Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 286 of 383 (692157)
02-28-2013 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by purpledawn
02-28-2013 7:47 AM


Re: Amanuesis vs. Ghostwriter
Dictation just means we write down what is said. The whole letter may be spoken or just ideas. People don't necessarily talk with proper sentence structure. There is some cleanup when turning shorthand into a proper letter.
In 2 Corinthians 11:6, Paul admits to not being a trained speaker. Maybe in private he puts his thoughts together better than in public, we don't know.
My point was that to suppose that no one could write as well as Paul in those early days is rather shortsighted.
I don't think the concept proposed was that no one could write grammatically as well. I think what was implied that few had the depth of insight into the nature of God's economy as Paul.
In Second Corinthians Paul is forced to defend his depth of wisdom concerning things in the universe. Matters about his personal experiences which he may have kept private for years he is forced by the skeptical Corinthians (bless their hearts) to speak of.
In this forced boasting Paul tells us that he was caught away to realms that all of us living have not visited. I believe the third heavens was one. I believe Paradise was another place. He does not know if this was physically or in some kind of trance or "in spirit."
At any rate Paul had a panoramic view of the highest and lowest spiritual realms. He heard things which he said is unlawful for humans to speak.
The point here is that Paul had quite an extensive revelation. From these visions and revelations he wrote his letters. And that is one reason we have to take him as either a madman or just maybe telling us the honest truth.
I choose to believe the latter. So for this reason I agree with Richh that his writing is unique.
Now others who heard him could speak the same things. I can do that. But I know where I got it from. And I certainly would acknowledge where and from whom I learned these things.
No, Paul was not the last eloquent preacher to expound the things of the New Testament. But he had a unique perspective.
I have to go now.
Latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by purpledawn, posted 02-28-2013 7:47 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 287 of 383 (692200)
02-28-2013 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by purpledawn
02-26-2013 8:14 AM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
quote:
Please just produce any quotes you have or differences at the time you post. I'm not going to guess any more.
I just wanted to say I didn't forget this. I found I have more references to Ignatius in another book I have by Westcott. I will post them when I get a chance. The difficulty is that they are in Greek, so I'll need to translate them, that is, to match them up in existing translations (since I can't really translate Greek yet).
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by purpledawn, posted 02-26-2013 8:14 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 288 of 383 (692208)
03-01-2013 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Jazzns
02-27-2013 10:36 AM


