Would you pastors object to being called "brother" instead?

[FSSL]

If people think Paul grabbed an illegitimate authority as an apostle, there is no reason to think that we should gather together as believers, in any sense. We have no brotherhood.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Paul would not have considered his words to be Scripture. Authoritative. Yes. Scripture. No.

Except that he did consider his writings to be the very words of God. This was covered above. Read 1 Cor 14

Which is a contradiction to what he wrote about himself in I Corinthians 7:

To the rest I say?I and not the Lord?that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord?s mercy is trustworthy.

So if every Scripture were 'God-breathed', even Paul himself denies that all his recorded words were not of God, meaning those commands based on Paul's opinion were not 'God-breathed'. If then by their record in the canon makes them 'God-breathed', then those phrases are a complete lie, claiming no authority of God yet really are authoritative of God.

So either God lied or Paul lied. I think I will stick with Paul as being the deceitful one, since elsewhere he claimed apostleship when it was not true.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So, what books in the NT should we get rid of because of these power plays?

None. Nor should we get rid of theology books of any kind.

Run them all through the teachings of Jesus and His teachings alone. If they unite, I believe they will be of God. If they do not unite, they might or might not be true and certainly not of God.

God will reveal Himself through whatever means He chooses. People have been saved through Catholic canons so can use 'uninspired' works also.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If people think Paul grabbed an illegitimate authority as an apostle, there is no reason to think that we should gather together as believers, in any sense. We have no brotherhood.

We do because Jesus claims we are all brothers. Hence, no positions of church authority.

Gathering in Jesus' name would be a natural instinct and no direct command would be necessary. In my personal opinion...

 

[FSSL]

No. If Paul claimed to be an apostle, and he wasn't, they only logical and right thing to do is to reject everything. He would be a false apostle.

You cannot view a piece of Paul as authoritative when you reject him fundamentally.

 

[FSSL]

If people think Paul grabbed an illegitimate authority as an apostle, there is no reason to think that we should gather together as believers, in any sense. We have no brotherhood.

We do because Jesus claims we are all brothers. Hence, no positions of church authority.

Gathering in Jesus' name would be a natural instinct and no direct command would be necessary. In my personal opinion...

Luke told us Paul has a direct calling of God. He also wrote about Jesus. Luke had better not be trusted about anything he said about Jesus. After all, He considered a false apostle worthy of dedicating an entire book to his missionary endeavors.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Well then...

You cannot ignore what Scripture says, set up some idea that Jesus and Paul conflicted because the Holy Spirit reveled something contrary to His word and think that you still believe the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is against it, not for it.

Paul warned against rejecting his words. They are the very words God penned through the human agency of Paul.

Now we have history placed over scripture.

Paul sounds a lot like Joseph Smith.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

No. If Paul claimed to be an apostle, and he wasn't, they only logical and right thing to do is to reject everything. He would be a false apostle.

You cannot view a piece of Paul as authoritative when you reject him fundamentally.

Exactly. He is an 'unreliable' source, but a source that God can use nonetheless.

I grew up under Jack Hyles' ministry. He had a whole heck of a lot of crap theology but there was some good stuff that fell in the dung pile that God used in my life. I can and do accept that which God dropped in while discarding the rest (probably most of it).

Jesus in His parable of the wheat and tares said to leave the tares alone. God will do the reaping and separating at the end in His time. And like the true Apostles who accepted Paul until the Trophimus arrest, they apparently then saw the truth. They let him 'grow up in the same field' and God told them at which point to separate (and commended Ephesus in doing the same).

I am for the 66-book canon even though I don't believe it to be inspired. My wife and I started a non-profit organization that allows the Bible to be taught in our public school for a state-recognized History elective credit. Why? Because I believe that Jesus can shine through the written words of the Bible and putting it in a dark place, a light will shine. I don't do it because I 'believe in the Bible' but rather because I 'believe in God and He will work where He chooses'.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If people think Paul grabbed an illegitimate authority as an apostle, there is no reason to think that we should gather together as believers, in any sense. We have no brotherhood.

We do because Jesus claims we are all brothers. Hence, no positions of church authority.

Gathering in Jesus' name would be a natural instinct and no direct command would be necessary. In my personal opinion...

Luke told us Paul has a direct calling of God. He also wrote about Jesus. Luke had better not be trusted about anything he said about Jesus. After all, He considered a false apostle worthy of dedicating an entire book to his missionary endeavors.

From what I can tell, Luke was honest even though he had a bias. He recorded things about Paul that were to Paul's detriment such as the Trophimus debacle, the accepting of the demonic spirit, the arrogant disobedience to Spirit-filled prophetesses who told him not to go to Jerusalem, the contradictions in Paul's testimony, etc.

