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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have You Ever Read Ephesians?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 241 of 383 (691272)
02-21-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by jaywill
02-20-2013 11:00 PM


Re: The wedge
Does this history and rich bases include that fact that Jesus rose from the dead ? Or does this history and "rich bases" mean to you that Jesus is dead and buried ?
The circumstances of Jesus are irrelevant. Lets assume for the sake of argument that everything in your mythology is true. It does not change what we know of how early christians behaved, how they believed, and how the concept of orthodoxy evolved as minds were changed over the generations after Jesus.
My understanding of these epistles is bound up in my belief and agreement with the authors concerning Christ being resurrected and alive and available to be known.
If you don't believe that Christ is available, regardless how glowingly you speak of historical importance and rich bases, your explanations are frought with hollow unbelief.
Putting it bluntly, you wouldn't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. And my explanations, which are not that outlandish to Christian experience, would be like explaining a Beethoven symphony to a cow.
This is just more of the, "contradictions between words on the page disappear when you apply MY special kind of magic" argument. I don't mean to be dismissive about using the word magic but you have to understand that that is what it sounds like to someone on this end. What does believing add that helps to change the contradictions? The only thing I can think of is that it adds a sense that apriori the contradictions are impossible so therefore any explanation that removes them must be necessarily better than acknowledging them.
Not only are you suggesting that you can only see the wonders of your experience with your magic, but that you also must ignore facts about the history of the bible and the early church. You are replacing knowledge with magic and proclaiming THAT thought process to be like "explaining a Beethoven symphony to a cow".
Now matter how much I disagree with you, I hope I would never proclaim your level of faculty to that of animal. I do think your argument is emboldened by ignorance but I would never proclaim that you will be incapable of understanding because your process is akin to that of livestock.
Once again, your insults speak only to you.
I am not abusing the purpose of the writings in favor of trying to salvage some humanism from the supernatural essence of what Paul is writing about.
Nor am I! You invented that part of my argument so you could feel good to have something you think you could knock down.
Take Romans. Either the writer is mad, horribly self deceived, a vicious liar, or he's telling us the truth.
What is wrong with the self deceived option? If one of the world's religions is true, it means that all the other people are being self deceived (unless you believe in Loki).
I won't even call the forgers vicious liars. They were pious liars. They really thought they had something important to say for the benefit of their religion. It doesn't excuse them, but I am not here to apply modern justice to them. I will simply note that we have left their tired and primitive nonsense in the dusbin of history where it belongs.
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 240 by jaywill, posted 02-20-2013 11:00 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by jaywill, posted 02-21-2013 8:08 PM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 242 of 383 (691287)
02-21-2013 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Jazzns
02-21-2013 5:00 PM