Ephesians and other books
We can't know how Paul's ideas would have changed with the time. Perhaps he would have been right on board with the whole "resurrection in the now" ideas expressed in Ephesians.
I don't recall your "resurrection in the now" deviation was being very well defined. It was demonstrated how the book of Romans speaks extensively of the resurrection of Jesus being applicable to the Christian's daily walk.
Dismissing this evidence as "magic" in my exegisis was an inadaquate rebuttal.
Ephesians says that the same power of God that raised Christ from the dead is operating in the saints.
" ... what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the operation of the might of His strength, which He caused to operate in Christ in raising Him from the dead ..." (1:19)
1.) There is a mighty power operating in the believers in Christ. This power is "toward us who believe".
2.) It is the very same divine power that operated in raising Christ from the dead.
Surely this is something of the supernatural. But it is something of the daily supernatural.
Maybe Peter really would have come around to the whole justified by faith thing.
Maybe you never read the book of Acts. Perhaps you choose to ignore what Peter preached in the book of Acts.
Peter 's first gospel message in Acts 2:21 -
Verse 21 - "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Did you get that Jazzns? Everyone who calls out to the Lord Jesus shall be saved. They call in faith. They are saved by the Lord Jesus for their faith.
How do I know that the Lord in Acts 2:21 is "the Lord Jesus" ? Peter says that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this JESUS whom you have crucified." (Acts 2:36 my emphasis)
Peter preaches justification by faith in Jesus in his first gospel message -
"And Peter said to them, Repent and each one of you be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (2:38)
The "GIFT of the Holy Spirit" is given because of identification with the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus.
Then in Peter's second gospel message he speaks of the man saved by faith in the name of Jesus -
Acts 3:16 - "And the Author of life you killed, whom God has raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. And upon faith in His name, His name has made this man strong, whom you behold and know; and the faith which is through Him has given him this wholeness [of health] before you all ... Repent therefore and turn, that your sins may be wiped away so that seasons of refreshing may come from the preence of the Lord and that He may send the Christ, who has been previously appointed for you, Jesus."
The Author of divine life has been raised from the dead. Faith in His name, the name of the resurrected man - Jesus saves. We are to have faith and repent believing that His atoning death has cleansed us of our sins.
As the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is given in the first message, here the "seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord" means exactly the same thing. Jesus the Lord is come to the repentent believers to have His invisible presence as a gift.
In the council in Jerusalem Peter confirms toward the end of the deliberations that God has justified both Jew and Gentile by faith in Christ.
"And when much discussion had taken place, Peter rose up and said ... Men, brothers, you know that from the early days God chose [from] among you that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe ... CLEANSING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH " (See Acts 16:7-9 my emphasis)
Peter continued - "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are saved in the same way also as they are." (v.11)
Justification by faith was preached by Peter from the beginning of the church age. There was no reason for him to eventually "come around to the whole justified by faith thing."
But we can't assume that they would have, we can only go on what we know of their character and what they said and did while they were alive.
We do not need to "assume" or not, that Peter might have "come around" to justification by faith. We can see what Peter did in Acts.
And Paul spoke of the applicable power of resurrection because he learned it by experience. He HAD to learn to depend upon the God who raises from the dead to overcome his many sore trials and tribulations as an apostle, as he writes in Second Corinthians -
"Knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will make us stand before [Him] with you." (2 Cor. 4:14)
"Indeed we ourselves had the response of death in ourselves, that we should not base our confidence on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead." (2 Cor. 1:9)
As I said, Paul's teaching and Paul's experience were one. Here is a man who really taught what he LIVED. He taught all of the believers from the Scriptures, from the fellowship of the apostles, and from his extensive pioneering experience of living by and through Jesus Christ who was alive and available to man who believes, who receives Christ.
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 277 by Jazzns, posted 02-27-2013 10:36 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 11:20 AM jaywill has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 289 of 383 (692223)
03-01-2013 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Richh
02-21-2013 10:45 PM


Re: What did Paul expect of Philemon?
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.
To some extent I think this is true especially early on. The early church was as disconnected from the establishment just as far as the establishment was in opposition to it but it didn't stay that way for long.
I would highly recommend the book Jesus Wars by Phillip Jenkins. Violence and interferance were the name of the game for the early church once they stopped being an annoyance to the empire and starting being the official state religion of Rome. You don't get more connected to the establishment that.
But I agree that that was not Paul. Paul did not write in those circumstances. I also am NOT claiming that Paul was on a crusade against slavery. I am saying that in this ONE case, Paul very clearly is asking for the freedom of a Christian slave from his Christian master.
Just poking around the internet I can see that I am not alone. I don't know about the particular people you are reading but if I just search for "Philemon slavery" I get a ton of things. I don't really want to copy and paste them here becuase I don't want to pretend that support from blogs and such is a massive support and I don't really feel like getting in a reference war over this.
It just seems to me, that reading the book of Philemon, as a whole, that you cannot rationally come away from it with the notion that Paul is not asking for Onesimus' freedom. I cannot fathom, not only how you read it otherwise, but to what purpose you could possibly desire to.