Luke did label Paul and Barnabas as 'apostles' but did NOT say they were 'apostles of Jesus'. An apostle is one who was sent and Paul and Barnabas had been sent by the Church in Antioch, so in that fashion, they were apostles.

There definitely is Pauline influence in Luke but I don't doubt Luke's sincerity. I don't reject Acts but rather look at it as being from a historian and not of an authoritarian.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't reject Acts but rather look at it as being from a historian and not of an authoritarian.

Exactly.

 

[FSSL]

So, we have some on this forum that believe the books of Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (most likely Hebrews)... is just history, may be authoritative, but definitely not Scripture.

IF Paul is claiming to be an apostle, and he was not, he should have been stoned, or at least rejected outright as a false apostle.

YET, you have no problem seeing his books as authoritative?

You are not convincing about your rejection of pastors. You say pastors have claimed a false authority for themselves. But, you have no problem with viewing Paul's writings as having some authority. Even though you believe he has set himself up, falsely, as an apostle.

You have set up your own authorities... and it doesn't matter to you if they are false.

 

[Ransom]

When someone tries to pit Jesus against Paul, it is always prima facie evidence that they are either theologically liberal, or well on their way.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So, we have some on this forum that believe the books of Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, (most likely Hebrews)... is just history, may be authoritative, but definitely not Scripture.

IF Paul is claiming to be an apostle, and he was not, he should have been stoned, or at least rejected outright as a false apostle.

YET, you have no problem seeing his books as authoritative?

You are not convincing about your rejection of pastors. You say pastors have claimed a false authority for themselves. But, you have no problem with viewing Paul's writings as having some authority. Even though you believe he has set himself up, falsely, as an apostle.

You have set up your own authorities... and it doesn't matter to you if they are false.

I don't claim any of it is authoritative. God is authoritative and He chooses to use non-authoritative means by which He will speak to us. If Jesus spoke the words of God and if we have proper record of His teaching (which is my personal belief), then He alone becomes the authority, not the penmen nor the canons themselves.

Now in this, this is not to say that God won't speak the truth through false teachers/preachers. And this doesn't mean we should be going to these sources as if they are speaking on behalf of God. But God speaks through various means whether it be creation, an evil king, a false prophet, a donkey, or life's circumstances. And when the Spirit teaches us, it will align itself with what Jesus taught.

So yes, I reject Paul as a teacher and certainly as an apostle. However, I still believe his chapter on love (I Corinthians 13) is non-ostensibly true.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When someone tries to pit Jesus against Paul, it is always prima facie evidence that they are either theologically liberal, or well on their way.

And you make it sound as if that is a bad thing. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Paul would not have considered his words to be Scripture. Authoritative. Yes. Scripture. No.

Except that he did consider his writings to be the very words of God. This was covered above. Read 1 Cor 14

I said authorative. Do you not know what that means?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Peter called Paul an apostle.

Give me a scripture for that.

Paul said "All Scripture is God-breathed..."

Since Paul said it, do you reject that, too?

No, since Paul was referring to scripture, not his own letters.

I gave you 2 Peter. I know you deny that Peter wrote it. Unless you toss the book out as not being genuine, certainly the least can be said someone, other than Paul, recognized his apostolic authority.

If Paul cannot be trusted when he says he is a legitimate apostle in 1.1, then why do you trust him when he says "All Scripture"? He didn't say: "The Lord says All Scripture..."

II Peter called him a 'brother', not an apostle. There are only 12 Apostles and none are named "Paul". And it says Paul wrote from 'wisdom' and not 'inspiration'.

Paul was the 12th apostle. Not some man chosen with a lot cast for priests.....

Matthias faded from history and Paul excelled. There is no comparison. Not even close.

Did Peter write Scripture? Did Jude? Did James?

You've never really settled this in your mind. You really need to before you go lecturing others on how to do it...

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't reject Acts but rather look at it as being from a historian and not of an authoritarian.

Exactly.

You boys are getting out of your league....

Historically accurate and true..... then what do you not see as being authorative?

I don't think you've really thought this through....

 

[FSSL]

If Paul's writings are not God-breathed, then they are not Scripture. They are not authoritative.

Authority comes via God's word. For the legalist, authority comes through opinion.

 

[FSSL]

I don't think you've really thought this through....

They have thought it through.

Once you diminish the legitimacy of Paul's apostleship, then he is a liar from Romans 1.1 and forward.

They are just following the direction their feet are pointed in. They are being inconsistent by claiming Paul has even a tinge of credibility. That will soon pass.

 

[T-Bone]

Progressivism is alive on the FFF... The progressive is their own final authority, they decide what they will accept according to what fits their desires...sounds a lot like Judges..."everyone did what was right in their own eyes..."