Paul speaking only for himself (a question, not a debate)

Quick question, think this is the best spot for it. If I'm wrong a moderator will surely resolve it.I remember from reading the Epistles there is a point where Paul says something like "speaking only for myself here, and not for God" after providing God's view on an issue. What passage is that?I remembered it in the pastoral's but a quick search through 1, 2 Timothy and Titus didn't find it.Thanks in advance,Chris

Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

In 1 Corinthians 7 there are several instances of Paul asserting his own opinion.6 I say this as a concession, not as a command...12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):...25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgement as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.Hopefully this is what you were thinking of.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Romans 3 That may be what you were thinking about.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you both,Corinthians was the one I was trying to remember; the Romans one I had forgotten about completely. So thanks to both of you.Have a good day,Chris

Would it be wrong for me to point out that in the passage from 1st Corinthians the author is referring to a teaching which is explained in the gospels * Mark This covers a case where two believers are married, neither of them is allowed to leave. He doesn't have a saying to agraphify for the next case, so he talks on his own authority * 1st Corinthians And good riddance. Note the veiled cut at these folks, they aren't "really" married. But still, the believer can't leave them.But he definitely doesnt assert that this application of the teachings is "just his own opinion" in the sense of not being authoritative Paul never has any trouble asserting that his word is THE Word

Welcome,Iblis. And as spin-doctor for the Romans(authorities), Paul had no trouble inserting civil instructions. No wonder wherever he went where the Romans had control, he was accommodated with the appointed heads: Gallio at Corinth,Claudias Lysias at Jerusalem,Festus at Caesarea,Publius at Melita, Julius on the way to Rome. Knowing Titus`s mistress, Bernice, must have come in handy,too.

Do you know why Paul had such power and connections with Rome ?His brother (Rufus Pudens, Romans 16) was a Senator, Paul himself was a Roman citizen. The Romans letter was addressed to the Church at Rome: which was the household of the conquered British-Seleurian king Caradoc, known as Caractacus. This vanquished chief was given in-house parole by the Roman senate instead of a death sentence as recorded by Tacitis. His daughter, Gladys (not to be confused with his wife of the same name) was adopted by the Emperor and he changed her name to Claudia. She married Rufus Pudens. While under subjugation, Caradoc was converted.It is to THIS household....Paul wrote "...to all that be at Rome".Paul was a doulos/slave of Christ - not Rome, as is witnessed by his martyrdom their at the hands of the Romans.Ray

Any evidence outside of church sources?

No one even knows for sure how Paul died. There's a tradition that he died in prison, and another tradition that he was beheaded. But, there is no external contemporary evidence of Paul's death. Having said that, there is no external evidence of any apostle's death either.Brian.

I suspect Paul might have talked himself to death.:-p

Yeah Paul gets all the hot girls in Acts and * Romans He also doesn't have any trouble showing his opponents up in a name-dropping duel Get it, "labour" ?!? So anyway Wow Thanks for the reference. Where's that documented from? (Other than Robert de Borron, I mean)

Agreed. Never heard of this, not saying it doesn't exist. The key word here is "tradition". 2Timothy has Paul saying his death is eminent. A "tradition" is something that the generation in question accepted as fact, followed by every successive generation. A "legend" is a story that the generation in question rejected as fact BUT later re-appeared in other generations. The tradition of Paul's beheading is a tradition accepted by multiple quarters of christendom, from the British church, Rome, Jerusalem, and of course Antioch. These are compelling lines of evidence SINCE, in the 1st century, NO modern communication abilities existed. Such a "tale" would have never made it past Rome. The tradition of Paul's beheading is a fact, although Dr. Scott says there is ample evidence it actually came well after 2Timothy - that being a false alarm.Brian: are truth and accuracy synonymous ? By traditions and legends there is.While I degraded "legends" above; all are NOT untrue. If the legend corresponds with unconnected facts then historians have a basis.Legend says Thomas was martyred near Madras, India. The legend is supported by the fact that there is an ancient church at Mt. St. Thomas, India. The fact that we are talking INDIA shows there can be no bias since that land is ruled by non-christians.In addition, there exists NOT ONE shred of evidence contradicting any martyrdom legend or tradition. If the accounts are not true THEN surely history would betray and cough up something - yet nothing, zero, zip.Ray

I bet he did! I'd like to say, maybe he tried to read what he'd written, but I wouldn't bet on that. But talked himself to death in the old country sense, you bet.Paul writes difficult, information-rich sentences that are hard to follow no matter how sharp the translators might be. I had to read this bit Jar provides from Romans 3 several times to think I might be getting the gist of some of it What he appears to be saying is that when not just some hypothetical Jew but he himself when he was a Jew, when he studied and recited and memorized the Law, he didn't really believe it. Not just some theoretical modern Jewish atheist but he himself, Paul, he didn't believe what he was saying. He was repeating statements he at that time "knew" to be false, from an ethical viewpoint he was telling outright lies.BUT that doesn't make the statements themselves untrue does it? The mental attitude of the person repeating the data does not make data that was true in the lab suddenly untrue at the copying machine through sheer magic does it?To paraphrase a further application into a modern scenario, the fact that plenty of Bible scholars don't believe a word of it doesn't affect the quality of their job at all. Did you learn stuff? Are you studying hard? Are you full of the Word, have you had a hot coal set on your heart, do you have complaints to make against heaven? They are doing a good job then.In the big plan, "atheists" who understand a variety of hashing methods and use them methodically to insure perfect duplication of texts have the best copy of the Old Testament because believers are too lazy and forgiving to keep extraneous material from creeping in.* Oh, this certainly doesn't help with the idea of Paul having opinions that weren't authoritative. We get the idea that even though he didn't believe the Law when he was a Jew and subject to it, now that he is an Apostle and the Law is whatever he says it is, he likes it just fine!

Paul talked Eutychus to death, so to speak: Acts 20 (ASV)