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 243 by Richh, posted 02-21-2013 10:45 PM Richh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Richh, posted 03-02-2013 11:32 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 290 of 383 (692229)
03-01-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by purpledawn
02-27-2013 6:37 PM


Re: Ghostwriters
You don't know what I personally have decided or accept. We are debating authorship. Stick to that.
Look, I am not trying to make this personal. I am sorry if it came out that way. Genuinely.
But the main part of my reply came the paragraph before what you decided to respond to.
Your entire point about ghostwriting, about the validity of doing what these forgers did, is ignoring that UNLIKE ghostwriting, they are not only unauthorized but CAN NEVER BE authorized by the original authors.
My point being that ghostwriters were around back then as they are around now and since Paul did use them, there were people around who could write as well as Paul.
I dont see a controversy of Paul using ghostwriters while he was alive and then endorsing their message! The problem is of ghostwriters who did their ghost writing LONG after Paul was dead and buried and did it in contradiction of what the real Paul actually wrote!
As for the lying. Pseudepigraphs are those writings where the real author attributed it to a figure of the past. It only applies to the attribution, not necessarily that the content is false or invalid.
If someone wants to value these writings because of their content on their own, there is nothing wrong with that in general but to do so must take into account that they are intended as deception.
These were not pen names. These were not ghostwriting. These were forged so that they would carry the authority of the name of the author.
Just because Ephesians doesn't sync with Paul, doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the teachings of the time.
That that is not at issue.
Basically, one doesn't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
At that is a terrible analogy to apply to this situation. Nobody has suggest to throw out the entire Paulean corpus or that Ephesians is not useful AS THAT, as a reference to history of the teachings of the time. The controversy of Ephesians from my perspective is only the claim that it is both legitimate and holy because of its legitimacy.

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 282 by purpledawn, posted 02-27-2013 6:37 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2013 1:45 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 291 of 383 (692241)
03-01-2013 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by jaywill
03-01-2013 4:37 AM


Paul versus Peter
I don't recall your "resurrection in the now" deviation was being very well defined. It was demonstrated how the book of Romans speaks extensively of the resurrection of Jesus being applicable to the Christian's daily walk.
Well no I don't think you did. I remember reading a lot of quote sniping from Romans but my unwillingness to dissect your apologetics does not mean this point was conceded. I will again defer to the reader and simply quote from what I believe to be one relevant section of Romans. To the Paul of Romans, we are baptized into Jesus' death and will, future tense, be resurrected.
Romans 6 writes:
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
The whole character of his writings, the history we have from the early believers, the other non-Paulean apocalyptic sects of Christianity, all have a primordial, concrete, and futuristic belief in the resurrection. THAT you could translate this into a daily notion of being resurrected is a real known thing and it is known to have come later, long after Paul's death.
Dismissing this evidence as "magic" in my exegisis was an inadaquate rebuttal.
I don't have to dismiss it. Saying that I am incapable of understand something because I don't possess your magical attributes of belief is impossible to rebut. It is in the class of arguments that are not even wrong.
The argument dismisses itself. I was just pointing out the fact.
You are welcome to continue to assert that you win arguments because of the divinity of your understanding but I cannot possibly grasp how you would feel that would be compelling to anyone!
Maybe Peter really would have come around to the whole justified by faith thing.
Maybe you never read the book of Acts. Perhaps you choose to ignore what Peter preached in the book of Acts.
Acts was written by a devotee of Paul. You cannot defer to the writings of someone who had all the motivation in the world to turn Peter into a endorsee of the Paulean theology.
Even IF you are so generous to assume that Peter eventually came around to Paul's view, you MUST recognize that early on there was a division between them or else you disregard Paul's own testimony to the conflict.
Galatians 2 writes:
But when Cephas(Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.
You must also ignore the other evidence we have outside of the Bible for Petrine sects of Christianity, multiple varieties of Messianic Jews who revered Peter and continuation of the law.
Justification by faith was preached by Peter from the beginning of the church age. There was no reason for him to eventually "come around to the whole justification by faith thing."
No it wasn't. But the Paulean branch that won the war did its darndest to make it seem like he did.
There are NO legitimate writings of Peter in the New Testament. This is true for reasons not the least of which that there are no known legitimate writings of Peter at all.

