Adomaday and Theo, on the topic on Paul being scriptural or not I stumbled across this:

1 Corinthians 14:36-38
36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

So yes, he did consider his own writings to be authoritative and thus scriptural. (aside - what a jerk )

Hi Nightmare,

Your question is acknowledged. And context is very important.

Please consider this. What Paul is saying is not lacking in humility on this particular occasion but rather he had the Corinthian congregations interests in mind and heart. Also he is stating facts.

All he is doing here is politely and gently reminding the Corinthians that their gifts (of tongues and prophesy) should be shared amongst each other. So, if someone was speaking in tongues it was better to keep it to themself than speak outloud and there be no-one able to understand the saying.

Paul was sort of saying "hey why boast about gifts if you won't share so that spiritual food and meaning can be revealed to benefit everyone". Perhaps (and this is my own opinion here) Corinthians were not respecting Paul's authoritive position(?), not just from Christ but also as a man placed to teach as a circuit overseer by the older qualified Christian men. Paul oversaw many congregations, we all know this on this forum. He also did more spiritual work than any other person of his day.

Lastly Paul with holy spirit during teaching would not be empowered to elevate himself so as to "lord it over the others". It belongs to the man whom is teaching to speak with holy spirit from God. Paul was therefore providing spiritual food required at that time.

Notably Christ himself does a similar thing through John's revelations (in the book of) when remonstrating/commending various first (& near 2nd) century congregations. Christ is in fact on a couple of those occasions quite forceful of word. Kind too for their good works.

Very best regards,
Adomaday.

I hope Theo adds his thoughts also to your question.

I’m sorry for the delay. I was off line most of the extended weekend and am still getting caught up since it looks like the forum was relatively busy in my absence.



I’m going to quote a Brit friend’s translation who amplifies even more than I, in hopes that it will shed light on just what Paul was communicating:



I’m understanding Paul to be saying his words are a charge from God and instructs his audiences to ignore anyone else who speaks on behalf of God if they don’t also regard Paul’s words as being a charge from Yahweh. It occurs to me that this is a self serving and distinctly different means of identifying a prophet of Yahweh than what is prescribed in the Torah. Also that it is dubious as to whether Paul passed the Torah’s standard for a prophet.

If Paul were not claiming his words were Scripture, he certainly here appears to be claiming that they / he has authority from Yahweh. I suspect that Paul indeed had some sort of extraordinary encounter on the road and sincerely believed that he had Godly authority, which accounts I think for his fervor and manner of death. Of late however, I’ve been wondering if Paul may have been spoken of by Messiah Yahshua in Matthew 24 as one capable of deceiving even the chosen, which in that day could well have meant Yahshua’s own chosen companions / disciples?

It still seems odd to me indeed that when Paul condemns Shimon – Peter; we should presume Gamaliel of Jerusalem’s disciple is Godly and Yahshua of Nazareth’s is wrong.

Respectfully,

-Theophilus

Ok Theophilus I appreciate your sincerity here and it appears you have some questions over the apostle Paul. Hopefully I can help here.

Paul's letters would not be regarded as "scripture" at that time. They were letters of instruction due to the vast distances Paul was covering. Much like an MD writes a memorandum. It was Yahweh God whom made the letters become scripture. Yahweh "caused to become" through Holy Spirit and the true Christians took Paul's words as valid scriptural counsel.

Paul would have already been dead and had nothing to do with this decision. But as I previously stated Paul was in a high position of authority and this was given from Yahweh God, from Yehoshua / Jesus Christ himself personally. Perhaps in fact Christ himself chose Saul/Paul. I need to check this. Either way Jesus definitely spoke to Paul and it is not unreasonable to believe Jesus chose Saul. He chose 12 disciples. Yet Paul remained faithful to death unlike Judas.

It appears to me from your thinking that there is some obstacle. Perhaps you don't "like" Paul's seemingly high mindedness. But he was RIGHTLY placed to discipline the true Christians of his day.

Furthermore it is apparent you are "singling" out Paul for some reason. Personally in light of his clear faithful death this seems unfair, to me.

Peter also wrote letters. John also wrote letters. Jude and James - Jesus half brothers also wrote letters.

The question of Paul's canonicity into holy biblical scripture is very strong, completely founded and never doubted throughout the ages by true Christians. William Tyndale included.

Also consider this. God told Moses "See, I have made you God to Pharoah" (Exodus 7 verse 1).