Re: The wedge
This is just more of the, "contradictions between words on the page disappear when you apply MY special kind of magic" argument.
I don't see the contradictions.
I regard the "contradictions" as your kind of mythology. Not being as gracious as you I suppose, I am not willing to assume them. I regard your insistance that Ephesians is a forgery not written by Paul as another instance of your kind of mythology.
I think it has been amply demonstrated that there is no real contradiction between Philemon and Ephesians. I think it has been amply demonstrated that there is no contradiction between Romans and Ephesians.
What does believing add that helps to change the contradictions?
I never saw any contradiction in the things you discussed.
I think you manufactured some things, called them "contradictions" and based on that mythology you announced Ephesians as a forgery.
The only thing I can think of is that it adds a sense that apriori the contradictions are impossible so therefore any explanation that removes them must be necessarily better than acknowledging them.
The case of your contradictions just didn't have any effect on me.
That a writer speaks of certain things in one letter and in another letter speaks further of them, does not constitute contradiction to me.
I think your main source of hunting for contradictions was words related to wives and slaves. That Paul spoke here and added some more there doesn't signal contradiction to me. He elaborated further.
If someone were to press me to find a contradiction between two or more things that the writer of the Pauline epistles taught, upon thinking real hard, I might submit some things.
I would probably refer to them as paradoxical. I can think of some paradoxical pairs of statements in the 13 or so epistles traditionally attributed to Paul. None of these instances have anything to do with slaves or wives.
Perhaps, Paul's instructions concerning single people and marriage contain some indication of his having changed his mind over the years. But even this is questionable.
Not only are you suggesting that you can only see the wonders of your experience with your magic, but that you also must ignore facts about the history of the bible and the early church.
I think we were discussing the book of Ephesians.
My point here is that the word concerning the churching saints who are wives, husbands, slaves, masters, children, and fathers contain no substantial contradictions from one letter to another.
And there is no real contradiction of the teaching of Jesus verses the apostolic ministry of Paul. Paul was exceedingly faithful to Christ.
Someone may point out that Paul discussed circumcision and Jesus did not. I would agree. But there is no contradiction there. There is Paul extending principles taught by Christ concerning certain ordinances like the holy diet and Sabbath keeping which now caused to apply to circumcision as well.
You are replacing knowledge with magic and proclaiming THAT thought process to be like "explaining a Beethoven symphony to a cow".
I think I am giving some voice to Paul's own words. I would not have liked to have heard such a thing said to me.
I am sorry I had to say it - a little sorry. But the bovine lack of appreciation of what is going on in a symphonic composition could be compared to Paul's words that the carnal minded man "cannot" discern spiritually certain things that he wrote to the churches -
"But a soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know [them] because they are discerned spiritually. " ( 1 Cor. 2:14)
Because not everyone can discern the spiritual truths Paul was sharing, he prayed that even among the Ephesians, they would be granted a spirit of wisdom and revelation. He petitioned God that some of his audience in Ephesus would be granted by God that ability to "know what is the hope of His calling ..."
"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of Him, the eyes of your heart having been enlightened, that you may know the hope of His calling .... etc." (Eph. 1:17,18)
Don't be too bothered. There is much "cow" in all of us. I am sure that if we really saw what the Apostle Paul was talking about we would be beside ourselves with joy.
I have a large amount of "cow" left in me also even after many years of loving Christ and the Scripture.
Now matter how much I disagree with you, I hope I would never proclaim your level of faculty to that of animal. I do think your argument is emboldened by ignorance but I would never proclaim that you will be incapable of understanding because your process is akin to that of livestock.
My comments are going to be somewhat forced to relate the book of Ephesians.
In Ephesians Paul spoke of the state of audience before becomming followers of Christ. He said that we were "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18)
When a man says that it is irrelevant whether Jesus was resurrected or not, it could be that he says so because he is "alienated from the life of God". He is estranged from Christ as the life of God.
Jesus had taught - "I am the resurrection and the life"
He had said - " I am the way, the truth and the life ".
He had said that He came that we might have life and have it abundantly.
In the Greek there the word life is the ZOE or divine life, the eternal life of God. Christ taught that He was the life of God become manifest.
His resurrection from the dead is one seal of proof that He was the uncreated and indestructible life of God.
Paul said that the unbelievers were "alienated [estranged] from the life of God".
I am expounding Ephesians as one who has at least initially had this period of "alienation" from God's own life, terminated by receiving Christ.
You may refer to all this as magic if it makes you feel comfortable. But all of Ephesians as well as the other letters of the New Testament concern the spiritual, the life of God, the supernatural.
Studying them for just their historic significance may be the enjoyment of some people. I think enjoying them as bringing the reader on to contact God is better.
But be encouraged. Just maybe Evolution Verses Creation website may decide to have a Bible Study room where believers in the Bible are excluded.
In the meantime some of us will just have to appear to be speaking "magic".
What is wrong with the self deceived option?
It certainly is a logical possibility.
But one has to figure what profit to Paul was it to be so absolute for the deception ? What did it do for him besides involve him in many serious difficulties and eventual death at the hands of Nero ?
Furthermore, since Paul admitted that about 500 people were around who saw the resurrected Christ, most of whom were still alive when he wrote that, it was rather bold. He would then have been writing to the Corinthian church mentioning 500 either equally deceived people or people who could readily contradict Paul concerning the resurrected Jesus.
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until this day, but some have fallen asleep;
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me, as it were to one born prematurely. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:3-9)
Slightly under 500 contemporary people had to have been self deceived just like Paul. Otherwise from this number who had heard what Paul wrote to Corinth could easily come forward and correct the rumor that Christ had been raised on the third day.
Self deception is not a strong case for Paul's behavior.
Not only he speaks of 500 other witnesses to Christ having been raised. He admits this to those opposed to Christ as enemies of the Gospel.
I do not mean that they believed. I do mean that he says to them in essence "You KNOW that all these things were being talked about in Jerusalem. You KNOW that a resurrected Christ was roundly being preached."
It is one thing to say this before followers of Jesus who believe. It is another thing to say it before opposers of the Gospel telling them that they know good and well that many many were likewise to him, proclaiming Jesus as having been raised. This passage is in the book of Acts. I don't have time to look it up right now.
Must go now.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Jazzns, posted 02-21-2013 5:00 PM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 243 of 383 (691305)
02-21-2013 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Jazzns
02-11-2013 8:18 PM


