Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have You Ever Read Ephesians?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 76 of 383 (687981)
01-18-2013 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Richh
01-16-2013 11:19 PM


Re: Ephesians 1:3-14
Can you make a statement of what the will of God is?
A statement on the will of God?
I will try to adhere at this time to Ephesians.
In 1:6 is the mention of " ... the good pleasure of His will" . Since what has gone before is " ... according to the good pleasure of His will" I must include His will refers to the previous matters.
1.) To have SONS with the life and position of SONS - "sonship" is the will of God.
"Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will."
How can we not say that God's will is to have sons through THE Son Jesus Christ. That is to mass produce sons of God through the prototype and standard model of THE Son of God.
2.) I think if we speak of "the good pleasure of His will" in v.5 then probably " the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure" mentioned in verse 9 should also be an indication God's will. What does it say about His will then?
"Making known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, unto the econmoy of the fullness of the t imes, to head up all things in Christ ... "
Along with have with the sonship there is the will to "head up all things in Christ."
This strongly implies that all things must be presently in some state of having collapsed or dropped down into a chaotic ruin in some regard. Witness Lee rightly refers to "the universal heap of collapse."
I think many theologians refer to "the fall." For God to have a will to that Christ head up all things in heaven and on earth means that God wills to terminate the heap of chaotic ruination and structure it up into a well organized, well coordinated system under the leadership of Jesus Christ.
So up to verse 10 we have God's will of having sons with the life and position of divine sons. This is a life matter relating man to God in a kind of living organic relationship.
Then we also have God's will in somewhat of a more outward way. All things out there, in the world, in the universe to be headed up from their state of apparent collapse into a well structured system under Jesus Christ.
The last two verses of chapter one nicely summarize these two matters. One being God within His people. The other being all things structured up properly under His sons.
"And He subjected all things under His feet and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His Body, the fullness on the One who fills all in all." (vs. 22,23)
He is IN the Body of Himself as the life of that Body and as the fullness that fills every part of that body.
In His being Head of that corporate Body He is Head over all things TO the church. He is Head over all things in view of the church. He is transmitting that headship from Himself to His mystical Body.
This has to agree with sons with the sonship reigning with Him over the creation. And it surely agrees with God planning these reigning sons "before the foundation of the world" (v.4). ie. before the creation of the universe.
I should add that the words "Unto an economy of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ ..." indicate process. That is gradual process that requires TIME. It requires TIME to climax in something. That is for time to reach a consummation. That is for history to be moving gradually towards a goal.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Richh, posted 01-16-2013 11:19 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Richh, posted 01-18-2013 6:04 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 316 by Richh, posted 03-05-2013 7:19 PM jaywill has replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 77 of 383 (688051)
01-18-2013 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jaywill
01-18-2013 9:38 AM


Re: Ephesians 1:3-14 - A statement of God's good pleasure, will and purpose
I like the three points you picked from this chapter:
1. Sonship for us
2. Heading up all things in the fullness of the times for Christ
3. Christ, Head over all things to the church now
To this I would add:
4. For us to holy and without blemish before Him
5. To the praise of the glory of His grace and to the praise of His glory
Isn't that wonderfully comprehensive!
(Maybe the 'holy and without blemish before Him' is an aspect of sonship.)
In this we get:
'the Spirit of the Son, the life of the Son, the position of the Son, the image of the Son, the completion of sonship and the inheritance of all that God is in the sonship.'
I appreciate the mention of all these points in the reference where I found this quote. I don't think I would have picked them all out. I believe they are all scriptural.
Also as the church, we get all that Christ is and the operation of God's demonstrated power given to the church.
In this God gets the universe restored to its rightful state in the future, and much glory and praise, both now and in the future.
Let me mention a few other things about these verses and this portion. I don't think the Bible is easy to translate. I mentioned this is a previous post where I listed alternative translations of the phrase 'which he purposed in himself'.
The word for sonship here is 'huiothesia' in Greek. It means to be placed into the position of a son; hence it is most often translated adoption. The RSV translates it 'to be His sons', the TEV translates it 'bring us to Himself as sons' and the BBE translates is 'we were designed before by Him for the position of sons to Himself'. Only the Recovery Version translates it 'predestinating us unto sonship'. Wuest has, 'He placed us as adult sons through the immediate agency of Jesus Christ.' I like that translation too. It gets the the heart of the matter.
To translate it as adoption emphasizes the process that must take place for God to make one 'dead in trespasses and sins' a son of God. To translate it 'sonship' or 'to be His sons' emphasizes the end state. God's 'adoption' process is not like ASPCA adoption of a pet. God actually makes those who were 'dead in trespasses and sins' to become sons in life, having, as noted above, 'the Spirit of the Son, the life of the Son, the position of the Son, the image of the Son', etc.
More later on 'head up'...
Edited by Richh, : Adding more material...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jaywill, posted 01-18-2013 9:38 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


