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

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

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)

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!