The Apostle Paul and gay sex
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Not missing at all Paul's role in helping build the early church. What you're missing is that Paul claims that those "practical decisions" are the direct commands of the Lord Jesus Christ. |
Anonymous
| I think this is really interesting. Thanks for the thorough response OP |
Anonymous
Even if that were true, that would still leave Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2nd Timothy and Philemon. Next. |
Anonymous
Of course, to spread the *gospel*, which means the recorded sayings of Christ. You can try to develop creative interpretations of "apostle" and "grace," but it seems to be torturing Paul's own words to claim he thinks he has authority beyond the gospels. |
Anonymous
|
We say "The peace of God be with you" every week in church. I know priests who close their letters with similar phrases, just as you show Paul opening a letter. Nobody involved is claiming to be speaking directly for God.
OP, most of your quotes sound very much like a priest or pastor who is anointed by God. They spread the gospel, that's their job, but it's much the same as Paul did! The provide advice to parishioners, just like Paul did. Do you think your priest/pastor is speaking directly for God? |
Anonymous
Not OP, but if my pastor wrote half the Bible, talked to Jesus directly, and spread Christianity throughout the world... at that point, yes, I would think their writing was speaking for God. |
Anonymous
Paul was not just a Pastor. Jesus spoke to him directly in a vision, just as Jesus spoke to others after his death. Paul writes about his conversion to Christianity and his being filled by the Holy Spirit (which is God). It is document by another: Ananais whom Jesus appeared to and spoke to about Paul (or Saul at the time). Back then, they didn't have the Bible for people to learn about God. It was all spread through word of mouth from the Apostles who were filled with the Holy Spririt. Today, we have the Bible, and pastors spread the Message of the Bible by using the Bible, which is God's way of speaking to His followers. Pastors are just the messengers of the the Word of God, ie, the Bible. So, no, Paul is not just a Pastor. |
Anonymous
There weren't "the recorded sayings of Christ" during the formation of the early church. This is why Paul spends time in every one of his letters establishing his apostolic authority in speaking for Christ, because Christ sent him to bring the gospel and all the commands of Christ to the church. I'm not using creative interpretations of any words, but taking Paul at his. I have cited specific examples of Paul claiming directly to be speaking for Christ. Go back and reread them. You can't miss it if you actually read it. This is not spreading the recorded sayings of Christ, this is telling the church what the teachings of Christ actually are. The church was not established at the time of Christ. Christ came to prove that He was God on earth and to seek and save the lost (Matthew 15:24). The church was not established until after his death, resurrection and ascension. After that, Christ needed to teach the church in all His ways, and he used the apostles -- and primarily Paul -- to do so. This is what is recounted in the passages of Acts that I cited. |
Anonymous
If you're inclined, you might be able to say "some" of these quote are just an anointing as a pastor, but even that would ignore what Paul said he was anointed to do, which was to make the word of God "fully known," meaning it wasn't fully known at the time he wrote. But even then, there are also passages where Paul claims to be speaking directly for God, beyond what any normal pastor would do. Additionally, saying "the peace of God be with you" is different from starting a letter saying "peace and grace FROM the Lord Jesus," same as if you got a letter FROM the office of the president or something similar. But that's not even the main thrust of the passages I cited. They are extremely numerous, and you can't discount them all, unless you're doing so out of a willful refusal to read what they mean. |
Anonymous
This makes no sense. Wrote half the Bible =\= speaking for God. |
Anonymous
Not the PP, but the issue as expressed in the homosexuality thread was that someone argued that Paul never even claimed to be speaking for God. If you don't accept the Bible, I can see how writing the Bible does not equate to speaking for God. But even if you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, it's an informed opinion that would say Paul didn't claim to be speaking for Christ. You can't read his letters and deny that. |
Anonymous
Not PP or OP, but your statement makes no sense either. Christians (most) believe that the Bible is inherently inspired by God, ie, represents God. Why would there be so many books written by Paul in the Bible if he were not speaking for God? We believe that all the books in the Bible are there because they represent God's words. |
Anonymous
|
^^
Sorry, UNinformed opinion. |
Anonymous
+1. Many Christians do not believe that we need to take Paul's letters literally. We value Paul for many things, but not because we think that every word he uttered came directly from God. The "big size means it must be God's word" argument is utterly specious. As are the attempts to take language used by every priest and minister in this country and claim it means something different/more special when Paul uses it. |
Anonymous
|
I think OP's post shows a lot of confusion between the roles of Prophet, Apostle, and Disciple. OP concedes that Paul never called himself a prophet, only an apostle. An apostle spreads Jesus' word, as OP says. However, of these three, only the prophet speaks for God.
|