Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have You Ever Read Ephesians?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 211 of 383 (690660)
02-15-2013 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Jazzns
02-14-2013 11:15 PM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
You will notice that I was talking about all of the later works attributed to Paul including Timothy. In fact, I was responding to Richh's quote from Timothy.
Did you just not notice?
I realize you were exchanging there with Richh. And I just only chose to comment on one thing I thought was of interest.
Like you, I intend to take more time and re-read the last few submissions of everybody. I may notice something askew. I understood you to be speaking of Ephesians, Timothy as pseudo Paul or latter Paul.
And thanks for giving attention to my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Jazzns, posted 02-14-2013 11:15 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 212 of 383 (690661)
02-15-2013 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Richh
02-14-2013 2:15 PM


Re: "Headed up in Christ" and "in Christ"
To start, the word anakephalaiosasthai in Greek, translated 'to head up', has the prefix 'ana', meaning 'again'. I think that is sweet. At one time all things were all 'headed up' in Christ, then something happened in the universe and things got out of whack, but eventually all things in the heavens and on the earth will again be 'headed up' in Christ. Paul notes this to be the destination - 'Unto the economy of the fullness of the times', God's destination
I see in this interesting word two possibilities I think:
1.) To head up all things AGAIN - this second time in Christ.
Or as you suggest -
2.) To head up all things in Christ AGAIN.
What do you think about this distinction ?
I don't know if there is something in the Greek which stresses one over the other.
This I would say, that the pre-incarnated Christ is certainly God. The Christ after the incarnation, death and resurrection is the Firstborn from the dead.
Christ is Head over all things before His earthly sojourn as God.
Christ is Head over all things after resurrection as God-Man.
Please comment on this.
Jazzns may comment if he has a comment.
Phat, are you still there ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Richh, posted 02-14-2013 2:15 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Phat, posted 02-15-2013 9:03 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 354 by Richh, posted 04-05-2013 8:16 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 213 of 383 (690662)
02-15-2013 1:46 AM


Because in the Pastoral Epistles of First and Second Timothy and Titus Paul deals much with the qualifications of elders and deacons I can see Jaszzn's point that the writer seems more concerned with heirarchy.
Though I feel very uncomfortable with the word hierarchy, it is true that the it appears that Paul is establishing offices.
I will spend a little time on this.

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


Message 214 of 383 (690671)
02-15-2013 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by jaywill
02-15-2013 1:35 AM


Re: "Headed up in Christ" and "in Christ"
jaywill writes:
This I would say, that the pre-incarnated Christ is certainly God. The Christ after the incarnation, death and resurrection is the Firstborn from the dead.
Christ is Head over all things before His earthly sojourn as God.
Christ is Head over all things after resurrection as God-Man.
Please comment on this.
Jazzns may comment if he has a comment.
Phat, are you still there ?
Yes im here...on and off. Ive been working a lot lately. are you a Trinitarian or a Oneness Pentecostal? Reason I ask is to ask if you see any distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 02-15-2013 1:35 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by jaywill, posted 02-20-2013 7:36 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 215 of 383 (690673)
02-15-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Richh
02-14-2013 2:15 PM


Re: "Headed up in Christ" and "in Christ"
richh writes:
To start, the word anakephalaiosasthai in Greek, translated 'to head up', has the prefix 'ana', meaning 'again'. I think that is sweet. At one time all things were all 'headed up' in Christ, then something happened in the universe and things got out of whack, but eventually all things in the heavens and on the earth will again be 'headed up' in Christ. Paul notes this to be the destination - 'Unto the economy of the fullness of the times', God's destination
Assuming that Jesus existed before Lucifer, God had a solution before Lucifer even chose to become a problem. The reason that Lucifer was even allowed to fall and become satan is so that humanity would have a temptor. Tempering something makes it stronger. Tempering ironb makes it steel. Tempting humans causes them to become responsible.,..In Christ...and resist the temptation. (or they can try it on their own and see if human wisdom can eliminate the need for God....but I have an argument there...based on my belief. )
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Richh, posted 02-14-2013 2:15 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Richh, posted 02-18-2013 3:19 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 216 of 383 (690689)
02-15-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by jaywill
02-14-2013 2:48 AM