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 288 by jaywill, posted 03-01-2013 4:37 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by jaywill, posted 03-02-2013 8:55 AM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 292 of 383 (692265)
03-01-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Jazzns
03-01-2013 10:24 AM


Ephesians Is In the Canon
quote:
At that is a terrible analogy to apply to this situation. Nobody has suggest to throw out the entire Paulean corpus or that Ephesians is not useful AS THAT, as a reference to history of the teachings of the time. The controversy of Ephesians from my perspective is only the claim that it is both legitimate and holy because of its legitimacy.
Then you aren't paying attention to the Christian responses.
It is Holy because it is in the Canon. It is in the Canon because it was used by Christian congregations.
The formation of the NT canon was not a conciliar decision. The earliest ecumenical council, Nicaea in 325, did not discuss the canon. The first undisputed decision of a council on the canon seems to be from Carthage in 397, which decreed that nothing should be read in the church under the name of the divine Scriptures except the canonical writings. Then the twenty seven books of the NT are listed as the canonical writings. The council could list only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon. Canon Law
Why the letter was in use after it was written, we have no idea. It was apparently consistent with the groups understanding. Maybe they knew Paul didn't write it and maybe they didn't. We don't know.
Since we don't know the actual circumstances surrounding the presentation of the letter, we don't know if it was presented originally as written by Paul. Someone close to Paul may have given approval. The original author may have made it known that it was done as though written by Paul to go along with the letters or as a salute to Paul. It may have been written as part fact and part fiction. Bottom line is that we don't know the the intent of the author. Almost 300 years had passed from the latest date that the letter was supposedly written to the time the NT Canon was first set in 397.
What we do know is that believers apparently used the letter in their religion. One church father made a comment concerning all of Paul's epistles (Message 248). From that we can see that apparently not all of Paul's letters were put into use and/or retained. So authority might have gotten the letter read, but didn't necessarily guarantee the letter worthy of retention and eventually the canon.
The Epistle to the Ephesians is not holy because it is legitimate, it is holy because it stayed in use by Christians for almost 300 years and was put in the Canon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 10:24 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 2:13 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 293 of 383 (692267)
03-01-2013 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by purpledawn
03-01-2013 1:45 PM


Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
Then you aren't paying attention to the Christian responses.
Yes I absolutly am. You are the only one presenting this opinion that it is holy because a group of a bunch of guys decided 300 years later to make it so. Other people in this thread are arguing it is holy because Paul was authorized to write it.
It is Holy because it is in the Canon. It is in the Canon because it was used by Christian congregations.
The only thing you are doing is laundering the blame here. It doesn't matter under what circumstances they accepted it. It doesn't wash the culpability of the forger away because someone later decided to look the other way. (if they even did that!)
Also, could you please respond to my main point about your bad use of the ghostwriting excuse? That same point applies if you are accepting Ephesians on that basis directly or if you delegate that responsibility to the builders of the canon. If it was ghostwriting it cannot possibly be authorized by the named author if not only because writings go against the original theology of the author (more true in other cases of forgery than Ephesians) but also because they were dead. Those issues plainly makes this deception regardless if you consider that deception holy.

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 292 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2013 1:45 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2013 3:19 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 294 of 383 (692282)
03-01-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Jazzns
03-01-2013 2:13 PM


