really believed it and there is no indication that anyone using the term meant anything more than the common understanding of the word.
The word theopneustos is a hapax legomenon which means that the word is found only once in the Scriptures. It is used by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16. It means God-breathed.
Some think that Paul coined the word theópneustos. But whether he did or not isn't really relevant. What did Paul mean by his use of the word? To determine a words meaning in Scripture it is helpful to see how it is used elsewhere in Scripture. But since the word is used only once in Scripture we cannot do that. However, the fact that Scripture originates with God is found in other Scripture such as 2 Peter 1:20-21.
2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The writers of Scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit. And at times, not always, but at times there was direct dictation involved. For instance, God told Jeremiah to write on a scroll what He had spoke to him.
Jeremiah 36:1 In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2] "Take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Israel and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you, from the days of Josiah, even to this day.''
Although modern day skeptics and believers with a low view of the Scriptures deny their divine origin, the early church had no doubt as to the source of the Scriptures. For instance, Clement of Rome (AD ??? – ~100) states the following In THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS, in chapter 45.
45:2 Look diligently into the scriptures, which are the true sayings of the Holy Spirit.
45:3 Ye know how that nothing unjust or corrupt hath been written in them; for ye will not in them find the just expelled by holy men. First Clement: Clement of Rome
Paul stated that what he communicated was not the word of men, but the word of God. That includes both oral and written communication.
1 Thess. 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us (himself, Silvanus and Timothy), you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
There is no doubt, except in the minds of skeptics, that in using the word theópneustos Paul was referring to the divine origin of Scripture.
It's Infallible When Directed By The Spirit oF Truth~Through The Mind oF Christ~Through which God Imparts Spiritual Revelations of His Word within the inner man born from above{again}By His The Holy Spirit of Christ~&~The Father. The Spirit oF Wisdom~&~Revelation In The Knowledge of Him{Yeshua/Jesus}.
Fundamentalists have recently started making much of the fact that the root of the word that means "inspired" is literally translated, "god breathed." The word was not made up by the writers of the different letters in the Bible to describe the process under which they worked, it was in use by the populace to describe the same thing we describe when we say "inspired" in terms of art or any other recording of history or story, and the "god" being referred to as doing the "breathing" was whichever muse was responsible for the particular art being employed by the person "inspired."
"Inspired" means nothing more than that the artist (or letter writer) was impelled to record what he perceived. There was a social convention that the muse provided the words or the lines of art in each case and that convention was used as a literary device but no one really believed it and there is no indication that anyone using the term meant anything more than the common understanding of the word.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Actually we don't know who wrote 2 Timothy. Many scholars believe it was written by a follower of Paul and not Paul himself. There are substantive issues with wording, grammar etc. to put authorship in doubt. This is why 2 Timothy is referred to as a pseudepigraphic letter.
Good point. Traditionally it is attributed to Paul. I just did not appreciate his condescending response--you know, of course, that we liberal, non-literacy Christians don't study the scriptures at all and have to be spoken at like idiots.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 09-20-2014 at 03:13 PM..
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2nd Peter written by someone OTHER than Peter the apostle but claiming to be Peter. Most likely a follower of Paul, whose letters by the time 2nd Peter was composed were most likely far more widespread than the gospels themselves.
Doesn't call him an apostle though, does it?
From Wikipedia:
The Second Epistle of Peter, often referred to as Second Peter and written 2 Peter or in Roman numeralsII Peter (especially in older references), is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, written in the name of Saint Peter, although the vast majority of modern scholars regard it as pseudepigraphical.
It is the first New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture, 2 Peter was one of the last letters included in the New Testament canon and is part of the Antilegomena; it quotes from and adapts Jude extensively, identifies Jesus with God, and addresses a threatening heresy which had arisen because the anticipated Second Coming of Christ had not yet occurred.
----
Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman, among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