(2)
Message 78 of 383 (688155)
01-19-2013 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jazzns
01-04-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Authenticity?
Is it relevant to discuss if Ephesians is authentic? Should we put spiritual trust in a book that lies about who wrote it in order to gain acceptance? If there is value regardless of the author, why couldn't the ghost writer use his own name? Was it even intended for the Ephesians and does that matter?
Let me take a crack at this.
If I started a rumor that Plato didn't write the Republic and perhaps that Socrates did not even exist, could you disprove me?
That is one line of inquiry.
The second related line is, does it matter who wrote the Republic? If so why, and if not, why not?
To disprove me you'd need to resort to some historical evidence. And even if you did not do that, there is something about the works of Plato and Socrates that 'stand on their own two feet'.
Along the first line let me quote from a book by F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.
I think a double-standard of historicity is applied to these two classes of writings.
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 01-04-2013 10:49 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2013 6:00 AM Richh has replied
 Message 82 by Jazzns, posted 01-21-2013 11:46 AM Richh has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 79 of 383 (688171)
01-20-2013 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Richh
01-19-2013 6:45 PM


Re: Authenticity?
quote:
If I started a rumor that Plato didn't write the Republic and perhaps that Socrates did not even exist, could you disprove me?
Not a good analogy. The dispute over the authorship of Ephesians isn't based on a rumor.
A Sermon on Ephesians
The Epistle to the Ephesians, often shortened to Ephesians, is the tenth book of the New Testament. Its authorship has traditionally been credited to Paul, but it is considered by some scholars to be Deutero-pauline, that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought. Bible scholar Raymond E. Brown asserts that about 80% of critical scholarship judges that Paul did not write Ephesians, while Perrin and Duling say that of six authoritative scholarly references, "four of the six decide for pseudonymity, and the other two (PCB and JBC) recognize the difficulties in maintaining Pauline authorship. Indeed, the difficulties are insurmountable."
Is the letter reliable? My question would be reliable as what? It's a letter. As I stated earlier, some scholars feel it is a summary of Paul's theology and probably an introduction to the collection of Pauline letters. Message 19
Eph also refers to most of the other letters of Paul. In many ways it seems like a summary of Paul's ideas, written by a disciple of his, and brought up to date for the Church of his own time.
The author presents a more universal church than existed in Paul's time.
Eph shows that the Church is becoming an advanced and powerful universal institution (rather like the Church today). In Paul's time there did no universal Church in that sense, but only informal gatherings of individual believe communities.
It is a letter written to believers, not nonbelievers. It is a letter encouraging believers to persevere. Ignatius gives similar encouragement in his letter to the Ephesians and brings them up to date for their time. As noted below, one should "look upon the bishop as we would upon the Lord Himself."
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
Unfortunately we don't know how pseudographic letters were presented to the audience of the time. Early Christianity was chaotic.
Pseudepigraphy was a commonly accepted practice in the ancient world, unless it was recognized as a deliberate deception. If one is going to look at reliability, one needs to look at the purpose of the letter. Was the main purpose to deceive? I don't see deception as the main purpose of the letter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Richh, posted 01-19-2013 6:45 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Richh, posted 01-21-2013 6:24 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 01-21-2013 12:49 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 80 of 383 (688249)
01-21-2013 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by purpledawn
01-20-2013 6:00 AM


Re: Authenticity?
Do you consider this an open-and-shut case, an irrefutable conclusion or are there two sides to the argument - that this epsitle is pseudepigraphical?
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2013 6:00 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2013 8:13 AM Richh has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 81 of 383 (688253)
01-21-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Richh
01-21-2013 6:24 AM


