Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

Here is one of the autobiographical portions of Ephesians. It is so similar to First Corinthians concerning overall growing and building of the Christian church as a living organism, I am sure Paul is the author.I would like to work backwards. First we see why Paul speaks about the cause that drives him to minister as he does. He refers to himelf in the first person "I" and "me" and "my". "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you, the Gentiles - If indeed you have heard ofthe stewardship of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

​

that by revelation the mustery was made known to me, and I have written previously in brief, by which in reading it, you can perceive my understanding in the myster of Christ ... " ( 3:1-4) THIS CAUSENow what is "this cause" motivating Paul? That is seen in the immediately preceeding verses about the building of the church - Jews and Gentiles together into a livng and growing house of God - "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of he household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone;

​

In whom all the building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit.

​

For this cause ..." (2:19-3-1a) Comparing now to First Corinthians we see the similarities and slight variations perhaps -First Corinthians 3 - "I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. So then neither is he who plants anything nor he who waters, but God who causes the growth... For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's cultivated land, God's building.

​

According to the grace of God given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid a foundation, and another builds upon it. But let each man take heed how he builds upon it. For another foundation no one is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (See 3:6-11) ...

​

Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the timpe of God is holy and such are you." (v.16,17) Both Ephesians and First Corinthians contain the revelation of the church as the temple of God, the house of God. Both speak of this building as being at the same time GROWING like a living matter and being BUILT.The habitation of God in spirit in Ephesians is also the temple of God in 1 First Corinthians with the Spirit of God.The holy temple in the Lord is the temple of God which is holy.
The temple of God in First Corinthians 3 is the local church - the church in Corinth. In Ephesians whatever church Paul is writing to is ALSO growing into the universal church which consists of ALL the local churches. " In whom all the building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." (Eph. 2:21,22) The words " you also " means that there are OTHERS with whom the audience is being built up into a habitation of God. The OTHERS are other local churches. For example the church in Corinth and the church in Colossi and the churches in Galatia the province and the churches in Judea the province, etc.All are growing into a universal habitation of God - a dwelling place of God in spirit. And the Ephesians ALSO are growing into this organic living and growing temple of God.The Holy Spirit is in the human spirit. The Holy Spirit and the human spirit have been united in the Christians to be "one spirit" - "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17) Christ is building His temple of God by living in and growing in the churching believers in many cities where they meet as local churches. This growing is also Christ making His home more and more and more in the hearts of the believers through faith - "That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith" (3:17) This therefor is the living Jesus implanted in the believers and growing in the believers. This is the farm or the cultivated land of First Corinthians - "You are God's cultivated land [farm], God's building." The building takes place by transformation and sanctification. The transformation of Christ growing in the saints as farmland and Christ making His home in their hearts is the building up of the temple of God.In the realm of Christ then all the building is going on. Only the life of Christ within the believers can grow in them to form the temple of God as the dwelling place of God in spirit.We could go on and on. This much I submit to show the similarity in teaching between the Corinthian letter and the Ephesians letter. The teaching is what I would call "high." That is much involved with the grand overview of the work of Christ to build His church as He promised in Matthew 16. Paul was carrying out with earnestness Christ's desire.You have Christ as the one foundation being laid by the master builder apostles. Paul said he was as a wise master builder. This could imply that he did not consider himself the only one doing such a work. But he does say in chapter 15 that he labored more abundantly than all the apostles by the grace of God given to him.Then we have the foundation of the apostles and prophets. I see no contradiction. Christ is the foundation. Christ is also the foundation OF the apostles and prophets. Christ is the cornerstone of this living temple of God, the church.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I use to own a Goodspeed translation of the New Testament.
I don't know what happened to it.

Who assumed that Paul wrote no other letters than the ones we have ?Who in this discussion made that claim ?