Re: Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
quote:
Yes I absolutly am. You are the only one presenting this opinion that it is holy because a group of a bunch of guys decided 300 years later to make it so. Other people in this thread are arguing it is holy because Paul was authorized to write it.
The baby out with the bath water analogy. You said no one was. You're not paying attention. Yes they are.
The ghostwriting point is that Paul used them and therefore we have people with the potential to write like Paul. Sorry if you don't like the way I put it together, but that's the point.
quote:
The only thing you are doing is laundering the blame here. It doesn't matter under what circumstances they accepted it. It doesn't wash the culpability of the forger away because someone later decided to look the other way. (if they even did that!)
This thread is in the Bible Study Forum. It is about what is already in the canon, what is already accepted as holy by the religion. It is about what the writings say. I argue from that standpoint. Since Bible scholars have delved into authorship and taken sides, the authorship does help in dealing with possible contradictions in the writings.
IMO, any possible deception that took place over 1900 years ago is really irrelevant to this discussion. The letter still says what it says whether Paul wrote it or not. It is still in the canon, whether Paul wrote it or not and will probably remain there.
Talking about holy deception and blame along these lines really isn't in the spirit of Bible study and not really my issue. My point has been that just because it wasn't written by Paul doesn't negate the value of the writing to Christianity.
You want to press charges against those old bones, go for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 2:13 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 4:17 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 295 of 383 (692286)
03-01-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by purpledawn
03-01-2013 3:19 PM


Re: Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
The baby out with the bath water analogy. You said no one was. You're not paying attention. Yes they are.
Who is they? The only person who has put any stipulations on the relevance of Ephesians has been me and I have time and time again said that parts of Ephesians could be useful on their own.
The ghostwriting point is that Paul used them and therefore we have people with the potential to write like Paul. Sorry if you don't like the way I put it together, but that's the point.
You seemed to be making a point about the validity of it since you brought the issue up in the contex to jaywill about his disbelief about pseudepigraphia. TO justify Ephesians as such.
Are you not in fact suggesting that Ephesians was valid because it was potentially ghostwritten? If not, why bring it up in context to what jaywill was concerned about? Why go further and say:
you previously writes:
As for the lying. Pseudepigraphs are those writings where the real author attributed it to a figure of the past. It only applies to the attribution, not necessarily that the content is false or invalid.
You are making a value claim here and I am specifically challenging you on that claim. Pseudepigraphs are inherently deceptive. The authors are using the name of a more popular person to raise the status of their own words. It doesn't matter if you are able to justify the ends by some other avenue, they are lying for this purpose. THAT fact matters to people, it matters to me, it matters to jaywill, it likely matters to many others. THAT fact changes beliefs for the people it matters to.
IMO, any possible deception that took place over 1900 years ago is really irrelevant to this discussion.
It is absolutly relevant and I think jaywill would obviously agree. We would not have the point of contention that we do if he believed it was irrelevant. He would not be so adamantly against the notion of pseudepigraphia if it were not important to his position that Paul actually wrote these. If these books are in fact forgeries it matters to people and to what they believe.
The letter still says what it says whether Paul wrote it or not. It is still in the canon, whether Paul wrote it or not and will probably remain there.
And it is absolutly relevant to the interpretation of Ephesians to question the validity of it being in that canon. You completely gloss over the fact that in your ad-hoc deference to the canon builders that they either would be:
1. Complicit in the pseudepigraphia if they knew of it
2. Ignorant of it and therefore not able to justify their decision with full information
And then to call that process what establishes the holiness of the forgeries, is frankly disingenuous. Like I said before, it is simply laundering of responsibility. You are being entirely dismissive.
Talking about holy deception and blame along these lines really isn't in the spirit of Bible study and not really my issue. My point has been that just because it wasn't written by Paul doesn't negate the value of the writing to Christianity.
If that is all your position is, then I have no problem with it. Lots of writings have value in and of themselves especially for the pursuit of nobel causes such as history. But my being okay with this notion ends when you start to pretend that lying is okay just because you wraped it up in ancient orthodoxy.
You want to press charges against those old bones, go for it.
Well, yea, I do. And I am.

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 294 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2013 3:19 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2013 4:48 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 296 of 383 (692288)
03-01-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Jazzns
03-01-2013 4:17 PM


Re: Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
Authorship, not validity.
Bible study: What does the Bible really mean?
It isn't about whether the writings should or shouldn't be in the canon.
quote:
Well, yea, I do. And I am.
Then go take it up with the bones in a appropriate forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 4:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 8:42 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 297 of 383 (692326)
03-01-2013 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by purpledawn
03-01-2013 4:48 PM


Re: Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
What the author intended bears upon the meaning and purpose. That the author of Ephesians felt it was necessary to lie to get his message across, to have the authority to evolve the theology of his predecessor, is fundamentally relevant to the meaning of the book.
But if you want to hide behind an interpretation of a forum technicality, that's fine with me.