Authenticity vs Reliabililty
quote:
Do consider this an open-and-shut case, an irrefutable conclusion or are there two sides to the argument - that this epsitle is pseudepigraphical?
As we sift thorough the information in the links I provided earlier, we see that Bible scholars are divided on the issue of authenticity.
There is a difference between authenticity and reliability. Although the letter may not have been written by Paul, did it summarize Paul's theology accurately? If yes, then the letter provided reliable information concerning Christian values of the time.
The Deutero-Pauline Letters
Note: Judging a particular letter to be pseudepigraphic does not mean that it is any less valuable than the other letters, but only that it was written later by someone other than Paul.
  • All thirteen of the letters attributed to Paul are still considered canonical; all of them are still part of the Holy Bible and foundational for the Christian Church.
  • Distinguishing the letters based on actual authorship, however, allows scholars to see more clearly the development of early Christian theology and practice.
The letter is no different than the copious books at a Christian bookstore all trying to tell the believer how to apply the "word of God" to current issues.
While pseudonyms are acceptable today, pseudography not so much; but pseudography wasn't uncommon in the first century.
Apocrypha of Jewish origin
Ancient literature, especially in the Orient, used methods much more free and elastic than those permitted by our modern and Occidental culture. Pseudographic composition was in vogue among the Jews in the two centuries before Christ and for some time later. The attribution of a great name of the distant past to a book by its real author, who thus effaced his own personality, was, in some cases at least, a mere literary fiction which deceived no one except the ignorant.
Ancient pseudography doesn't automatically mean the information in the writing is false or unreliable.
The letter made it into the canon.
The Canon of the Bible
Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were
  • special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
  • apostolic origin;
  • used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Christian canon(s) have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of the time. Believers consider canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the religion.
The Reality of the Biblical Canon
Whether the letter is pseudographic or not does not change the contents of the letter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Richh, posted 01-21-2013 6:24 AM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jaywill, posted 01-23-2013 4:26 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 351 by Richh, posted 03-30-2013 3:29 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 82 of 383 (688261)
01-21-2013 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Richh
01-19-2013 6:45 PM


Re: Authenticity?
The question of the authorship of Ephesians is based on scholarship not rumors. And in many circumstances, this scholarship comes from people who are just as faithful as those who try to iron over these little wrinkles in the bible.
So perhaps we treat Ephesians as PD suggests, as a commentary on Christianity by someone whos insight we trust based on how much we accept the content.
I think PD is minimizing how much pseudography was rejected in those times. The Acts of Thecla was popularly read in those times but was eventually rejected because of issues of authenticity and pseudography. Even more glaring was the Shepherd of Hermas which is even included in some early canons (although likely more due to its lack of apostolic authority not pseudography).
The point is, people REALLY did care who wrote things and REALLY did reject things when they were found out to not actually be by who they said they were.
So perhaps today some people may say that they don't care. They may accept Ephesians either because they choose to reject the scholarship that brings its authorship into doubt or simply because they don't care and liken it to a commentary.
But if it is "God's Living Word" as some believe, then you have to ask yourself why its providence should be so ambiguous. If it is just a commentary then what should we say about verses such as:
Ephesians writes:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Something that has needlessly caused a lot of suffering in our world in the 1900 years that people thought that this shit was real.
IF some people want to have a higher view and think of it as commentary, they can reject this part as the backward and primitive statement that it is. But the problem is that many people think this is a commandment from God and have excused the discrimination of half the worlds population on its basis amongst other forgeries (Timothy) and bastardizations of Paul's message (edits to Corinthians).

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Richh, posted 01-19-2013 6:45 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Richh, posted 01-21-2013 2:28 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 101 by Richh, posted 01-23-2013 10:49 PM Jazzns has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 83 of 383 (688264)
01-21-2013 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by purpledawn
01-20-2013 6:00 AM