Re: What did Paul expect of Philemon?
quote:
It is not clear to me that he even asked Philemon to free him.
What? Really?
Paul in Philemon writes:
Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother
What do the words "no longer a slave" mean to you?
I happened to be reading further in Farrar (see post 225), on the Epistle to Philemon, and found this in The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 480, 481
quote:
What was the issue of St. Paul's letter we are not told, but we may feel quite sure that the confidence of one who was so skillful a reader of human character was not misplaced; that Philemon received his slave as kindly as Sabiniaus received his freedman; that he forgave him, and not merely took him into favour, but did what St. Paul does not ask, but evidently desired, namely, set him free.
That made me think maybe I was not the only one who did not see a request for 'manumission' in Paul's works to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus. I checked some verse by verse commentaries on Philemon and could not find one that took Paul's words as a request for release. For example, Alford, Gill, MacArthur (in his study Bible), and Jamieson, Faussett and Brown all do not see a request for freedom in Paul's word's. That does not mean that one does not exist, but it does mean I am not the only one who has this view. I post this as an FYI.
Let me quote a little more from page 472:
quote:
From the very nature of the Christian Church - from the fact that it was "a kingdom not of this world" - it could not be revolutionary. It was never meant to prevail by physical violence, or to be promulgated by the sword. It was the revelation of eternal principles, the elaboration of practical details. It did not interfere, or attempt to interfere, with the established order. Had it done so it must have perished in the storm of excitement which would have inevitably been raised. In revealing truth, in protesting against crime, it insured its own ultimate yet silent victory. It knew that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. It was loyal to the powers that be. It raised no voice, and refused no tribute even to a Gaius or a Nero. It did not denounce slavery, and preached no fatal and futile servile war. It did not inflame its Onesimi to play the parts of an Eunus or an Artemio. Yet it inspired a sense of freedom which has been in all ages the most invincible foe to tyranny, and it proclaimed a divine equality and brotherhood, which while it left untouched the ordinary social distinctions, left slavery impossible to the enlightened Christian lands.
I generally agree with Farrar's statements and certainly with the over tenor of his thoughts.
P.S. Pliny wrote an epistle to Sabiniaus on behalf of an offending freedman.
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Jazzns, posted 02-11-2013 8:18 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 9:54 AM Richh has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 244 of 383 (691577)
02-23-2013 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Richh
02-20-2013 2:02 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
quote:
I think the force of Farrar's argument regarding the writings subsequent to the New Testament writings, especially, those of Paul, is that none were up to the standard of Paul's writing and no one emerged with the same repute as Paul. You may cite the Epistle to the Hebrews as an example of a high quality anonymous Epistle. I don't believe there are any others subsequent to the New Testament writings. Certainly there are no additional books considered canonical.
I don't think you can really make a good argument that Paul's writings were better quality. The New Testament writings represent the foundation of Christianity. It doesn't really mean they were of better quality than other writings of the time or later writings by the early Church Fathers.
Origen's reputation continued to spread after his death.
After his death his reputation continued to spread. St. Pamphilus, martyred in 307, composes with Eusebius an "Apology for Origen" in six books the first alone of which has been preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus (P.G., XVII, 541-616). Origen had at that time many other apologists whose names are unknown to us (Photius, cod. 117 and 118). The directors of the catechetical school continued to walk in his footsteps. Theognostus, in his "Hypotyposes", followed him even too closely, according to Photius (cod. 106), though his action was approved by St. Athanasius. Pierius was called by St. Jerome "Origenes junior" (Illustrious Men 76). Didymus the Blind composed a work to explain and justify the teaching of the "De principiis" (St. Jerome, "Adv. Rufin.", I, vi). St. Athanasius does not hesitate to cite him with praise (Epist. IV ad Serapion., 9 and 10) and points out that he must be interpreted generously (De decretis Nic., 27).
quote:
Agreed. I just wanted to list some arguments in favor of Pauline authorship to underline the open nature of the case and to balance what I perceived as an imbalance in arguments in favor of modern skeptical opinion.
How is modern textual criticism different than earlier textual criticisms?
7.2 Origen of Alexandria/Caesarea
Origen’s biblical commentaries refer to New Testament readings that were supported by few, many or most of the biblical manuscripts available to him. Origen (A.D. 185-254) complained that the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.
IMO, much of the criticism today, besides making sure we have the most authentic version possible, is trying to understand the reality behind the ancient texts to see if the text really does support current dogma and/or teachings presented. Some people present some very strange ideas of what the Bible writings support, whether they are trying to promote it or bash it.
Find any support for the idea that Ignatius supported Paul's authorship of Ephesians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Richh, posted 02-20-2013 2:02 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Richh, posted 02-23-2013 11:40 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 246 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2013 4:20 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 245 of 383 (691679)
02-23-2013 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by purpledawn
02-23-2013 7:32 AM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
quote:
Find any support for the idea that Ignatius supported Paul's authorship of Ephesians?
Regarding Ignatius, Farrar says in a footnote in The Life and Work of St. Paul, Vol 2, p. 480:
The Epistle is by no means deficient of external evidence. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Tertulian, and perhaps even Ignatius (ad Eph vi), have either quoted or alluded to it;...
Alford also mentions Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp and Tertulian as 'ancient testimonies to the Apostle Paul having been the author of the Epistle and quotes the passages. He puts Ignatius in a separate section and mentions two recensions, one of which he calls 'the longer recension.' In the first he produces a quote which may allude to Paul's authorship and in the later, the quote undoubtedly imputes the authorship to Paul. I have never read any of 'the fathers' myself. I can give the quotes if you'd like.
I checked your reference on textual criticism. It looks pretty informative.
But also, regarding the aspect of 'criticism', at some point one needs to 'take' the words, to take it in. If you spend your life 'criticizing' food without eating any, you miss the point of the food (and there are food critics). I have only gradually become aware of the process of textual criticism. But I have been reading and 'taking in' the Bible for many years - since I was 20. Before that I tried to read the Bible but I didn't get much out of it. Then I had an experience where I cried out to God and experienced that he was real. After that I started reading the Bible again and it started speaking to me. That experience was a turning point in my life.
KJV Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by purpledawn, posted 02-23-2013 7:32 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 02-24-2013 1:55 PM Richh has replied