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 296 by purpledawn, posted 03-01-2013 4:48 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by purpledawn, posted 03-02-2013 6:55 AM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 298 of 383 (692370)
03-02-2013 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Jazzns
03-01-2013 8:42 PM


Re: Ephesians Is In the Canon - so what...?
quote:
What the author intended bears upon the meaning and purpose. That the author of Ephesians felt it was necessary to lie to get his message across, to have the authority to evolve the theology of his predecessor, is fundamentally relevant to the meaning of the book.
But looking back at your posts, you aren't dealing with the author's intent.
Jazzns writes:
And it really boils down to what you are trying to do with the book. Like I said, if you are just treating it as a commentary then that is a fairly innocent purpose. If what you are claiming is that we should use this book as instruction to live by due to its authority imbued by God then I will question why God would use a vehicle with such uncertainty surrounding its origins for that purpose. Message 85
Show evidence of the author's intent to begin with. Show evidence that the author's intent was to evolve Paul's theology as opposed to it evolving through the early church fathers or teachers. Given the timeframe, I would say the writing was influenced by the current teachings instead of the other way around.
Show how any of that makes a difference in what the writing says.
If a poster claims that the book supports having slaves today, they are wrong. That has nothing to do with the intent of the author. That has nothing to do with the book being a forgery or a lie.
If a poster claims that the book supports women being submissive today, they are wrong. Again that has nothing to do with the intent of the author or the book being a forgery or lie.
So squawking forgery and deception, doesn't really make a difference in what the book says or its place in Christianity. Squawking forgery and deception doesn't show how someone is misinterpreting the teachings of the time.
In Message 248, I provided a quote from Polycarp that seems to be from Ephesians. Polycarp did not attribute the words to Paul. He does, however, attribute a quote from 1 Corinthians as Paul's teaching.
There's a difference between the original author's intent and today's use of the writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 8:42 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 11:31 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 299 of 383 (692374)
03-02-2013 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Jazzns
03-01-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Paul versus Peter
To the Paul of Romans, we are baptized into Jesus' death and will, future tense, be resurrected.
"To Walk in Newness of Life" means in the church age:
The physical resurrection of the body is definitely a teaching of the New Testament, including Paul's epistles.
This does not negate the fact that for the regenerated man to live in union with Christ is to enjoy in this age the resurrection life of Christ.
To "WALK in newness of life" refers to the Christian walk, living in the church age.
"Or are you ignorant that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
We have been buried therefore with Him through baptism into His death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:3,4)
The phrase "walk in newness of life" is not restricted to after the resurrection of the physical body. It refers here to the daily walk of living in union with the available living Christ.
To Grow Together with Him in Death and Resurrection means in the church age -
This growth is transformation.
This growth is sanctification.
This growth is a process taking place in the church age:
"For if we have grown together with Him in the likeness of His death, indeed we will also be in the likeness of His resurrection" (5:5)
Growing with Christ in His death is allowing the denial of the self to deepen and spread and grow in more and more areas of the believers life. As the believers learns to die with Christ to himself in more areas he also learn to walk in newness of life in more and more areas.
"IF .... we have grown together with Him in the likeness of His death, indeed we will also be [in the likeness] of His resurrection"
Before the physical body is resurrected the soul is denied in union with Christ's death and renewed in oneness with Christ's resurrection life. This is during the church age.
This could be thought of as both a reward in the present life and a reward after the second coming. IE. "Let no one take your crown".
"No Longer Serve Sin as Slaves" in the present age:
The normal (if not average) Christian life is that as the believer's grow they no longer serve sin as slaves in this life -
"Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin as slaves." (6:6)
This must be an experience of the present age before the resurrection of the physical body from the grave. Because Christ's death and resurrection are applicable today, the believers learn to no longer serve sin in the fallen body as slaves. The One within them is more powerful.
Jesus IS NOW "The Resurrection and the Life"
Finally it should be noted that Jesus taught that the resurrection was not relegated only to some future event. In addition He Himself is the resurrection and the life.
"Jesus said to her, Your brother will rise again. Martha said to Him, I know that he will rise again in the resurrection in the last day.
Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life ..." (John 11:25a)
Martha wanted to relegate the resurrection to only be an event in the last day at the end of history. Jesus corrected her and pointed out that the resurrection and the divine life was He Himself right there and then - " I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE ..."
So Christian transformation, sanctification, conformation, and renewal of the fallen soul to a Christ expressing soul is all a matter of enjoying Christ in THIS AGE as the resurrection and the life.
The book of Romans fully confirms this teaching of Jesus.
Ephesians elaborates further on this as we would expect.
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 291 by Jazzns, posted 03-01-2013 11:20 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Jazzns, posted 03-04-2013 2:04 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 300 of 383 (692378)
03-02-2013 9:46 AM