I surrender!
There seems to be two main threads to your line of reasoning.
1. That there are biblically external factors, proposal and acceptance, and protection while childrearing, that serve to outline the relationship between a husband and wife as dominant/submissive.
2. That elsewhere in the bible there is a directive to hold wives in submission to their husbands.
Let me talk about them in order.
What I said was that I think it is usual that the marriage relationship commences with one party (the female) agreeing to go along with the will of the other party (the male) to be joined in lifelong partnership.
I am glad that you expanded and gave more than just this sentiment from your original reply because frankly this is not only demeaning to women, but it is also a weak argument. Perhaps this is how it was back in the times that marriages were more about property because you speak of it like a business contract. But this is not how marriages in modern civilized societies work. A woman does not "go along with the will" of a man but rather, a marriage is a convergence of wills to a common understanding.
Does your situation automatically reverse if a woman asks a man to marry her? Is she now an authority over him?
I am glad you had more to say because this argument alone is just bad tasting weaksauce. That is why I was trying to clear it up earlier because I couldn't really believe that I was understanding you properly.
In my opinion the protection of the male in regards to the female is something of a matter of overseership. While a woman is caring for a child as nature has her designed to do, in principle she needs protection.
The easy response to this is that the ability to provide protection and authority do not go hand in hand. It is the woman that holds the seeds to legacy of the family and so why shouldn't a man protect/provide for her by her will? In reality, if women aren't otherwise subjugated, they hold all the cards.
Furthermore, and merit this argument has remaining disappears once you break outside of the box of our notion of a nuclear isolated family. I wish I could remember the name of a culture I read about because they provide a great counterexample to this. I recall they live in south east asia and the way they construct their society, women of childbearing age had the independence, personal property, etc. It was the whole extended family of brothers parents, cousins, etc that supported a women in her status. They have no such concept as a husband/wife relationship. A man empowers his genetic legacy by being one of the many people caring for his sister's children.
The often touted as cheesy phrase "it takes a village" is actually a true accounting of how many people solve the problem of surviving in a dangerous world. It is only in our recognizable construction of a patriarchy that there is even this need to consider a women as helpless and needing a single man for protection.
So in Paul's day and culture, yea this may have been true. But this is quite obviously a product OF his culture. Again I'll say that if what you are claiming is only that, that Paul is a creature of his culture and time then I have no beef. But it becomes much harder to support that these verses are universal, enduring, inspired, or that these are works to live by today.

Now on to your Biblical support.
My purpose is not to give an interpretation of this passage other than to point out that the phrase "a new thing" should signify something atypical.
In some way, God through the prophet Jeremiah, is saying a atypical, unusual, other than normally expected situation He will bring about - a woman shall encompase or protect a man.
I think I understand this as a unfortunate outcome arising because of the damaged sin has brought into the world.
"To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain in your childbearing; in pain you will bring forth children. And your desire will be to your husband, and he will rule over you." (Gen. 3:16)
I think your interpretations here are fine. The quote from Genesis is obvious and I don't really see anything wrong with your interpretation of Jeremiah.
We are already somewhat far afield of Ephesians so I will only make some general points here. Something can be said about just how much you can actually tie Paul and other early Christians to the more "modern" synthesis of Christianity and Judaism. The term "Christian" itself was coined to distinguish the more liberal wing of Christianity given to the Gentiles by Paul and championed by Iraneus, from the other early Jesus religions which were simply messianic Judaism. Down here in the very small details we may be capable of continuing this argument but I don't think that would be worthwhile
So on this I actually concede the point here.
If you choose accept as premises or apology:
1. That the whole Bible is a unified accord of faith
2. That therefore Jesus himself is responsible for the sentiments in the Hebrew Old Testament.
3. That there is clear instruction for a man to have authority over his wife in these writings.
Then your point is taken that Paul in Ephesians 5 is supported by Jesus.
My only comment after my epic surrender will be that in order to gain this concordance, to have to accept as valuable the fictional horrors of the Old Testament, you lose any credibility to maintain Christianity as a source of actual truth or enduring morality.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

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 205 by jaywill, posted 02-14-2013 2:48 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by jaywill, posted 02-16-2013 7:56 AM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 218 by Phat, posted 02-16-2013 8:12 AM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 228 by jaywill, posted 02-20-2013 9:14 AM Jazzns has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 217 of 383 (690799)
02-16-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jazzns
02-15-2013 11:26 AM