Re: Authenticity?
The author presents a more universal church than existed in Paul's time.
Purpledawn, Please explain what you mean by this.
Do you mean that Jesus Christ presented NO concept of a universal church ?
When Jesus said " ... I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18b) do you think He was refering ONLY to the believers in Jerusalem ?
I think He was refering to His believers throughout everywhere on earth disciples would be made. He had told them -
"Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)
The teaching of a Christian church from Matthew 16 must be a concept of a universal church. It must be as the aggregate of all local churches together throughout all time until His return.
My suspicion is that what you really mean is that when Paul wrote there was no concept of the Roman Catholic Church. That would be true. I submit that is not true that the apostles at the time of the writing of Ephesians had no concept of the church universal.
I would concede that the first Jewish disciples in Jerusalem were slow and reluctant to spread the message beyond their nearby neighbors. God took care of that by allowing some persecution to scatter them abroad, taking the gospel with them to other cities (Acts 8:3,4).
Luke writes in Acts 9:31 of the church [singular] throughout Judea -
Acts 9:31 - "So then the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was, multiplied."
I submit that "the church [singular] throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria" has to be considered as the universal church spreading and multiplying throughout other regions beside Judea and its city of Jerusalem.
Ie. - the church universal had peace as she grew and spread. I think this review of the history according to Luke is in perfect agreement with Christ's teaching of taking the Gospel throughout the earth bringing people into the church - into the kingdom of God.
Comment ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2013 6:00 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2013 7:51 PM jaywill has replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 84 of 383 (688272)
01-21-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Jazzns
01-21-2013 11:46 AM


Re: Authenticity?
I am discussing the question of authenticity and scholarship on the line with purpledawn, not ignoring that.
But it sounds like you are saying, and I am trying to understand your position, that because the providence of Ephesians is called into question, there is no possibility of its being genuine in terms of Pauline authorship, etc. Is that correct?
I'd like to say that I don't think that is the case. Just because some doubt the authorship of Ephesians, that does not make it 'non-Pauline'.
If you're interested, I can quote more from the book I mentioned in message 78.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Jazzns, posted 01-21-2013 11:46 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Jazzns, posted 01-21-2013 5:29 PM Richh has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 85 of 383 (688292)
01-21-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Richh
01-21-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Authenticity?
I am discussing the question of authenticity and scholarship on the line with purpledawn, not ignoring that.
I think purpledawns musings on reliability belie what reliability really means to some people. PD is saying that we can use Ephesians as a reliable indicator of what Christian thought by people of its time in this one branch of Christianity. What I am saying is that such a stance is far removed from considering it the reliable Word of God (TM) on that same basis. Which you choose most certainly depends on where you fall on the question of its authenticity. Moreover, if it was not Paul who wrote this you have to consider that the person was willing to claim they were Paul.
But it sounds like you are saying, and I am trying to understand your position, that because the providence of Ephesians is called into question, there is no possibility of its being genuine in terms of Pauline authorship, etc. Is that correct?
No. I mean at the end of the day some questions of authorship are ambiguous. I think there is enough evidence against Pauline authorship of Ephesians in particular that I fall on the side of this particular book being deutro-Pauline. But I wouldn't go to the mat with someone who said they believed it is authentic. It really is hard to say. Other books are less ambiguous such as 1 and 2 Timothy which are almost certainly deutro-Pauline.
And it really boils down to what you are trying to do with the book. Like I said, if you are just treating it as a commentary then that is a fairly innocent purpose. If what you are claiming is that we should use this book as instruction to live by due to its authority imbued by God then I will question why God would use a vehicle with such uncertainty surrounding its origins for that purpose.
I'd like to say that I don't think that is the case. Just because some doubt the authorship of Ephesians, that does
not make it 'non-Pauline'.
If you're interested, I can quote more from the book I mentioned in message 78.
I am familiar with the , "but the books of the bible are better attested to than other ancient documents" argument. It is simply not convincing to me to claim that we should trust that Ephesians, or anything else for that matter, is authentic just because lots of copies of it were made many decades or centuries after its inception.
Also, the level of the claims does not match up. People talk about how much better the bible is preserved compared to the works of Homer but fail to take into account the fact that Homer never claimed that his works were the inspired works of the one true god that describe the path to eternal salvation or damnation.
If the bible is what it claims to be (or what Christians claim it to be rather), than really why don't we have near perfect attestation and distribution? Why did it take 700 years for the Far East and double that for the entire western hemisphere of the world to receive the first glimpse of the holy word of god?
I don't even know which logical fallacy this might be. The argument from superior distribution? Perhaps if Constantine had decided to be Gnostic then we would be having this exact same argument about the Gospel of Thomas.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Richh, posted 01-21-2013 2:28 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Richh, posted 01-23-2013 2:17 PM Jazzns has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 86 of 383 (688313)
01-21-2013 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jaywill
01-21-2013 12:49 PM