This comment was not addressed to me but to Richh.That depends on the nature of the different view from the New Testament.If someone were to be a great scholar in the Greek New Testament but believe that Christ did not rise from the dead, I would assume that he hasn't taken in either Christ or the teaching of the New Testament.If that same person believed differently on another more minor point, I would not count that as so serious.If I asked you about the indwelling of Christ, I expect that you would protest that this is all not relevant. Then I would wonder to myself - "Why is this person so dismissive of such a great teaching and great experience? Why does he seem to want to evade admitting that he has received Christ ?"Am I right that you might quickly want to brush this question aside as not at all relevant to understanding the book of Ephesians ? Would you say that that is not important so let's not go there ?Well, if I miss the imparted Christ, the dispensed Christ, the Christ in resurrection who is available and knowable and can enter into our innermost being, then I have really missed the essence of the New Testament.Even the letter by Ignatius mentioned Christ in the people. And of course this was the "food" that Paul was distributing - "Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (1 Cor. 13:5,6) Is your view the same as the apostles here - that Jesus Christ is in you and that if not, as far as the Christian life is concerned, you would be "disapproved" ? That is until such time when Christ made His home in your heart through faith.This is the "food" that Jesus taught in so many varied kinds of words.Ie. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him. As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (John 6:56,57) Put in perhaps plainer words latter in chapter 14 - "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23) Can you see how Paul's question of First Corinthians 13:5,6 exactly refects the promise of Jesus Christ to come to make an abode with the lovers of Christ ?Do you have a different view about the "food" of Jesus Christ entering into the believers in Christ to make an abode with them ? That is Jesus the Son and His Father coming as the divine "We" to make an abode in those who receive Him ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I understand that exchange is not with me but with Richh.I think it was already pointed out that absolute"proof" of authorship is not possible.And it is very perculiar to me that you would say you are not interested in "understanding" the book only to a point when you want to express something about what you think it means. Now, I'll get out of the way if you say that you are not interested in "understanding" Ephesians. But I'll be timing and clocking you. As soon as you do propose some "understanding" and I think it is wrong understanding, I'll point out your change of purpose. Now you're talking about UNDERSTANDING, purpledawn.It didn't take you long to re-think your intention there. Now I can post something about understanding Paul in justification by faith and his attitude towards at least the Scipture.Fair enough ?Think on it. I may comment on your comment latter. And I will be fair to your comment. I agree with some of it. Stop saying out of one side of your mouth that you're not interested in understanding Ephesians and from the other side propose your opinions about what it means when it is time for you to push your view.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn, claiming only interest in authorship of Ephesians proposes this interpretation of Paul's writing - I agree that Paul points out justification by faith for eternal redemption. The arguments about Abraham are I think, mostly in the book of Romans and perhaps Galatians.But justification by faith, not mentioning Abraham, is spoken of in the book we study here - Ephesians - "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works that no one should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9) As you can see " ... you have been saved through faith ..." gives purpledawn some ground to claim Paul was "fond" of speaking that he was justified by faith. Point gladly taken.Now purpledawn extends this to be an indication that justification through belief in certain author, or dogma, or doctrime, or pope was not his intention.But who said justification was Paul's ONLY subject matter. You cannot say that because Paul taught justification by faith that he was not at all concerned about proper authorship.For instance, Paul warned the Thessalonians about false authorship of letters, proporting to be by him and his co-workers which TAUGHT the wrong thing - "Now we ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,

