Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	In an absolute sense? No.

	Are his words in the Bible correct? Yes.

			Alfred

    Well I'm starting my second Bible course this semester and get to study
    Paul one more time.  This time I will be studying all Paul's letters
    along with the deutero-pauline letters, the other Epistles and
    Revelations.
    
    So in reviewing the biograghy of Paul I reviewed how his letters are
    the letters to the specific churches over his 30 year career as an
    Apostle.  He was asked many questions and many of his answers are in
    the letters.  Questions about celebacy, eating meat sacrificed to
    idols, methodology for taking the collection for Jerusalem, circumcism,
    Styles of worship etc.  He addressed his answers specifically to the
    individual churches.
    
    So was Paul infallible over his 30 year career in the answers he gave
    to the churches.  Did Paul ever make a mistake?
    
                                       Patricia
    
    

    I concur with Alfred.

    How do you define...Paul?
    
    *<8*}
    
    Just kidding.
    
    Richard
    

I concur with Nancy's concurring of Alfred.  :-)

    I just...concur.
    
    Marc H.

    So was all the answers Paul wrote in all his letters correct?
    
    Patricia

 Which brings us back to 2 Tim 3:16!






 Jim

    It does not get me back to Timothy.

Re: .7

Everything God wrote was true.

    > Everything God wrote was true.
     
    ... but not necessarily applicable to today's American culture.

    .11  Neither is the truth always factual in nature.
    
    Further, neither "God-breathed" nor "inspired" necessarily mean
    "written by God."
    
    Paul of Tarsus probably didn't pen this particular letter, according
    to the people whose scholarship I respect.
    
    Richard
    

    The point is that the collection of letters that Paul wrote over his 30
    years of missionary work were collected and included within scripture. 
    It is wonderful that he wrote his instructions and that they were saved
    and are available to us.  They provide us the most direct evidence we
    have of early Christianity.  Paul was an admirable missionary and did
    some wonderful work for Christianity.  
    
    Paul was however human.  As a human he made mistakes.  He wasn't always
    right.  He did not always speak through the Holy Spirit even though he
    always perceived himself with that capacity.
    
     But to say every letter written by Paul
    was breathed by God is to say that Paul was infallable in all his
    written instruction to the churches contained in his letters. This
    deifies Paul.
    
    The only other possible alternative would be to say that God caused any
    letter that Paul wrote that contained human errors to be destroyed.  I
    suppose I could understand someone making those assumptions.
    

    >But to say every letter written by Paul
    >was breathed by God is to say that Paul was infallable in all his
    >written instruction to the churches contained in his letters. This
    >deifies Paul.
 
I suppose that some would see it that way.  The Scripture, however,
is replete with examples of God working through people (which does
not make them gods) as well as statements that Scripture is true
(another way of God working through people which does not make
them gods).

    >The only other possible alternative would be to say that God caused any
    >letter that Paul wrote that contained human errors to be destroyed.  I
    >suppose I could understand someone making those assumptions.
  
It sounds like you're assuming that God breathed everything Paul
wrote since his conversion (or else it was not preserved).
Scripture doesn't make this claim, but I can see why some people
might.

Collis

    All the letters that Paul wrote that are available are included in
    scripture.
    
    That means that every piece of written advice that he gave that has
    been preserved in considered innerrant. 
    
    If he were not also considered infallible, the only possibility would
    be that any written advice that he gave that was fallible has been
    lost.
    
    Patricia

    Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus at his conversion and he
    presented himself to Peter and was accepted as an apostle. The
    Church was formed by Jesus Christ from the Apostles and certain
    promises were given to them; primarily, Jesus gave them the Holy
    Spirit who was promised to lead the Church and preserve Her in
    the Truth. 
    
    When Paul wrote to the different new churches answering their 
    questions, he was acting in an apostolic 'office' and therefore
    had the counsel of the Holy Spirit on what he wrote. Where there
    were different views on matters [such as given in Acts], the 
    Apostles resolved it in counsel together, guided by the Holy
    Spirit. During the time of discussion there could be differences,
    but once it was discerned, it was given with infallible authority.
    
    Peter took leadership and authority and even Paul came to him. Yes,
    Acts does show that Paul corrected Peter, but what resulted from
    that was a definate discernment, and it was this which became
    the infallible church teaching on the matter.
    
    ALL writings that are in scripture were discerned at a Council of
    Bishops of the Church who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
    and the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ, discerned
    which books were inspired by God and Truth.
    