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


Message 246 of 383 (691686)
02-24-2013 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by purpledawn
02-23-2013 7:32 AM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
I don't think you can really make a good argument that Paul's writings were better quality.
The argument would be made by many of the other writers themselves. Though they loved Christ and wrote of Christ they appealed to Paul's letters for support. They regarded the apostolic writings as the foundation upon which they were building.
The New Testament writings represent the foundation of Christianity.
The brothers who discovered the canon felt so. So they themselves would consider their writings, though perhaps good, as needing to be measured by the apostolic writings recognized to be Scripture.
It doesn't really mean they were of better quality than other writings of the time or later writings by the early Church Fathers.
They themelves would consider Ephesians the letter as foundational.
In THAT sense - higher quality.
IMO, much of the criticism today, besides making sure we have the most authentic version possible, is trying to understand the reality behind the ancient texts to see if the text really does support current dogma and/or teachings presented. Some people present some very strange ideas of what the Bible writings support, whether they are trying to promote it or bash it.
You speak of "trying to understand the reality behind the ancient test ...". To me trying to understand the reality of the ancient texts definitely involves experiencing the Christ of whom the text elaborates SO MUCH concerning.
The text says "that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith". Yet some expounders in discussing the text seem to talk about everything else BUT the Christ repeatedly mentioned in the letter.
I wish you would go back through the entire epistle of Ephesians and COUNT the number of times Paul mentions directly or indirectly Jesus Christ - Him - His. Then compare that the some of your critical articles. Often the focus gravitates away to Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, church history and many other matters but the Christ and God conveyed in the epistle.
I think Richh's mention of high quality relates to the purity with which Christ is central, Christ is expounded, Christ is exalted, Christ is the center of the writing. How effectively does the writing impart wisdom calibrating the heart to Jesus Christ and living through Christ.
You are correct that "current dogma and/or teachings" often are NOT supported by the ancient texts. For many of us there is no way around this problem but to love and experience the resurrected Christ that the text so emphatically teaches about.
One poster said that this was "magic" used to explain problems of contradictions.
The more I read Ephesians, with this attitude of foregery, the more it appears a ludicrous suspicion.
There is much autobiographical in Ephesians - ie. "For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you, the Gentiles ..." . And the writer goes on and on about his ministry from Christ.
The suspicion that someone is lying as an imitator is not realitstic to me. I could take one of your posts and make a case that it was unlike the rest of your posts. Therefore I just know that on that day someone else in your house used your ID and decptively posted something in your name (albeit with some constructive purpose to appear to be purpledawn).
Anyway, I must leave now to take someone to the airport. Wish I could write more.
Okay, psuedo letters were written. No need to expoit that beyond a reasonable degree.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by purpledawn, posted 02-23-2013 7:32 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 247 of 383 (691692)
02-24-2013 8:43 AM