​

That you be not quickly shaken in mind nor alarm, neither by a spirit nor by word nor by letter as if by us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way ... " (2 Thess. 2:1,2) Paul may not be discussing justification by faith. But he is discussing the seriousness of forgery which, in his name, teaches wrong teachings. The phrase " ... nor by LETTER as if by us ..." demonstrates that Paul did not shrug, as purpledawn wansts to, when epistles were forged in his name propogating wrong teachings.Paul was concerned that the Galatians have the assurance that it was HIS OWN HAND writing to them. True authorship of the Galatian letter was his concern - "See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand." (Galatians 6:11) Paul points out that it is by his "own hand" he writes to the churches in Galatia.Just because Paul taught justification by faith cannot be used as an excuse that it never mattered to him about genuine authorship verses forgery.Now let's be fair to purpledawn. Paul did not insist that ONLY HE could preach the gospel or edify the churches. In Philippians he wrote that as long as Christ was preached he was happy.But it would be wrong to assume that wrong teaching, written in his name, sent to churches under his ministry, was of no concern to him.Now purpledawn's post implies that to Paul only justification by faith in Christ was important to the point that doctrine was not. This could be used as an excuse for one to slip in his own heretical teaching under the guise that "Paul wouldn't care because he only cared about justification by faith."Well, in the epistles towards the end of his life to Timothy, Paul quite warned his junior co-worker about right and wrong doctrine.
To many passages are evidence of this.Paul warns of behaviors and lifestyles which are "opposed to healthy teaching" ( 1 Tim. 1:10) Paul warns of future "doctrines of demons" to creep into the church life - "But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings [doctrines] of demons by menas of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, of men who are branded in their own conscience was with a hot iron ... " (1 Tim. 4:1,2a) Some will depart from the faith because of wrong teachings. In this extreme case teachings of evil spirits - demons will cause havoc.Below Paul speaks of "being nourished with the words of the faith and of the good teaching which you have closely followed." (4:6) Good teaching is better than bad teaching. Good teaching is feeding and nourishing to the spiritual component of man and nourishes faith.Paul cared enough about doctrine that he said Hymenaeus and Phitetus had wandered away from the faith because of their wrong teachings concerning resurrection - "But avoid profane, vain babblings ... and their word will spread like gangrene, of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have misaimed, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some." ( 2 Tim. 2:18) If it is the same Hymenaeus that Paul warns against in First Timothy, we can see that there probably was a link between his wrong teaching of resurrection and his sin of blaspheming God - " ... some, thrusting [good conscience] away have become shipwrecked regarding the faith; of whom are HYMENAEUS and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may be disciplened not to blaspheme." (1 Tim. 1:19,20) Maybe it was the same troublemaker alternately teaching wrong doctrine and blaspheming God too. The strong exercise of apostolic authority over him suggests that he was a co-worker or collegue in ministry.After making the saints clear about justification by faith Paul by no means shrugged concerning healthy teaching, wrong doctrines, or even neglect of the Scripture ( "a book" ) - "Until I come, attend to the public reading [of Scripture], to exhortation, to the teaching." (1 Tim. 13) The Scripture is able to make one wise unto salvation - "And from a babe you have known the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15) He was speaking of the Old Testament of course. All Scripture is "God breathed" and profitable to the Christian according, he reminds - "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work." (v.16,17) Just faith in God [in Christ] as taught by Paul is no excuse to pretend any teaching, any author forgery was not important to him, or to some of us who want to truly comprehend Ephesians. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Paht, I just wanted to remind myself what your general intention was in opening this discussion. It seems considerable time is being invested to authorship of Ephesians, which absolute proof of which is probably not possible by us today.Some discussion on Ignatius is being proposed as to whether Ignatius thought Paul wrote Ephesians.Someone seems to want to change "Have You Ever Read Ephesians?" to "Have You Ever Read the Seven Letters of Ignatius?"It could be another topic. Anyway in the letters of Ignatius I find this list of quotes from Paul's epistles. And I don't know whether this proves Ignatius believed Paul the author or not. Maybe someone knows.(Just Pauline quotations or allusions )1.) Ignatius epistle to Ephesians - Romans 6:4; 1 Cor. 1:20; Galatians 5:21; Colossians 1:232.) Ignatius letter to Magnesians - N/A as far as I am told.3.) Ignatius letter to the Trallians - 1 Corinthians 4:1; 9:27; 15:12; Colossians 1:164.) Ignatius epistle to Romans - 1 Cor. 15:8,9; 1 Thess. 2:4; 2 Thess. 3:5; 2 Timotny 2:8.5.) Ignatius epistle to Philippians - 1 Cor. 2:10; 6:9-10; 10:16-17.6.) Ignatius letter to Smynraeans - Romans 1:3; Ephesians 2:16; Philippians 3:15; 4:13; 2 Timothy 1:16.7.) Ignatius letter to Polycarp - Ephesians 4:2; 5:25,29; Timothy 6:2; 2 Timothy 2:4.For what it is worth above we see Ignatius alluding to or quoting letters traditionally attributed to Paul.I suppose someone could further the argument that Ignatius may not have written those letters as well.This information was derived from - "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Giesler and Nix, chapter "Patristic Witnesses to the Text of Scripture". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Would you say that this was true of the book you are debating as to whether Paul was the author - Ephesians ? Where would you refer me in Ephesians to demonstrate this "fondness" of Paul ?Since I recall someone elsewhere leveling this charge at me of "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you can enlighten me about this matter just a little too.Sure, I could look it up. But I think you use it here. Why don't you break it down for me, briefly?Now your comment of you discussing with Richh AUTHORSHIP and not understanding of Ephesians, I will simply regard that temporarily you want to iron something out with Richh.I was satisfied with Richh's admission that we could question the authorship of a lot of ancient writings to place some doubt on absolute "proof" of authorship.But that's what you want to argue about anyway. Fine.
I think I already pointed out that the concepts of the growing and building church in Ephesians are so like those in First Corinthians that we can imagine Paul writing both letters. Or possibly there was another Paul. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This comment is general. It is good advice.
He doesn't really come out and say "Purpledawn, you ate no food."Though Richh's analogy could be taken to mean one has never taken one single bite, it need not be taken that way. It could imply that one is on a very restrictive diet in eating because one is overly distracted with criticism of the food.Granted one may have tasted. But one also could be drawn away from eating too much, too often, though the food has been sampled. So what is "eating the food" suppose to be ?
Can someone "eat the food" of Ephesians and agree with a certain Goodspeed that Ephesians was a psuedo letter not really written by Paul ?Yes. In my opinion. Sure, I can receive a Christian brother or sister who has doubts that Paul wrote Ephesians.I hear protest. Perhaps someone doesn't care about me receiving or not receiving one as a Christian brother or sister. Well, they can not care. But the "food" I refer to is Christ and the revelation concerning Christ as plainly laid out in a book like Ephesians.What would be a "main course" of this so-called food? Well, for example - Jesus Christ being raised from the dead. Now that "food" germane to the meal. It is not a side dish of no importance.Can someone believe that Christ is risen from the dead (according to Ephesians 1:20 ) and have doubts that Paul wrote Ephesians, like Mr. Goodspeed ? I don't know much about what this Goodspeed personally believes. I once had his paraphrase New Testament. But I could call a man a Christian who believes in the resurrection of Christ but doubts that Paul wrote Ephesians.I do not, nor do I think the New Testament makes that a requirement to be a follower of Jesus and a Christian.Having said that, I don't think Richh meant that "eating" the food was RESTRICTED to cardinal belief such as the resurrection of Christ. I think Richh had in mind that even one believes in the truth of Ephesians 1:20 and be undernourished.Eating is a daily matter. I don't think Richh refered to someone being assured that ONCE he ate a meal. Being distracted from a healthy daily intake that one may live a healthy life, could have been the implication.Look, it is a fact of life that believers in Christ can be distracted from the Christ they believe in by other really interesting things. Look at it the way Ephesians itself spoke - "But holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ." (Eph. 4:15) This is holding to truth in love for growing rather than for initial salvation. And the sister passage really equates "holding to truth in love" in Ephesians to "holding fast the Head, Christ" (Col. 2:19) in Colossians.Simarly - "rooted in grounded in love" of Ephesians 3:17 really equates to "rooted and having been built up in Him" of Colossians 2:7.Now in my "jumping on" this little exchange about whether eating has taken place or not I wrote ( I think ) two posts. The first was Message 251.Purpledawn says: If I recall correctly, what I wrote in that post was similar to what I have explained above.I think I would say it depends upon how crucial the teaching is which is being accepted or rejected. Sorry. I have a liberal bent in me just as much as the next guy.But if you are saying the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen (and I did not insist purpledawn said that. I think I ASKED. And I think I received no reply specifically.) then I have a questionmark over whether the "food" of the NT has really been received.I think that every writer of the New Testament would AGREE with that. If you come to me to explain Ephesians and you don't believe Christ rose from the dead as Ephesians said, how can you tell me what it all means ? I think your opinion would err.But for the record, believing that Paul wrote Ephesians is no requirement for eternal redemption or entry into the brotherhood of believers in Christ.So, was Richh saying "Purpledawn, ya didn't eat anything" ? Maybe. Then maybe Purpledawn was being defensive in the tone -"Why didn't I eat? Just because I agree with Goodspeed that Ephesians is a well imitated forgery ?"For the record, my opinion is [NOT] that a Christian must disagree with Goodspeed that Ephesians a forgery. So it depends, what we extend the analogy of "food" to.It is hard for me to post and review a past post simultaneously. It a technical limitation. But I think I only spoke to what the different view might pertain to.I have no problem with Paul being the author of Ephesians. And that even though it is common knowledge that forgeries did take place in the early centries of the Christian church, otherwise Paul would not have told us so, ie (2 Thess. 2:2). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Typo correction. ( I know I should make better use of Preview )What I intended to write was:

quote:

---

For the record, my opinion is [NOT] that a Christian must disagree with Goodspeed that Ephesians a forgery.

---

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And sometimes people hold their nose so tight that they don't smell anything either good or unpleasant.

I can assure you that this concern "some" have today in 2013 AD "some" had just as much a concern in the first few centries.What perculiar kind of arrogance would assume that the earlier readers were far less discerning, far more apathetic, and herd following naivete only drove them ?"We readers today REALLY CARE to know if the letter was actually genuinely by the stated author. But those poor naive religious dummies in Paul's time, they didn't care so much."I protest that this is unrealistic and borders on some perculiar kind of modernist arrogance - "modern folks are more skeptical and therefore know best."The sifting, sorting, dicsriminating between high and lower quality, between fake and real, between phony and genuine, between authentic and forgery also took place among earlier "digestors" of the witnesses to proper Christian teaching.Let me give you just ONE example: The Gospel writer Luke - "Insomuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us, Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1)Luke was doing what "many" had done.
Luke researched the matters from their "beginning".
Luke was congnizant of the importance of "eyewitnesses".
Luke "investigated" the matters.
He investigated them "carefully".
He wrote them out "orderly".
He was concerned about the "certainty" of the reports.I do not get the impression of blind following of all and everything anyone said.This concerns the Gospel record of Jesus words and ministry. But the movement and teaching of the apostles, I believe, also was scrutinized by some who CARED. I don't think we should assume that it took 2000 years for people to have the sophistication of concern for the genuiness of matters passed on by Christian workers.As you care today some really CARED in that day, very much so.
Was every "gospel" equally reliable about the life and words of Jesus? Was every letter circulated under the guise of an apostle authentic?Some Christians PREFERED very much to know then too.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