    The Truth which was proclaimed was that of the Revelation of God.
    Is the Revelation contained in the book a True Revelation of God?
    This was the question, and only the Holy Spirit guiding the Church 
    which Jesus commissioned could do such a discernment without error.
    
    Since Paul was annointed and ordained by Jesus into this holy
    office of the Church, perhaps it is only consistant with this 
    annointing that the latter council affirmed all his writings as
    being scriptural!
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    
    
    
    

    // Paul was directly commissioned by Jesus at his conversion...

    Although I'm not a Mormon, the conversion and authority given to Paul
    seems remarkably similar to the Joseph Smith story. How do we decide?
    Obviously the Mormons feel there is as much biblical support for Joseph
    Smith as there is for Paul.

    // Peter took leadership and authority...

    I always thought that he was *given* that authority by Jesus.

    Mat 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
    rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
    against it.
    Mat 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
    and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
    whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


    		Eric

Note 846.17

>    Mat 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
>    rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
>    against it.
>    Mat 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
>    and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
>    whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Eric,

	Last summer I visited an exhibition entitled Vatican Treasures in
Denver (The Pope was going to be in town, you know).

	In the artists' renditions of Peter, he was always depicted a bearing
exactly two keys.  They were the two keys mentioned above.

Peace,
Richard

    Paul was an apostle and a letter writer.
    
    Peter was an apostle and not a letter writer.
    
    Throughout the undisputed letters of Paul there is ample evidence of
    disputes(often bitter disputes) between these two apostles.  Paul
    certainly did not accept Peter as being infallible.
    
    If Paul's writings are infallible than certainly Peter's preaching
    cannot be accepted as infallible.
    
    Patricia
    

    
>    Throughout the undisputed letters of Paul there is ample evidence of
>    disputes(often bitter disputes) between these two apostles.  Paul
>    certainly did not accept Peter as being infallible.
    
    Can you give me an example? Thanks.
    
    			Alfred
    
    

    I'd like very much to see an example of this as well.  It's the first
    hypothesis of this nature I've ever heard... and I've read both peter
    and paul... now if only I could find the book of mary. :-)

    THe book of Galatians is the best example.  The best way to read that
    brief letter though is to fully recognize that it is written by Paul
    and therefore presents Paul's perspective of the conflict and not a
    unbiased presentation.  Galatians 5:12 where Paul states that those who
    are unsettling the Galatians by suggesting circumcisn should castrate
    themselves suggests the bitterness of the dispute?  Is Peter one of
    those who Paul is suggesting castrate himself?
    
    Patricia

>Galatians 5:12 where Paul states that those who are unsettling the Galatians
>by suggesting circumcisn should castrate themselves suggests the bitterness
>of the dispute?

While I will not argue that the dispute was bitter, Paul is using high sarcasm
directed at the Judaizers; it is a reference to the fanatical worshipers of
the goddess Cybele who did in fact castrate themselves in her honor.

>Is Peter one of those who Paul is suggesting castrate himself?

No.  The Galatian Church's founding is chronicled in Acts 16:6; it must
therefore be the case that the Letter to the Galatians was written later
than the Council of Jerusalem chronicled in Acts 15.  Thus by the time
that Galatians was written, Peter and Paul would have reached agreement
by godly counsel on the issue of circumcision of Gentile converts.

/john

    The particular perspective taken in the book of acts is to minimize the
    differences between the Jerusalem Church and the Gentile church and to
    emphasize Paul's allegience with the Jerusalem church.  I think in
    truth, the Jerusalem church regarded Paul as a renegade off doing  his
    own thing outside the bounds of the Jerusalem church.  
    Scholars consider Acts a literary document more than a historic
    documents.  There are significant descrepencies between Acts and Paul's
    letters.  Where there is disagreement, Scholars accept the undisputed
    letters whose authorship is clear and which predate the writing of
    Acts. Paul openly discusses his disagreement with Peter in his letters
    and feels that Peter reneged on some of the agreement reached in the
    council.  If we read between the lines of Paul's biased view of the
    concil we can see that clear agreement was not reached at the council. 
    The council did not insist that Titus be circumsized but then the
    council did not like it too much either.  The collection for the
    Jerusalem church which occupied a lot of Paul's attention was geared to
    help the saints everywhere as well as to patch up some of the
    disagreement between the two factions.  We clearly have a situation
    where either Peter or Paul, but most likely both were fallible.
    