For this cause ...
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 CAUSE
Now 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.

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 248 of 383 (691703)
02-24-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Richh
02-23-2013 11:40 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
quote:
I have never read any of 'the fathers' myself.
Here is a very handy web site. Now you can read the translations for yourself.
Early Christian Writings: Early Church Fathers
quote:
I can give the quotes if you'd like.
That would be evidence necessary for this discussion to continue. Saves guessing, although I will try since otherwise I have nothing to write about.
quote:
But also, regarding the aspect of 'criticism', at some point one needs to 'take' the words, to take it in. If you spend your life 'criticizing' food without eating any, you miss the point of the food (and there are food critics).
You're making an assumption that I haven't eaten the food because my view is different than yours. I've provided support from Bible Scholars, not religion free scholars. Edgar Goodspeed is also one who has tasted the food.
Edgar Johnson Goodspeed (1871-1962): Translator and Scholar of the Greek New Testament
Edgar Johnson (E.J.) Goodspeed was a Northern (now American) Baptist minister and biblical scholar who represented the best of the Chicago School of liberal Protestantism.
My battle is against dogma that tries to manipulate people with the authority of the Bible when the Bible doesn't support what they are selling.
External Evidence for Pauline Authorship of Ephesians
I'm using the above site for quotes that supposedly support Pauline authorship of Ephesians.
Now concerning Ignatius of Antioch. The man was very much a part of beginning time of Christianity. He experienced the early teachings, not just letters or writings.
Ephesians has an estimated range of 80-100AD and the life of Ignatius has a range of ca. c 35-110. He was considered one of the Apostolic Fathers which means he probably interacted with the fist apostles and heard their teachings.
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians:
The first supposed evidence.
(1)
Ignatius 1
For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him ‘who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,’ [ye hastened to see me].
Ephesians 5:2
And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
Was he quoting a letter he had read or was he expressing a description from what he had learned?
If you look at the rest of his writings and search for "said, says, wrote, or written" you will see that these are used when repeating what someone has said or written. Beware the longer versions. Also remember that the Septuagint is the Old Testament used, not what we have today.
Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: CHAPTER III.--CHRIST WAS POSSESSED OF A BODY AFTER HIS RESURRECTION (not yelling, just copied title)
For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit."
Ignatius to the Magnesians: CHAPTER XII.--YE ARE SUPERIOR TO ME
May I enjoy you in all respects, if indeed I be worthy! For though I am bound, I am not worthy to be compared to any of you that are at liberty. I know that ye are not puffed up, for ye have Jesus Christ in yourselves. And all the more when I commend you, I know that ye cherish modesty of spirit; as it is written, "The righteous man is his own accuser." (Proverbs 18:17)
Ignatius to the Ephesians: CHAPTER V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY
For it is written, "God resisteth the proud." Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. (Proverbs 3:34)
Second supposed evidence
(2)
Ignatius 12
Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistle makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.
When we look at the translations we have epistles plural, not singular.
Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.
So now we look at how many times Ephesus or Ephesians were mentioned in our collection of Pauline epistles. I only see Ephesians or Ephesus used in 1 Corinthians and Timothy. So they aren't mentioned in all the epistles that we have. We shouldn't assume that Paul wrote no other letters than the ones we have. This statement only attests that the Ephesians were mentioned in the epistles that Ignatius read from Paul, but we don't have any way of knowing what letters he read.
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp:
These quotes give me the same concern as the first one I showed. I don't see them as definite quotes as opposed to expressing the teaching of the time.
Polycarp
I see the same issue in the Polycarp quotes. Rephrasing a teaching is not quoting a letter and isn't evidence of who wrote the letter. There needs to be a way to show they are actually quoting from the letter and not from what was being taught.
The last entry under Polycarp is interesting. Polycarp's letter to the Philipians has an estmated date of 110-140AD. He could be quoting Ephesians, but this isn't evidence that Paul wrote it. Also look at the way he gives the statements. It isn't written the same way as in Ephesians. They are separated as though they are from different sources.
(3)
Polycarp 12
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry, and sin not,’ and, ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’
Ephesians 4:26
’Be angry, and do not sin’: do not let the sun go down on your wrath.
While Be angry, and do not sin is a quote from Psalm 4:4 (and therefore Polycarp could be quoting the Psalm), do not let the sun go down on your wrath is unique to Ephesians, not from the Psalm. Therefore, this must be a reference to Ephesians as Sacred Scripture.
"Be ye angry..." is from the Septuagint Psalms 4:4. It isn't the same wording as in Ephesians. Seems odd since Ephesians had the whole package right there. Doesn't mean he couldn't have pulled from Psalms and then Ephesians, just odd.
Given the timeframe of Polycarp's writing it is possible that he was influenced by Ephesians and quoted one line from it; but it isn't evidence of who wrote the letter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Richh, posted 02-23-2013 11:40 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2013 2:22 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 251 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2013 2:49 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 262 by Richh, posted 02-25-2013 9:14 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 249 of 383 (691706)
02-24-2013 2:18 PM