"The law of the commandments in ordinances ..." Paul did not say Christ abolished the morality called for by the law of Moses. But the ordinances such as circumicision was abolished by Christ in separating Jews from Gentiles.I think you have to consider carefully the phrase "the commandments in ordinances." .In our happily accepted Roman letter justification by faith in Christ is clearly taught. Now having BEEN justified by FAITH is the morality of the law unimportant, abolished, done away because of Christ ?No. Rather Paul teaches that the requirement of the law as to its righteous living is fulfilled in those who walk by the Holy Spirit of the indwelling Christ.Right here: " ... the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit." (Rom. 8:4) The requirement of the law is still important to Paul AFTER the believers have been justified unto eternal redemption through faith.In THIS sense it is difficult to say Paul abolished the law. But the commandments of ordinances such as dietary rules, circumcision rules, Levitical specifications of offerings, ie. consecration offering, sin offering, trespass offering, meal offering, peace offering, drink offering, etc. etc., these ordinances Paul says have been abolished.Justification by faith is because of Christ's redemptive death and resurrection.The requirement of the law as to how man should live in morality, in ethical goodness, in righteousness rather than in ritual, is fulfilled in those who having BEEN justified, go on to walk according to the spirit.That is the human spirit mingled with the Holy Spirit because of the new birth.The possible weakness of this argument will be acknowledged if anyone can point out that a purely moral command, such as to not commit adultery, was also an ordinance.But someone else will have to do the work.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I see the quandry.There is another matter I would address. Does it MATTER that we have a letter proported to be by Paul but is NOT by Paul - a forgery, a fraud ?To me this is not altogether without significance. The apostle Paul wrote (if he wrote Second Corinthians) that he and his team appealed to men's consciences. Their integrity was their most valuable currency.Paul preached what he LIVED. I don't think in this case there was a difference. What he WAS, this he spoke out of. And his life and message were one. He appealed with his integrity and high morality to the consciences of his audience. Second Corinthians 2:4 - "But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men before God." Paul and his co-workers depended upon men recognizing in thier consciences that these were honest people bringing them the Gospel teaching.They would not want to come across as employing shady "hidden things" as tricks - ie. forging letters.They would not want to impress as walking in craftiness trying to hoodwink the audience. Exagerrations were out. Lies were out. Sneaky tactics to manipulate the churches were out.These tactics Paul regarded as the things of shamefulness. A minister of Christ Jesus ought not depend upon such sleaze and neither was it necessary that they should.Okay. Now what does some destructive higher textural critic want us to believe?Whoever wrote the Ephesian letter in Paul's name, was implying trickery (albiet with some noble purpose). He was walking in craftiness. He was imploying the hidden things of shame. He was forging a letter, pretending to be someone he was not. He was laboring to deceive the audience."I am PRETENDING to be Paul the apostle. Listen to my writing because I can imitate that man. Be tricked. Be deceived. It is all for the good of the Christian church."Now if I accept that I am reading something that someone KNOWINGLY fabricated I am not impressed with what I am reading. It is not "business as usual" just because everything else sounds okay. If the speaker is a bald face liar than chances are high that what he is teaching is not of Christ at all.So I think it matters whether we have a genuine book of Ephesians from "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" or a forgery by an imposter.Maybe Jazzns and purpledawn think that this doesn't matter. Faking did happen. But how far shall we extend that ? I think the knowledge that phony authoritative writings of the Apochrypha and Pseudepigrapha has limits.At least Paul would not have approved of forgery in his name. It is not honest. It is walking in craftiness which he wrote was unacceptable to his team.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Paul said that he and his co-workers commended themselves to the consciences of men. Their integrity was of crucial importance.The writer Jude speaks very much the same things as Peter does in his epistles. Did Jude attempt to pretend it was Peter's writing ?No. Jude honestly indicated that he was speaking on behalf of earlier apostles - "Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, to those who are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept by Jesus Christ...

​

Beloved, while using all diligence to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you and exhort you to earnestly contend for the fiath once for all delivered to the saints.

​

For certain men have crept in unnoticed ... But you, beloved, remember the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ ..." The interested reader can examine how similar the epistle of Jude is to the epistle of Second Peter..This is an example of a faithful co-worker of the Gospel. There was no need to pretend to be Peter. It was expedient that the reader know that they were being reminded of what Peter had previously told them.Jude did not pretend to be Peter. And I do not think someone pretended to be Paul in the writing of the Ephesian letter of the New Testament.It doesn't matter to me that in the plethora of religious literature foregery was done. I believe it was not always done in the canonical books.Another matter. I don't think the ancient Christian brothers, so called "Church Fathers" bestowed authority on books. I believe that they recognized authority of books. And as someone said, the New Testament canon was not an authoritative list of books. Rather it was a list of authoritative books.The authority was put there by the Holy Spirit of God not bestowed by commitee vote. And this even though some books were disputed and slow to be accepted into the canon.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoEBEXlXua0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12o9XImLqWEEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.