    Any other opinions whether Peter was one of whom Paul was refering in
    Gal 5:12?  Was James?
    
    Patricia
    
    Of course anyone who starts out with the assumption that there are no
    discrepencies between Acts and Paul's letters will have to mask the
    obvious differences.

    Patricia,
    
    Intellectual reasoning of the scriptures profits very little.  It does
    profit the intellect, but does nothing for spirit of man.
    
    The obvious discrepancies that you speak about are seamless to me. 
    I've read the book of Acts in its entirety as a collective study
    approximately one year ago.
    
    IMHO, both Peter and Paul were right.  Not everyone can teach children,
    not everyone can teach senior saints... and not everyone can teach the
    manifestation of Christ in Judaism.  Peter was GREAT at this.  Paul was
    not.  Paul's transformation was like night and day to the Jews.  He
    became a fanatic to them with teachings that took the church's control
    away.  Many Jews believed in Christ, but weren't baptized, many Jews
    believed in Christ, but held onto the legalism of the Law... it was
    Christ + the Law that saved in their reasoning.  Why?  Because they
    wanted the *control* of the people left in tact.  
    
    I see Peter's role in leading the Jews into Grace without lawlessness
    [in the sense of chaos] as being a calling that Paul himself desired. 
    But Paul's calling was not to Jerusalem, but to the Gentiles.  Paul
    *loved* the Jews so much that he disobeyed the Spirit to go to
    Jerusalem, where he ended up suffering.
    
    The fallacy of the humanity of Peter and Paul, does not discredit the
    inerrancy of the word of God.  As a matter of fact, it heightens the
    credibility of the Bible as being a book of Truth, as it doesn't
    whitewash over the sinfulness of *any* man.
    
    I praise God that despite my sinfulness I can still do things for Him
    that are pure.  When I teach my Sunday School Class, when I hold the
    hand of a Sr. Saint and aid a disabled person.  God still works through
    me, though I'm not a clean vessel... just a surrendered one.
    
    And that is why Peter and Paul though fallible, could infallibly write
    the word of God.... *surrender*.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

  Amen, Nancy....



  Jim

    I prefer not to leave my God-given brain (intellect) in neutral whilst
    reading the Bible.
    
    I would agree that Christianity is a more emotional and less cerebral
    religion than, say, Buddhism.
    
    It's not a "no-brainer," either.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    Amen, Richard....
    
    	And Awomen, too!
    
    
    Richard
    

    RE: Note 846.25 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > Intellectual reasoning of the scriptures profits very little.  It does
    > profit the intellect, but does nothing for spirit of man.


    Lack of an intellectual understanding of the truth of the Bible leads
    to a faulty understanding of the Truth of the Bible. 

    Eric

    Knowledge is a wonderful thing, God reveres those who learn, but warns
    those that have knowlege without wisdom is ignorant.
    
    Wisdom comes from the application of God's word in one's life.  
    
    "They word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee."
    
    
    
    

    Nobody here advocates the mere absorbtion of information and empirical
    facts.
    
    Richard
    

    .31
    
    Richard don't take it personally... this is a *public* forum, for
    consistancy's sake, I entered the position of our Lord regarding
    knowledge...
    
    

    P.S.
    
    Knowledge = the intellectual absorption [sp] of God's Word
    Wisdom = the application of God's word
    
    Knowledge and intellect in God's estimation of worldly things is not
    our goal, they can be a byproduct of a keen mind.  However, goal of
    knowledge is to follow through into wisdom... 
    
    

    Widsom = the intuitive absortion of God's Word
    Works/Deeds = the application of God's word

    .32  This is a public forum.  I shall continue to faithfully represent
    Christ's spirit and teachings, as well.
    
    Richard
    

    >Widsom = the intuitive absortion of God's Word
    >Works/Deeds = the application of God's word
    
    Interesting break down Patricia. I actually think I like it. :-)
    
    However, it is not by works in which we obtain eternal life.
    Works is the result of wisdom.. which is not just intuitive, but
    intellectual...
    
    :-)

    So then we agree that Works are the result of both intellect and
    intuition, knowledge and wisdom.
    
    Patricia

    We agree that works *will* result from wisdom... which I believe begins
    with knowledge and/or intellect.
    
    :-)  Is that understandable.

I read what you wrote about the differences (around
reply .20), Patricia -

but it seems to be filled with speculation and assumptions
rather than facts.  I think that if you enter the
Scriptures that these arguments are based on, you'll
come to the same conclusion.

Collis