Now of course none would argue Moses WAS God. But Yahweh God clearly wanted Moses to be His earthly spokesperson. What I am saying is if God wills it, it is done. Please take a look also at Paul's words here 2nd Corinthians 11 verse 21 onwards.

To help I say this. Moses fell a little weaker spiritually in old age, Paul did not. Moses and Paul made mistakes, they were human. Paul even said "miserable man that I am" - so he was clearly humble in mistakes. For me his self sacrifice, zeal, personal tribulations (plenty) and love of preaching set him apart.

Truly I say to you...and please think of Paul's previous track record...Paul was a greater man than I am by a long distance. Regrettably we shall perhaps stumble much more than he I know I already do.

Very best,
Adomaday

Totally agreed Theo. His statement here actually sounds like what one would expect of a cult leader, as it give no method of verifying his authority (unlike the OT prophets).



Very interesting. I hadn't thought of that before. Twould put a new light on a great many issues, wouldn't it?



Yeah, echo that too - the fact that there was a falling out between Peter and Paul alone speaks volumes of something. What that something is is the question of course.

'

This would imply that such could occur again at any time.



Are we entirely sure Judas was not faithful? I think it is entirely likely that he was perhaps the most faithful of the lot.



How so? And moreover why would they need "discipline"? We aren't talking about children here.

Ok, well please excuse me here but you are clearly missing points that I'm providing you.

Paul is talking to true Christians - who although adults WERE children often times spiritually. That is a fact. They are even called "children of God". Now please, if someone is going to debate scripture with me, trust me, I know my subject well.

And I wish to defend the apostle Paul.

Paul trying to muscle the Christians away from Christ? What absurd nonesense.

You need educating on this matter, and speaking so badly of Paul I don't mind doing it either.

True Christians were subject to many "false" sects and divisions and misleading peoples of their day whom kept corrupting truth. Ones who surreptitiously, viciously and deceptively tried to disrupt the congregations of the first century and beyond. Proof?

This was prophesised to occur (wolves in sheeps clothing) and John also wrote about an individual person a "so-called" Christian whom was not receiving John's letters well and speaking badly of righteous ones. It most certainly was not Paul. Read it for yourself in one of John's books.

Paul was RIGHTLY warning true Christians (babes needing milk not solid food) that they ought to pay attention and not be deceived by false reasonings, thoughts and misleading teachings.

As for these true Christians being adults, it is clear that although adults many true Christians in those early days were in fact very immature spiritually. If you've got all day reading my supportative scriptures I'll certainly provide much evidence. It's throughout the NT, Greek Scriptures.

Furthermore I urge anyone whom is looking to bring down true Christians whom died faithfully to remember the wise words:

at Matthew chapter 7, opening words from Holy Scripture (the Bible):



Now please I am not judging, rather assisting. If I do not say then I am witholding good knowledge and counsel to a fellow believer, am I not?

If I know good counsel and I do not speak it what good am I myself to any I can help?

Furthermore I say in your own defences that there is probably not a single Christian whom has not stumbled at another at some time. Save the Christ, of course! Simon Peter did!

What - am I also free of this charge? I fear not, I too did such myself - so I judge no-one. Only help.

Due to the inescapable truth that according to Ephesians 6:12 even true Christians will be used one against the other in an attempt to disrupt each others peace and goodness I say to all, be careful. Drop the gift at the altar and go make peace with your brother.

Truthfully this spiritual brother, the apostle Paul lives. He is alive. Without doubt. He just doesn't live among us.

Many thanks,
Adomaday

*shrug* I'm not debating scripture - the text says what it says, and debating over meaning is just about as fruitful as debating the meaning of any novel. What I debate is the logically implications and conditions that arise from or are reflected in said scripture.



Why is that, one must ask.



*shrug* If Paul is the nigh godling you seem to be making him out to be (saint is the Catholic term) I'm certain he would understand and forgive Theo and myself as merely mistaken due to lack of or incorrect information.

*shrugs in return* Sometimes the things we see are most insightful, perceptively, like the nodding of the heads upon the screen.



Revelation 12 -the war and Ephesians 6.



Well I'm sincerely very sorry for being a little overzealous, however we have an affinity or gratefulness to certain people at times. I know men very much like Paul, they're spiritual giants with a warm, welcoming and powerful nature. Their humbleness and heartfelt caring is quite moving *sighs at my own lacking*

You'll be perhaps pleased to know Paul will have quite a role during the 1,000 years. I'm sure his wisdom and faithfulness will be most useful.

Not that he needs to serve God anymore just that he loves doing so.