Re: I surrender!
Oh Jazzns, you don't have to "surrender" as if we were having an arm wrestling match.
I will further digest your post which actually is related to Ephesians 5.
Right now I only want to say that words like "subjugate" make me feel uncomfortable. I have been happily married in a solidly Christian relationship for 36 some years.
From the beginning I realized that I can no more "subjugate" my wife to anything any more than I could go out into the street and randomly "subjugate" any woman.
As far as protection, the Lord knows that my wife has always handled the detail of keeping track of bills. She has protected me from going off and making some "people skills" mistake hundreds of times.
So this matter of her originally saying "Yes I will marry you" and the subsequence three decades of marriage have absolutely and totally been a matter of joining of TWO cooperative wills.
So the harsh term "subjugate" is not my intention at all. There have been other times when the leading of the Holy Spirit was more clearly known by her than it was by me.
I indicated and will elaborate more latter - the fighting for one's own authority is an ugly matter in practically every realm. That is to stand up and say "Don't you realize that I am God's deputy authority here? YOU must submit to ME." This is totally of the flesh, is ugly and more often causes one to lose respect than to gain any.
And it could be that because of the need to empathize and sympathize with the wife and children the Christian husband actually ends up "obeying" them more than the other way around.
Con.t some latter.
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 216 by Jazzns, posted 02-15-2013 11:26 AM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 218 of 383 (690800)
02-16-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jazzns
02-15-2013 11:26 AM


Charting a course towards abstract waters
Jazzns writes:
If you choose accept as premises or apology:
1. That the whole Bible is a unified accord of faith
2. That therefore Jesus himself is responsible for the sentiments in the Hebrew Old Testament.
3. That there is clear instruction for a man to have authority over his wife in these writings.
Then your point is taken that Paul in Ephesians 5 is supported by Jesus.
My only comment after my epic surrender will be that in order to gain this concordance, to have to accept as valuable the fictional horrors of the Old Testament, you lose any credibility to maintain Christianity as a source of actual truth or enduring morality.
Hey, I surrender too! I think that it is a beautiful thing...some of the discussions we have here at EvC. It is a communion of sorts. Iron sharpens iron and all that. I cant say that I fully understand the will of God in my life, though it is getting clearer and/or I am doing better than I did 5 years ago. I dont believe that the Bible is to be taken at word for word value, though I believe that the Spirit who loves me and gives me wisdom is the living word.
I believe that the book itself is not powerful, alive, or useful in and of itself...as a printed medium of words and ideas. I DO believe that when we humans come together to study and reason together, the truth becomes alive within us. Now...where oh where were we with Ephesians?
Was the book written by God or by man? What about other books of the Bible? Is the Bible a more useful source (or in fact the only source of wisdom from the Holy Spirit? Given that a person knows Jesus (and/or the Holy Spirit) will there then be agreement among those of us who "have an ear to hear" the truth?
What is truth?
Is this living word found anywhere else than the Bible?
How does one differentiate between opinions and truths?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jazzns, posted 02-15-2013 11:26 AM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 219 of 383 (690941)
02-18-2013 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Jazzns
02-14-2013 11:34 AM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
Sorry- I'm not near my computer today. Maybe I'll put quotes in later. But regarding your comments on Galatians, I wanted to mention the following, also in Colossians, where Paul uses almost the same words, or perhaps even stronger than in Galatians. But a few verses later he gives the exhortations to masters and slaves. That shows that the slaves and masters still exist but have an equal status in the new man. The same thing is implied in I Cor 7: -'the slave is the Lord's freeman'.
If Colossians is a forgery, it is a masterful one, well done, as good as the original.
Col.3:8 But now, you also, put away all these things: wrath, anger, malice, blasphemy, afoul abusive language out of your mouth.
3:9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the cold man with his practices
3:10 And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
3:11 Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Jazzns, posted 02-14-2013 11:34 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Jazzns, posted 02-18-2013 5:38 PM Richh has not replied

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


Message 220 of 383 (690973)
02-18-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Phat
02-15-2013 9:08 AM


