|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Have You Ever Read Ephesians? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So much for discussion, on to not-what-I-said issues.
quote:Well we want to debate it anyway. quote:My post didn't say I wasn't interested in understanding Ephesians or that I don't understand Ephesians. My post said I wasn't interested in playing the "no true Scotsman" game with you. quote:I have discussed the content of Ephesians with you earlier in the thread. (Message 31, Message 47, Message 50, Message 55, Message 57, Message 61, and Message 62) I clearly said my post to Richh was concerning authorship. My post to you clearly stated that I did not want to play the "no true Scotsman" game with you.I feel that you are trying to use your perception of my personal belief to justify not accepting my arguments instead of actually addressing the arguments I posted. The comment you jumped on in Message 248 concerned Bible Criticism.
Richh writes: 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). PurpleDawn writes: 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. I didn't feel your response in Message 251 followed that line of thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The comment you jumped on in Message 248 concerned Bible Criticism. Richh writes: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). 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.
PurpleDawn writes: 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. 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:
I didn't feel your response in Message 251 followed that line of thought. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Typo correction. ( I know I should make better use of Preview )
What I intended to write was:
quote: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I think digestion is very important when it comes to "food". If it isn't digested well we get some rather funky byproducts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I think digestion is very important when it comes to "food". If it isn't digested well we get some rather funky byproducts. And sometimes people hold their nose so tight that they don't smell anything either good or unpleasant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote: I agree as noted below that Polycarp's statement cannot be conclusive evidence of authorship but I believe it is circumstantial evidence. I'd like to correct my post in which I mistakenly lumped together two categories in Alford's section on the authorship of Ephesians.
quote: Alford quotes Irenaeus, Polycarp and Tertulian under the description: 2. Further we have testimonies to the Epistle being received as canonical Scripture, and therefore, by implication, of its being regarded as written by him whose name it bears:... Alford quotes Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria under the description: 1. The ancient testimonies to the Apostle Paul having been the author of this Epistle, are the following:... Again I offer to reproduce the quotes, but your quotes above have covered what I would have typed from Alford - both from Ignatius and from Polycarp. The only difference I found was that in Alford and in another book on the writings of the Fathers that I found on my shelf, I found the singular 'epistle' in the quote of Ignatius, not the plural 'epistles'. Alford quotes the same passage you quoted - about 'initiated into the mysteries' - with only minor differences and the same passage from Polycarp about not letting the sun go down on your wrath. I found the first two of the links in your post helpful. I didn't get to the others yet. I agree with your statements that the quotes from Ignatius and Polycarp are not 'conclusive evidence', but perhaps circumstantial evidence.
quote:It is hard to make assumptions about what other people assume. I don't know how to say this in a way that is non-threatening and not self-justifying either. But although I posted that statement in a reply to you and can't deny that I am not concerned about the subject, I don't think I have the right to assume that you haven't eaten. I tried beginning the statement it in a general way, but reverted to colloquial English. Even if I had continued with 'one' instead of 'you', you might have taken my statement personally. I have not read all of your posts, and even if I had, they still may not express the depths of your heart. I accept your statement that you have eaten the food. But I wanted to post that as a general statement. I wanted to post that because there are certain things that are not conducive to my 'eating' and I can comment on those things with authority. I must confess that the conviction that Paul was indeed the author of this Epistle assists my 'eating' of it. And I believe that one's attitude toward the Epistle can even be a pitfall for Bible scholars. Here is another quote from Alford regarding this pitfall from his section on the language and style of Ephesians. This is the beginning of a sub-section but it continues the thought of the section. The New Testament for English Readers, Introduction to Ephesians, Section v., P 51 (Unfortunately, this is only a photo reproduction of the book, not the actual text.)
quote: I think sublime content of this Epsitle is another piece of circumstantial evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
I checked out the link to Goodspeed and will peruse it as I get a time. I did want to reply to one post, but I can't find it. I thought it was yours - about the writer of Ephesians being Greek and quoting from Goodspeed, the following, I believe.
quote:I don't agree with his conclusion here. There is an interplay of the pronouns 'you' and 'we', and words like 'both', etc. in chapters 1 - 3 that clearly indicate to me that the writer (Paul I say...) had two groups in mind - the Jews and the Gentiles, and that he grouped himself with the Jews. I think quotes like the following clinch it that the writer is Jewish. The pronouns would have been different if the writer was speaking as a Gentile. NIV Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richh Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 94 From: Long Island, New York Joined: |
quote: Let me pose a dilemma: If I cite differences between Ephesians and Paul's other writings, that can't be used as evidence of Pauline authorship, and if I cite similarities between Ephesians and Paul's other writings that can't be used as evidence either. Then is there any evidence that I can cite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:As I said in Message 81: The Christian canon(s) have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of the time. Believers consider canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the religion. The New Testament writings are foundational writings of Christianity chosen from many to preserve the teachings and beliefs of early Christianity, whether we know who the authors are or not. That doesn't change if Paul isn't considered the author. The teachings in the writing haven't changed if we find Paul isn't the author. They do the same type of criticism with the letters of the Church Fathers to discern which are authentic.
quote:Please just produce any quotes you have or differences at the time you post. I'm not going to guess any more. I pulled the plural version from the translation. If his says "who in all his Epistle" the same as what I quoted in Message 248, then it is incorrect just in its usage. With the word "all" it would have to be plural. Here is another translation version that still presents the plurality of the statement.
...when I shall attain unto God; who in every letter maketh mention of you in Christ Jesus. (Ignatius to Ephesians: Chapter 12) Since we know it isn't in every letter we know of Paul, it is more likely he is speaking of every letter he has read and we don't have that number, but it does appear to be more than one. That statement isn't a testimony to Paul's authorship of Ephesians.
quote:It might be viewed as circumstantial today because we only have the letters; but the early Christian circumstances were very different than ours today and some today prefer not to blindly infer a connection without more information. This doesn't negate the teaching. quote:How is that evidence for Paul?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
It might be viewed as circumstantial today because we only have the letters; but the early Christian circumstances were very different than ours today and some today prefer not to blindly infer a connection without more information. This doesn't negate the teaching. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I disagree. I feel the writer is being neutral. IMO, Ephesians 2:15 is a good reason not to accept that Ephesians was written by Paul. In the writings considered to be authentically Paul, Paul does not support that God's laws in the Old Testament were abolished. His point was that they were not a means to salvation. He did argue that the Gentile Christian converts should not be burdened with all the laws of Judaism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I disagree. I feel the writer is being neutral. IMO, Ephesians 2:15 is a good reason not to accept that Ephesians was written by Paul. In the writings considered to be authentically Paul, Paul does not support that God's laws in the Old Testament were abolished. His point was that they were not a means to salvation. He did argue that the Gentile Christian converts should not be burdened with all the laws of Judaism. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Let me pose a dilemma: If I cite differences between Ephesians and Paul's other writings, that can't be used as evidence of Pauline authorship, and if I cite similarities between Ephesians and Paul's other writings that can't be used as evidence either. Then is there any evidence that I can cite? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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=zoEBEXlXua0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12o9XImLqWE 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024