Not what I meant - I was pondering why this particular grouping of individuals were seemingly so vulnerable to sectarianism and division. But then that's a inaccurate view really isn't it? Christianity has been lousy with sectarianism since bother day one. Twill be interesting to delve into the "why" of that question methinks.



The bigger the giant, the harder the fall. Better by far to be nothing, untouchable and unhurtable



More UPG? Or do you have a source on this?

A little context here, when Paul publicly denounced Peter's behavior it was because Peter, who was sent to the Gentiles, was refusing to eat with them. God had already granted Peter the vision telling him to eat certain foods that were considered unclean, Peter initially followed this command, and then bowed to peer pressure and stopped. As a leader of the Early Church, it was imperative that this be corrected. I can go study out the references later if no one beats me to it, but lets not put either Peter or Paul in the position of having to be perfect. They weren't. God uses imperfect people and doesn't whitewash their flaws as He accomplishes His perfect will.

Agreed in that God uses imperfect persons, he has to - only His son was perfect.

The command is two fold. Peter can eat these once considered unclean animals. Jehovah God is saying "kill, eat" showing that provided they are killed in the correct manner (not strangled! offered to idols or blood is not drained properly) that Peter can now eat them.

It's spiritual understanding is that now the Gentiles are open to the preaching effort.

However one should not enforce their view on others about what to eat or not. Vegetarians or persons who do not wish to eat pork etc are free to continue but God is no longer saying it is "unclean" as far as a Christian is concerned.

This is also why the circumcision was no longer necessary.

Paul circumcised Timothy shortly after this new decree so as not to prejudice Jews they were about to preach to. Paul said to a Jew I became as a Jew. Supporting scriptures for NON circumcision of Christians is discussed in these latter scriptures (Acts 15:6-29; Acts 16:1-3; 1 Cor 9:20; Romans 2:25-29; Gal 2:11-14; 5:2-6; 6:12-15 and Col 2:11 and 3:11)

However the best evidence for this is at 1st Corinthians 7 verse 19. Absolutely CLEAR.

I told you why, in those scriptures.



None are untouchable, except Jehovah God.



The term UPG is seemingly an occultic one. No, rather it states that Paul will do so in the holy scriptures, the bible.

To know more perhaps you may wish to pray to Jehovah God through his son Christ?

I don't recall this portion, could you note the reference please?



Gods I hate that term. Say it with me now people "occultic is NOT a word". Regardless I told him the source of the term (ie modern paganism) flat out when I first mentioned it.

LOL - was waiting for that....I remember that as your pet hate even years back now

Glad I made an impression

when Paul confronts Peter, it is because what Peter is doing is wrong.
You will note as you read through the scriptures that Peter was wrong on more than
one occasion.
Not as many as I have been, no doubt, but wrong none the less.

Galatians 2
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me,
they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen,
and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come,
he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,
I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles,
and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners,
is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:
and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me,
and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

You see, when Peter broke fellowship with the Gentiles to avoid problems with those Jews who were
choosing to continue in the Law, he was setting himself up as a stumbling block for many
believers, Jew and Gentile alike. New and old alike. So Paul did what he needed to do to
set things in the mixed fellowship right again.

Twould seem such "stumbling block" behavior is rather common even today.

yeppers, it sure is.

So the practical question would be then how to deal with it, no?

:)
ignore it....
work around it.....
confront it.....

All of them have their place.
gotta run for now though, so more later.

mark

Mark, I agree that we have account of Peter’s erring and Messiah correcting and instructing Him.

While I see that you conquer with the Christian position and with what was for a long time my position, what I’ve been wrestling with here is whether Peter, James, John, Matthew,, John and the rest of the Jerusalem Assembly who Paul dismisses as supposed pillars along with their teacher Yahshua of Nazareth, not to mention the Torah, Prophets and Psalms were indeed wrong, and it’s is only Paul is infallible regarding the Torah. It appears that Galatians is a rant against this assembly for admonishing him in Acts 9 for teaching others to disregard the Torah.

I don’t expect you to concur with my conclusions regarding Paul since it has been a struggle for me and has been the result of extensive study with a focus on the letter to the Galatians.

Respectfully,

-Theophilus

And you are indeed entitled to that opinion Theo, I do hold it as being incorrect though.

I would seem likely that this be the case. But then of course I'm loath to take anyone's word as infallible, especially those who state or believe they are.

Where do you see Paul dismissing Jesus? Where does Paul state that the Torah, the prophets, and Psalms were wrong?