Re: "Headed up in Christ" and "in Christ"
Good to hear from you again (on your topic).
I i don't remember much written on why God allowed Lucifer to fall (although the possibility is inherent in free will), but it does say how or why he fell. I haven't read much about this, so these are my thoughts. But i agree with you in this sense. God is in a long term business. He gives eternal life. I see the tendencies in myself that caused Lucifer to fall. I would like to be eternally immune from such a fall myself. On earth under Satan's temptation, I am (hopefully) developing an abhorence of sin and a love for God and the things of God.
There is a verse in Romans that says 'the Lord is making a short work on the earth and cutting it short in righteousness.' It seems in some sense even Satan serves God's purpose. He is not destroyed, cast into the lake of fire, when Christ returns, but only bound 1000 years.
But, James speaks of temptation in no uncertain terms and not in a good light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Phat, posted 02-15-2013 9:08 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 221 of 383 (690981)
02-18-2013 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Richh
02-18-2013 8:04 AM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
Well Richh, verse by verse it is going to be hard to go one way or the other on Colossians. If it and Ephesians are forged, the forgers will have had the benefit of reading Galatians among all the other prior works of Paul. It is not surprising that the forgers would have re-used some of Paul's own work.
Also, I have mentioned a couple of times now, it is a legitimate question in biblical scholarship if those two books in particular were forged or not. I tend to come down on the side that they were. But even if they were NOT forged, it just means that Paul really grew up to be much more parochial than he started out. Thats fine as far as I am concerned, but it certainly does take away from this notion that these books should be revered the way that they are by some people.

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 219 by Richh, posted 02-18-2013 8:04 AM Richh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 7:47 PM Jazzns has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 222 of 383 (690994)
02-18-2013 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Jazzns
02-11-2013 12:12 PM


Re: Either Paul is different, or he is immoral.
My MAIN criticism is that Paul is being inconsistent with himself and in particular the values of the early church. In Acts, you see the beginnings of a totally egalitarian resistance movement. Property no longer belongs to the self, people of all kinds, sinners, poor, rich, sick, even Gentiles are all made equal. In Paul's own ministry, from his genuine epistles, is for the most part a pretty egalitarian dude. As you may have seen in my discussion with jaywill, Paul even talks about the issue of slaver to Philemon in a lot of eloquence, humility, and authority. What does he tell Philemon...he tells him that the Christian thing to do is to FREE his slave.
So, its not JUST that Paul in Ephesians fails to condemn slavery. Its that he fails to do so given the fact that he had in the past, in a most superior manner, consistent with the behavior of the early church. That, I think is one of the things that tips the scale to the side of this letter not being legitimate.
Your criticism of Paul for not being outspoken against slavery is merely a Poiticlly Correctness germane to our own present times in America.
The whole of the Middle Ages would have never passed for the Serfs who toiled in an Economic System of Distribution which was appropriate to their times as the only system possible.
We are spoiled today, and seeped in the American Slavery which was not necessary or even practical. We fought a War when we had only pass a Minimum Wage Law that included slaves.
Today, America pays grown men $6.00/hour which is really slavery, one subtly providing the bed and board available for a person with $280 week income from the only Job possible.
A great economist said the real minimum wage is zero, unemployment and no access to the market place which is the source of survival.
There have been times, and even now in India, or China, etc where one is a happy slave whose master has a fair and gainfuk use for him, while he, himslef is worthless in that regard otherwise.
I am certain Paul this as he grew older,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Jazzns, posted 02-11-2013 12:12 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Richh, posted 02-20-2013 2:43 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 223 of 383 (690996)
02-18-2013 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Jazzns
02-18-2013 5:38 PM


Re: Paul is wise
but it certainly does take away from this notion that these books should be revered the way that they are by some people.
Nonsense.
Paul makes you think about these silly world views we have been forced fed.
Get real.
What people need think about in this very example is how proh-grammed they have become in Fat America, and how ignorant of what a hardship life can be even now on some places, and most certainly, in the past for almost all people living on some aristocrats land and welcoming the benefits of farming that land for 30% of the crops.
Americans believe that there is no slavery in the USA, but they still have not been able to make Black America self supporting, and have merely replaced the southern land owners with Welfare by and large.
I see 70% of Black America as slaves on break time, while we all chip in for the support they need to live. If the Romans had done this in Paul's time, absent Welfare, which they would have avoided, where and what would all those people do to eat and find shelter???
What Christianity and even the Old Testament did do was write a Constitution down for the first time, which explicitly listed how to treat a slave and how not to abuse them.
We still need to write more stuff along those lines today.
Obama's raise in the Min Wage is step one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Jazzns, posted 02-18-2013 5:38 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Jazzns, posted 02-18-2013 8:23 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 224 of 383 (691000)
02-18-2013 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Paul is wise
I see 70% of Black America as slaves on break time, while we all chip in for the support they need to live.
Wow! Could you be more offensive? I guess you could if you tried.
Perhaps you should find some support for this nonsense and take it into a thread where people give a crap. In this thread we are talking about the bible.