Ephesians and Mark
These two portions of Scripture very much mirror one another:
Paul's Ephesians 4:13-16 and Christ's Mark 4:26-29
Mark 4:26-29 - "And He said, So is the kingdom of God: as if a man cast seed on the earth, and sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and lengthens - how he does not know.
The earth bears fruit by itself: first a blade, then an ear, then full grain in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he sends forth the sickle, because the harvest has come."
Ephesians 4:13-16 - "Until we all arrive at the oneness of the fiath and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a fullgrown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ ... we man be no longer children ... but holding to truth in love, we may grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head, Christ,
Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and [through] the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love."
The Mark passages speaks of the growth of a crop of vegetation.
The Ephesians passages speaks of growth of the Body of Christ.
The Mark passage is the growing kingdom of God.
The Ephesians passage is the growth of the church as Christ's Body.
The Mark passage is growth by the power of LIFE.
The Ephesians passage is the same. Christ's life growing in the Body of Christ causes the growth.
The Mark passage speaks of growth unto a harvest of maturity.
The Ephesian passage is the maturing of all growing to arrive at a "full grown man" - at the meaure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
The Mark passage shows the kingdom of God is at every stage of the growth - the seed, the sprout, the lengthened sprout, the blade, the ear, the full grain in the ear. All stages are the kingdom of God.
The Ephesians passages shows that all stages of the growth are the church as the Body of Christ.
The Mark passage is about the growing of seed in the earth.
The Ephesians passage is about the growing of Christ in the spiritual being of men and women.
The Mark passages culminates in a angels reaping a crop of maturity.
The Ephesians passage does not speak of angels of rapture per se. However Ephesians chapter one speaks of the climax of "unto the redemption of the purchased possession" . This means a process with a view towards culiminating in the glorification of the physical body. Compare to Romans 8:23 - "awaiting sonship, the redemption of our body."
The Mark passage is about a process of growth through out time on earth. The Ephesian passage is also about a process of growth taking place during the church age.
Life is the power behind the growth and maturity in both passages.
Life operates in the growing crop.
Life also operates in the growing Body of Christ.
Here was can see how Paul in his own words reflects the teaching of Jesus in what is agreed by many as the earliest written Gospel - the Gospel of Mark.
Here we see Christ's teaching and the Apostle Paul's faithful teaching in his own expressions of the same revelation. God's kingdom is a matter of His life being planted into people and growing in them for a corporate harvest of maturity.
The Mark passage shows the maturity as a harvest of mature crops.
The Ephesian passage shows maturity as a corporate expression of all the constitutent individuals as ONE full grown aggregate Christ.
How faithful was the Apostle Paul to the Lord Jesus!
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024