Re: Authenticity?
quote:
Purpledawn, Please explain what you mean by this.
Do you mean that Jesus Christ presented NO concept of a universal church ?
Keep on track. This debate is about Ephesians and Ephesians was either written by Paul or by another. I have presented the idea that it is written by another as a summary of Paul's theology.
The link I provided in Message 79 listed several reasons why Ephesians is not considered to be written by Paul. I quoted this one.
A Sermon on Ephesians
Eph shows that the Church is becoming an advanced and powerful universal institution (rather like the Church today). In Paul's time there did no universal Church in that sense, but only informal gatherings of individual believe communities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 01-21-2013 12:49 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 01-21-2013 9:10 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 87 of 383 (688326)
01-21-2013 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by purpledawn
01-21-2013 7:51 PM


Re: Authenticity?
quote:
Keep on track.
I don't think I left the track PD. You propose and idea as evidence that Paul was not the author of Ephesians.
You said the universal church espoused in the letter seems untimely.
Its mention is pre-mature and thus indicative of a frabrication.
I think the mention of the church universal is not at all untimely.
quote:
This debate is about Ephesians and Ephesians was either written by Paul or by another.
The church is a big big subject in the book of Ephesians.
This book is not honing in on individual spirituality such that God has a lot of miscellaneous spiritual people running around.
The subject matter has very much to do with God building them together into a corporate expression. A corporate Body of Christ each one of these believers is a member of.
This book elevates the Christian's view to see things from a higher perspective. That is from the heavenly viewpoint of God above.
If I understood you right, I gather you find this aspect of Ephesians a tell-tale evidence that someone other than Paul was writing. You suggest a real letter by Paul to Christians (perhaps in Ephesus) should be void of so much universal church teaching.
I think this is incorrect. Paul would have spoken much about the big picture of God's operation. In Second Corinthians, which I don't think many dispute as to Pauline authorhip, he gives his autobiography as an apostle of Christ.
He includes transcendent visions which were so broad and so extensive that he had to be given a physical ailment to humble him from getting too lifted up.
"And because of the transcendence of the revelations, in order that I might not be exceedingly lifted up, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh ... in order that I might not be exeedingly lifted up." (See 2 Cor. 12:7)
Paul keeps his experiences secret for 14 years. Finally he is forced to inform his more skeptical members of the church that he was carried away to paradise, carried to the third heavens, carried below to the deepest parts of the earth. He does not know whether it was physical or in some kind of trace state. But he heard unspeakable words and apparently saw supernatural things which most of us have yet to see.
So it is evident that having these extensive visions high and low of God's plan for the universe, his letters would include trancendent teachings like the church universal and triumphant.
quote:
I have presented the idea that it is written by another as a summary of Paul's theology.
Is it more of a summary of Paul's teaching than the book of Romans ?
Is it more of a summary of Paul's teaching than First or Second Corinthians ?
I see a significant highlight of Paul's teaching presented nearly as much in Colossians or Galatians or [/b]Philippians for that matter.
quote:
The link I provided in Message 79 listed several reasons why Ephesians is not considered to be written by Paul. I quoted this one.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by purpledawn, posted 01-21-2013 7:51 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by purpledawn, posted 01-22-2013 7:22 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 88 of 383 (688371)
01-22-2013 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jaywill
01-21-2013 9:10 PM


Re: Authenticity?
quote:
I think the mention of the church universal is not at all untimely.
I think your idea of universal church is different that what the article presented.
Universal Church
Christian Church, the whole body of Christians collectively
Catholic Church (the word "catholic" means "universal")
Ecumenism
Unitarian Universalism
Universalism
Universal Church of the Kingdom of God
Universal Church of Truth
I feel the article I was quoting is referring to the early visible beginnings of the Catholic Church. How are you using the phrase? I think a debate over the Universal Church Theory would be off track this thread. You can ask Phat.
Pauline Epistles
These seven epistles are considered authentic by most scholars.
  • First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
  • Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
  • Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
  • First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
  • Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
  • Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
  • Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)
The Pastoral Epistles are considered to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars.
  • First Timothy
  • Second Timothy
  • Titus
Modern scholars are divided on the following three epistles.
  • Ephesians
  • Colossians
  • Second Thessalonians
quote:
Is it more of a summary of Paul's teaching than the book of Romans ?
Is it more of a summary of Paul's teaching than First or Second Corinthians ?
I see a significant highlight of Paul's teaching presented nearly as much in Colossians or Galatians or Philippians for that matter.
The authentic letters are written to specific groups and dealing with specific issues that concern that group. Paul presents his arguments to back up his instruction. Ephesians doesn't seem to provide the in-depth arguments that Paul does. I would say the arguments for what is being said in Ephesians can be found within Paul's letters.
To see the authentic letters as summaries of Paul's teachings, one would need to know what Paul's teachings were outside of the letters. We don't have that information that I know of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 01-21-2013 9:10 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Richh, posted 01-22-2013 11:03 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by jaywill, posted 01-22-2013 10:28 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 89 of 383 (688404)
01-22-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by purpledawn
01-22-2013 7:22 AM