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

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


Message 250 of 383 (691707)
02-24-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by purpledawn
02-24-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
We shouldn't assume that Paul wrote no other letters than the ones we have.
Who assumed that Paul wrote no other letters than the ones we have ?
Who in this discussion made that claim ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 02-24-2013 1:55 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 251 of 383 (691708)
02-24-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by purpledawn
02-24-2013 1:55 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
You're making an assumption that I haven't eaten the food because my view is different than yours.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 02-24-2013 1:55 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2013 7:02 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 252 of 383 (691749)
02-25-2013 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by jaywill
02-24-2013 2:49 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
Richh and I are discussing proof of authorship, not understanding the book, not faith in God, or belief in Jesus.
As Paul was fond of pointing out, Abraham was justified by his faith in God. He wasn't justified by his faith in a book or it's author, a doctrine or dogma, a tradition or ritual, the disciples or Paul, or the pope or clergy. Just faith in God.
So please stop the "No True Scotsman" approach and address the arguments I've made concerning authorship if you wish to debate with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by jaywill, posted 02-24-2013 2:49 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by jaywill, posted 02-25-2013 7:59 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 257 by jaywill, posted 02-25-2013 10:41 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 253 of 383 (691750)
02-25-2013 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by purpledawn
02-25-2013 7:02 AM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
Richh and I are discussing proof of authorship, not understanding the book, not faith in God, or belief in Jesus.
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.
As Paul was fond of pointing out, Abraham was justified by his faith in God. He wasn't justified by his faith in a book or it's author, a doctrine or dogma, a tradition or ritual, the disciples or Paul, or the pope or clergy. Just faith in God.
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.
So please stop the "No True Scotsman" approach and address the arguments I've made concerning authorship if you wish to debate with me.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2013 7:02 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2013 10:19 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 254 of 383 (691756)
02-25-2013 9:33 AM


Purpledawn, claiming only interest in authorship of Ephesians proposes this interpretation of Paul's writing -
As Paul was fond of pointing out, Abraham was justified by his faith in God. He wasn't justified by his faith in a book or it's author, a doctrine or dogma, a tradition or ritual, the disciples or Paul, or the pope or clergy. Just faith in God.
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.

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


Message 255 of 383 (691759)
02-25-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-18-2012 6:57 AM


Re: What does it actually say?
Paht, I just wanted to remind myself what your general intention was in opening this discussion.
So now we are! This topic will be limited to discussions on Ephesians.
I notice that I already have two negative votes when we have not even begun to discuss the book. They must not like the author!
First some fast facts:
The main theme of Ephesians is the Church, the Body of Christ.
Another major theme in Ephesians is the keeping of Christ's body (that is, the Church) pure and holy.
Bible Study, Please.
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 1:23
2.) 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 1:16
4.) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-18-2012 6:57 AM Phat has 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