The Apostle Paul and gay sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have seen a variation of this post on multiple threads but can you quote someone who isn't anonymous that follows this reasoning? Like some sort of theologian or pastor or something? Because I don't see how this is relevant. No one cares about Paul's "job description."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm the OP, and I'm totally clear on the three. The fact that Paul didn't use the actual word "prophet" has nothing to do with whether he claimed to be speaking for God and bringing a message straight from Christ to the church. Prophets were used by God in the Old Testament to bring revelation of God to mankind, most often to herald judgment on the nation of Israel and to foretell the birth, death and resurrection of Christ. Hebrews 1:1 in the New Testament says that in the past, God spoke to us, among other ways, through the prophets, but now He has spoken to us through His Son, that is, Christ. Once Christ was born, died and rose again, there was no need anymore for prophets, which is one of the things conveyed when Christ said on the cross, "It is finished." The role of Apostle was a new role. You wont find prophets in the New Testament, and you won't find apostles in the Old. And in the New Testament, the requirement of being an apostle included having met Christ, which is why much is made in the book of Acts about Paul's having met the resurrected Christ, and why this is authenticated by Christ also appearing to Ananias and giving him instructions to welcome Paul and verifying the message that Christ gave Paul. This fulfilled a requirement for Paul to be an apostle, and this is why Paul is called an apostle and not a prophet, though Paul did speak for God through direct revelation from Christ, of which Paul repeatedly reminds his readers and which I cited at length.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Most main stream Christians consider that Paul does speak for God. We don't have any Apostles or Prophets today. We have pastors because we have the word of God in the Bible. Pastors guide; they don't speak for God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle

"An apostle, from Classical Greek ????????? (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent away",[1] is a messenger and ambassador. The purpose of such "sending away" is to convey messages, and thus "messenger" is a common alternative translation."

Usually, a messenger speaks for the person who is sending the message. Is there some "lost in translation" going on? IDK, but as Christians, we do believe in the inherency of the Bible, so we trust that what is in there is directly from God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Most main stream Christians consider that Paul does speak for God. We don't have any Apostles or Prophets today. We have pastors because we have the word of God in the Bible. Pastors guide; they don't speak for God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle

"An apostle, from Classical Greek ????????? (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent away",[1] is a messenger and ambassador. The purpose of such "sending away" is to convey messages, and thus "messenger" is a common alternative translation."

Usually, a messenger speaks for the person who is sending the message. Is there some "lost in translation" going on? IDK, but as Christians, we do believe in the inherency of the Bible, so we trust that what is in there is directly from God.

You're not speaking for "most mainstream Christians." It's been said by others, but spreading the gospel is very different, qualitatively, from channeling God.

Thanks, a Protestant

[Anonymous]

Evangelicals take Paul literally, using the broad definitions and interpretations used by OP.

Most other Christians, who are the "mainstream", take Paul seriously but not literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Evangelicals take Paul literally, using the broad definitions and interpretations used by OP.

Most other Christians, who are the "mainstream", take Paul seriously but not literally.

Actually, my definitions and interpretations are very specific. The broad approach is the "mainstream" one you cite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Most main stream Christians consider that Paul does speak for God. We don't have any Apostles or Prophets today. We have pastors because we have the word of God in the Bible. Pastors guide; they don't speak for God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle

"An apostle, from Classical Greek ????????? (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent away",[1] is a messenger and ambassador. The purpose of such "sending away" is to convey messages, and thus "messenger" is a common alternative translation."

Usually, a messenger speaks for the person who is sending the message. Is there some "lost in translation" going on? IDK, but as Christians, we do believe in the inherency of the Bible, so we trust that what is in there is directly from God.

You're not speaking for "most mainstream Christians." It's been said by others, but spreading the gospel is very different, qualitatively, from channeling God.

Thanks, a Protestant

LOL.. PP here... I grew up Presbyterian, and now go to a non-denominational church. Isn't that mainstream Christian? The pastors that I have come across who have gone to seminary believe that Paul had the Holy Spirit in him, as the Bible says.

So, what you are saying is that you only take the Prophets and Jesus literally, and no other in the Bible, because they are truly the only ones that were channeling God. That is not mainstream Christianity either.

[Anonymous]

OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

Says who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

You can read it literally or not if you want to and take it up with Christ during the Judgment. The issue I addressed was whether Paul claimed to be speaking for God, and a straightforward reading using plain meanings of words shows that he repeatedly and emphatically claimed to be imparting divine revelation in his letters. Paul, for himself, clearly meant his letters to be read as Scripture.