Re: Authenticity?
The authentic letters are written to specific groups and dealing with specific issues that concern that group. Paul presents his arguments to back up his instruction. Ephesians doesn't seem to provide the in-depth arguments that Paul does. I would say the arguments for what is being said in Ephesians can be found within Paul's letters.
To see the authentic letters as summaries of Paul's teachings, one would need to know what Paul's teachings were outside of the letters. We don't have that information that I know of.
I reject the basic premises of modern scholars. I believe you could find abundant historical examples of people who have written different things at different times to different people based on different situations at different times in their lives and whose view may have actually matured over time. If you used the same principles on these, I believe you could easily pick some phase you liked based on some arbirtary criteria and call these genuine, while calling all the rest forgeries.
As jaywill mentioned the universal church was most assuredly in the thoughts of early Christians as evidenced by his quotes from Acts and Matthew. Universal in this sense is as opposed to local -the concept of many churches in many cities, not a single church in a single city, and a composite of all believers. I believe the verses in Matthew also include all time, not limited to believers living on earth.
That being the case, I don't find any issue if, after 3 or 4 years of reflection during his imprisonment, and to a church in which he himself had personally labored for 3 years, and which did not have any pressing issues, Paul would write something that begins with a transcendent vision, to use jaywill's words from post 87. Romans and Ephesians were written at different times, in different circumstances and for different reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by purpledawn, posted 01-22-2013 7:22 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 383 (688412)
01-22-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Phat
01-13-2013 11:38 AM


Author ,author!
Purpledawn writes:
This debate is about Ephesians and Ephesians was either written by Paul or by another. I have presented the idea that it is written by another as a summary of Paul's theology.
To me, the issue is largely irrelevant. The real author of canon is and should be the Holy Spirit. Jaywill argues, and I agree with the argument supporting Pauls authorship, but I would not be too upset if the authorship could be otherwise proved.
PD writes:
The authentic letters are written to specific groups and dealing with specific issues that concern that group. Paul presents his arguments to back up his instruction. Ephesians doesn't seem to provide the in-depth arguments that Paul does. I would say the arguments for what is being said in Ephesians can be found within Paul's letters.
I agree, and would suggest that even a ghost author would be led by the same Holy Ghost Paul knew...the One that knocked him off his high horse when he was known as Saul.
Critical analysis by definition wont accept a Holy Spirit author nor authority. To be fair, they would ask us how we could even tell what is or is not of the Holy Spirit, and how would you be able to explain it to them?
Jazzns writes:
If what you are claiming is that we should use this book as instruction to live by due to its authority imbued by God then I will question why God would use a vehicle with such uncertainty surrounding its origins for that purpose.
And given that question, I myself would ask God directly...through prayer. People should choose what to listen to as instruction for daily living--be it their own logic, reason, reality, and/or belief.
PD writes:
I think a debate over the Universal Church Theory would be off track this thread. You can ask Phat.
I think that a universal church includes members who recognize the Holy Spirit and who accept Jesus Christ into their hearts. All of the rest is simply human wisdom and interpretation of manmade religion. But lets get back to Ephesians, shall we?
NIV writes:
Eph 5:1-6:1-- Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a man is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
15 Be very careful, then, how you live-not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
  • Walking in The Spirit and knowing/loving Jesus are the only ways that one can imitate God. Living a life of love. It requires doing.(I agree with you, jar..on this point.)
    This labor of love is made possible by Grace.
  • 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a man is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.---we are all idolators. The trick is to recognize the idolatry and repent of it when made aware. Love God with your whole mind.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Phat, posted 01-13-2013 11:38 AM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 94 by Jazzns, posted 01-23-2013 12:21 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024