Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

quote:

---

An amanuesis is not the same as a ghostwriter.

---

Sometimes jobs aren't as cut and dried as their position description. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

quote:

---

How about these verses in Epheisans 3 (my bold):

---

When emulating someone's writing one strives to keep in the character of the person they are emulating. What calls attention to an imitation are the things that are not like the original. Sometimes the emulator slips out of character. That's what scholars look for. They look for the author's own personal style or situation to slip through. Personal pronouns and such aren't going to help in proving that it was written by Paul, unless the emulator really messed up.In Message 99, I presented links and quoted some of what Goodspeed considered to be the author's Greekness showing through. One would need to address those things that don't seem to be Paul. Under Law1. The letter is to the congregation in Rome, which is predominantly Gentile believers. Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Laws anyway. It doesn't make sense for Paul to tell a group who never were subject to the Mosaic laws that they now are no longer subject to them.2. Paul's term "under law" isn't referring to the Mosaic or Jewish Laws. What Does Paul Mean By "Under Law"?
Paul is very creative in his wording and one needs to take care to try and understand the literary devices he's used to paint a picture for his audience.

quote:

---

The third word in ‘dogma’ in Greek. The word dogma (ordinance) in the New Testament never means anything else than statute, decree, ordinance.’ Word Studies in the Greek New Testament by Wuest. Alford translates it: ‘having done away with the law of decretory commandments.’ So it is hard to take it in any way than referring to the whole law.

---

Paul doesn't use the word decree (dogma) in any of his writings considered authentic. It shows up in Col 2:14, which is also a disputed work.Paul uses various means to show the contrast between those with faith and those without. This follows the marriage illustration. Newness of spirit refers to those with faith and oldness of letter refers to those without faith. This all goes back to the idea that Gentiles are adopted into the family due to their faith, not their behavior.The marriage example even shows that when the husband dies the woman is released from the law concerning the husband, not all law. Paul personifies sin and in 7:14-20 he describes his inner battle. But he consistently expresses that God's Law is spiritual and good. His use of law isn't always about the Mosaic Laws. Of course just after that he says we are "free from the law of sin", not the Mosaic Law or God's law.His use of the word law isn't cut and dried. Even though righteousness isn't gain through obedience to the Mosaic Law, it doesn't negate it either and as I stated at the beginning, Gentiles were not subject to the Mosaic Laws.The author of Ephesians doesn't seem to be using Paul's creative usage of the word law.The commentary under Romans 6:14 is very clear that Paul is dealing with justification through the Mosaic Laws and not that they should be followed.The commentary under Ephesians 2:14 understands the author as saying Christs death did away with the Jewish Ordinances which kept the Gentiles and Jews separate. I don't see that Paul's authentic letters presented the idea that Jews were no longer required to follow any of their ordinances. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles who were not required to follow the Jewish ordinances anyway. Paul and the Jewish Apostles argued over that issue and came to a decision later for the minimum necessary to help the Gentiles mix with the Jews.Again, the congregation in Rome was predominantly Gentiles.By the time Ephesians was supposedly written, Christianity was predominantly Gentiles.So to me the idea that Christ's death did away with any ordinances hints at a Gentile perspective of the time and not Paul's Jewish perspective.We look for the deviations.

quote:

---

omans 6:14 - "For sin will not lord it over you, for you are not under the law but under grace."

​

Prior to verse 14 "the law" is not specifically mentioned until we back up to chapter 5 verse 20, as we work our way backwards -

---

The phrase is "under law", not "under the law". That was the point of the article. The two words together had a meaning to Paul that didn't refer to the Mosaic Laws.The word "the" isn't in all translations and from what I can tell, since I don't read Greek, it isn't in the Greek compared to places where it is in the Greek. Romans 6:14 - GreekThe word "the" seems to be added in many cases.Romans 2:14 (Parallels) - Greek

quote:

---

Prior to verse 14 "the law" is not specifically mentioned until we back up to chapter 5 verse 20, as we work our way backwards -

​

"And the law entered in alongside that the offense might abound; ..."

---

quote:

---

Backing up further in chapter 5 Paul says "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13).

---

The word "the" still isn't in front of law.

quote:

---

But in chapter 6 I think Paul is definitely continuing his talk about grace and the law of Moses which entered at Mt. Sinai.

---

I still disagree. I'm assuming most nations had legal systems, so making these specific to the Mosaic Laws that the Gentiles weren't even required to follow wouldn't make sense. Anyone trying to be justified by following any legal system would be incorrect. I feel Paul is speaking more generically and the phrase "under law" has a meaning that isn't really associated with a legal system.

quote:

---

And the reason for your disagreement is chiefly that the audience is of Gentiles who have turned to Christ ?

​

Is that the main reason you don't think the Mosiac law is indicated there, because Gentiles were not required to keep the law of Moses ?

---

No the wording is the chief reason.

quote:

---

Is the absence of the word the in some English renderings the strongest reason you think Rom. 6:14 does not refer to the law of Moses ?

​

Ie. " for you are not under law ..."

---

It is because it doesn't appear to be in the Greek as I pointed out in Message 324.

I think there is a difference in what Paul is referring to. In the Book of Romans Paul seems to switch between referring to any law at all to referring to the Torah. His point being that no law can justify.Even though no law is a means to salvation, that doesn't mean that mankind can do away with their legal systems. Law in the Book of Romans Part 2I don't think "under law" is singling out the Torah and in no way says it is abolished. No law is a source of justification or salvation. That doesn't mean we don't follow the laws per their respective culture or society for day to day life.Paul didn't abolish anything other than the belief that one could acquire justification or salvation through written laws.I don't feel Paul would have written Ephesians 2:14-15. It goes against his own arguments.

Passion and inspiration are powerful tools. Just because Paul may not have written it, doesn't mean it wasn't inspired.