What's confusing to me is why anyone who didn't take Paul literally would take him seriously. He claimed in every letter of the Bible that he wrote but one that he was speaking for Christ. If you don't believe he was, then he was being dishonest or deluded. Why would you then take him seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

You can read it literally or not if you want to and take it up with Christ during the Judgment. The issue I addressed was whether Paul claimed to be speaking for God, and a straightforward reading using plain meanings of words shows that he repeatedly and emphatically claimed to be imparting divine revelation in his letters. Paul, for himself, clearly meant his letters to be read as Scripture.

What's confusing to me is why anyone who didn't take Paul literally would take him seriously. He claimed in every letter of the Bible that he wrote but one that he was speaking for Christ. If you don't believe he was, then he was being dishonest or deluded. Why would you then take him seriously?

He's preaching the gospels as an apostle, so of course we take him seriously. That's very different from the more expansive role you want him to have, going beyond the gospels to talk about things the gospels don't mention, like homosexuality. On these issues, many "mainstream" Christians think he's a good man trying to interpret as best he can for new audiences on new issues.

You obviously disagree and want to read things your way. There's no point in continuing to argue with you. Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Paul never met Jesus other than to have a vision with J asking him why he persecutes him(Jesus).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Paul never met Jesus other than to have a vision with J asking him why he persecutes him(Jesus).

Not quite. It's true that the example you mention is the only one that is recounted in Acts, but even that indicates that Paul met Christ on other occasions. Acts 26:15-16 says, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you (Paul) for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you." A plain reading of this text indicates further encounters to come.

Paul also mentions numerous times (which I have cited in my OP) that he was taught the Gospel not by any man but by Christ himself. Galatians 1 is probably the fullest account. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Again, you're certainly free to believe whatever you want about whether Christianity and the claims of the Bible are true, but only through a willful disregard of the plain text can you come to the conclusion that Paul never claimed authority to speak for Christ or that he had no further encounters with Christ than on the road to Damascus. Paul is extremely clear in his writings that he regarded himself as bringing the teaching of Christ, which he received directly from Christ, to the church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paul never met Jesus other than to have a vision with J asking him why he persecutes him(Jesus).

Not quite. It's true that the example you mention is the only one that is recounted in Acts, but even that indicates that Paul met Christ on other occasions. Acts 26:15-16 says, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you (Paul) for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you." A plain reading of this text indicates further encounters to come.

Paul also mentions numerous times (which I have cited in my OP) that he was taught the Gospel not by any man but by Christ himself. Galatians 1 is probably the fullest account. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Again, you're certainly free to believe whatever you want about whether Christianity and the claims of the Bible are true, but only through a willful disregard of the plain text can you come to the conclusion that Paul never claimed authority to speak for Christ or that he had no further encounters with Christ than on the road to Damascus. Paul is extremely clear in his writings that he regarded himself as bringing the teaching of Christ, which he received directly from Christ, to the church.

Paul received the teaching directly from Christ, but not from Christ in the flesh, but from the Spirit of Christ. Paul did not start writing his epistles until 30 years after Jesus died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please do not speak for mainstream Christians. A literal interpretation of Paul is not mainstream.

You can read it literally or not if you want to and take it up with Christ during the Judgment. The issue I addressed was whether Paul claimed to be speaking for God, and a straightforward reading using plain meanings of words shows that he repeatedly and emphatically claimed to be imparting divine revelation in his letters. Paul, for himself, clearly meant his letters to be read as Scripture.

What's confusing to me is why anyone who didn't take Paul literally would take him seriously. He claimed in every letter of the Bible that he wrote but one that he was speaking for Christ. If you don't believe he was, then he was being dishonest or deluded. Why would you then take him seriously?

He's preaching the gospels as an apostle, so of course we take him seriously. That's very different from the more expansive role you want him to have, going beyond the gospels to talk about things the gospels don't mention, like homosexuality. On these issues, many "mainstream" Christians think he's a good man trying to interpret as best he can for new audiences on new issues.

You obviously disagree and want to read things your way. There's no point in continuing to argue with you. Good luck to you.

I am a different pp. You have posted this comment or some variation of it at least 50 times. Could you at least post some more authoritative source that agrees with you? You have put at least as much effort in posting this same opinion so many times!!!!