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 223 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 7:47 PM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 225 of 383 (691071)
02-19-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by purpledawn
01-23-2013 6:28 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
From what I've read, they don't feel this type of evidence is in Ephesians. That extra personal touch that is Paul.
Goodspeed stated in his introduction to Ephesians that the letter provides no definite historical situation that the letter is supposed to address. He feels that Paul clearly divulges under what conditions he wrote his letters and the purpose on his mind.
I don't have any books by Goodspeed so I cannot review his lines of reasoning other than what you mentioned.
I had mentioned in a previous post that I do not agree with the lines of reasoning of modern scholars in determining some books are 'authentic' or not. I think they are arbitrary and unjustified.
I wanted to produce another quote that echoes the feeling I have regarding Ephesians and Colossians. It is from F. W. Farrar from The Life and Work of St. Paul. The first two sentences deal with the early acceptance of Pauline authorship.
quote:
The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 483, 484
...Impugners of its authenticity must account for its wide and early acceptance, no less than the difficulty of its forgery. It is a simple fact that the Epistle was accepted as unquestionably Pauline from the days of Ingatius to those of Schleiermacher.
...If the arguments against its (Ephesians') Pauline authorship appeared valid, I am aware of no prepossessions which would lead me to struggle against their force, nor would the deepest truths of the Epistle appear to me less profound or sacred from the fact that tradition had erred in assigning its authorship.
To the arguments which endeavored to show that the Phaedo had not been written by Plato it was thought almost sufficient to reply -
If not Plato who wrote it, there must be two Platos.
Certainly if St. Paul did not write the Epistle to "the Ephesians," there must have been two St. Pauls. Baur speaks contemptuously of such an objection; but can any one seriously believe that a forger capable of producing the Epistle to the Ephesians could have lived an died unheard of among the holy, but otherwise very ordinary, men and mediocre writers who attracted notice in the Church of the first century? It is true that De Wette, and his followers, treat the Epistle de haut en bas as a verbose and colourless reproduction, quite inferior to St. Paul's genuine writings, and marked by poverty of ideas and redundance of words. We can only reply that this is a matter of taste. The colour red makes no impression on the colour-blind; and to some readers this Epistle has seemed as litttle colourless as is the body of heaven in its clearness. Chrysostom - no bad judge surely of style and rhetoric - spoke of the lofty sublimity of its sentiments. Theophylact dwells on the same characteristics as suitable to the Ephesians. Grotius says St. Paul here equals the sublimity of his thoughts with words more sublime than any human tongue has ever uttered. Luther reckoned it among the noblest books of the New Testament. Witsius calls it a divine Epistle glowing with the flame of Christian love, and the splendour of holy light, and flowing with fountains of living water. Coleridge said of it, "In this, the divinest composition of man, is every doctrine of Christianity: first those doctrines peculiar to Christianly; and secondly, those precepts common to natural religion." Lastly, Alford calls it "the grandest and most heavenly work of one whose very imagination is peopled with things in the heavens, and even his fancy rapt into the visions of God."

The bold is mine.
I guess my comparison to the authorship of the works of the works of Plato in a former post was mentioned by others many years before I was born.
I mentioned in another post that if this were written to be an introduction to Paul's epistles, the introduction has more revelation than the epistles it introduces. I believe those who 'tear it apart' have not seen these things.
But my main goal here is to show that there are cogent and compelling arguments in favor of Pauline authorship of this Epistle and to make it clear that the case is not closed on the subject.
Edited by Richh, : Changed the tile
Edited by Richh, : Added a conclusion
Edited by Richh, : Corrected the first reason for editing - Changed the title
Edited by Richh, : Better 'quoting'
Edited by Richh, : Improved reference
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by purpledawn, posted 01-23-2013 6:28 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by purpledawn, posted 02-20-2013 9:23 AM Richh has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024