Are Parts of Paul's Writing "Uninspired"?

[Artimaeus]

Are Parts of Paul's Writing "Uninspired"?

No. (Can I debate or what?)

 

[gb93433]

Titus 1:12 says that all Creatans are liars. That was probably something that was said. But there is a point to the message. That message is God breathed.
I think we need to look at Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Scripture goes way beyond words. It is a living breathing message. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I look at the totality of the package as inspired. God can use whatever He wants to convey the message He wants.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by USN2Pulpit:
Pastor Larry, there may be some trying to "get around" scripture, as you so delicately put it, but not I. I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm simply trying to understand why Paul would write it in the way he did (under the Holy Spirit's inspiration, of course).

I wasn't referring specifically to you that I know of. I was making a general statement about some who try to explain away parts of God's word that they don't like, like issues on homosexuality, women as pastors over men, marital relationships, etc. This is a place where some say that it doesn't really have authority because it is only Paul's thinking, not God's inspiration. It is a legitimate question to be sure, one for which there is a simple answer

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Titus 1:12 says that all Creatans are liars. That was probably something that was said.

It is definitely something that Paul said, but as he says, he is quoting "one of [their] own." In other words, he is quoting another writer (probably from the 6th century BC if my memory serves me correctly. Paul's point was that this writer (Epiminedes -- again, if my memory serves me correctly) accurately assessed a problem with the Cretans about honesty.

Scripture goes way beyond words. It is a living breathing message. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. I look at the totality of the package as inspired. God can use whatever He wants to convey the message He wants.

Tecnically Scripture does not go beyond words. Scripture means "writing" and it is words. The message of those words is definitely living, in the sense that it has eternal and abiding value for all generations because of its nature as God-breathed. This does not leave room for existentialism or any reader reconstruction theory of hermeneutics.

 

[Jimmy C]

It is very interesting to me though that all you who supposedly take a very literal interpretation of the Word (as I do as well) completely ignore the passages that relate to women in ministry. For example Paul tells women to keep their heads covered WHEN they preach or pray. He is not condeming of them, or telling them to only preach to women. There is no condemnation of Philips daughters who prophesied/preached. Priscilla was very influential in the early church.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Jimmy C:
It is very interesting to me though that all you who supposedly take a very literal interpretation of the Word (as I do as well) completely ignore the passages that relate to women in ministry.

Actually, we do take them literally. You read them in light of your presuppositions. We believe women should be involved in ministry.

For example Paul tells women to keep their heads covered WHEN they preach or pray. He is not condeming of them, or telling them to only preach to women. There is no condemnation of Philips daughters who prophesied/preached. Priscilla was very influential in the early church.

And there is no textula indication that any of these positions involved authority over men. You assume that becuas eyou want to support your position. The very clearest texts forbids a woman from having authority over men in the church. There is nothing about these ladies that suggests that they violated that.

 

[Jim1999]

I guess I am one of those "liberals" who believes the entire Word isindeed inspired, but there are cultural applications throughout the bible. If we ignore this, we mistreat the bible's intent, and end of with less than the Word.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
And there is no textula indication that any of these positions involved authority over men. You assume that becuas eyou want to support your position. The very clearest texts forbids a woman from having authority over men in the church. There is nothing about these ladies that suggests that they violated that.

The passage in question, I think, is found in one of the letters to Timothy. Paul talks to the men of the church, instructing them in specific ways. He then instructs the women (plural) in other ways. He then shifts to not permitting the "woman" to have authority over the men. Paul shifts from the plural to the singular, which seems kind of odd... UNLESS Paul was specifically talking abuot a specific woman that Timothy would have in question. In other words, that specific command was for a specific person. So, perhaps this command that is often stated as "women shouldn't have authority over men," is referring to a specific person who was causing disruptions in the church instead of a universal command for all women everywhere.

 

[gb93433]

Shakespeare is words but it has no power to judege the thoughts and intentions of the heart. God's word (if we call it that) judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Scripture is much more than words on a page. It is a living breathing message. It has the power to change lives. It is God's word not our words.

Phil 4:7 says, "And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension , will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Obedience to God's word gives peace that is beyond our comprehension; beyond our words.

God is not limited by our words.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Well, on the one hand my church supports the viewpoint that the entire book, the Bible is inspired, or God breathed. But on the other hand Paul himself says that they are his words. Because the Bible speaks of Priscilla, Phobe, Mary and others as being servants of the Lord, their leadership seems to be pretty clear, and yet they were woman. How then could they fulfill those positions and yet be silent in church?

You see where my confusion lies?

 

[timothy 1769]

i only found phebe referred to as a servant, but consider this:

1Corinthians 7:21
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

all christians are christ's servants.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
[QB] i only found phebe referred to as a servant, but consider this:

Two different words for servant - Phoebe is considered a diakonos - (or translated deacon). The other word is doulos - or bondslave. All Christians are Christ's bondslave, but not all Christians are deacons.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Then are you proposing that the Bible was not translated correctly? Because in the passage that referrs to Phobe (that's how it's spelled in my Bible) she is referred to as a servant and a succourer. No where is the word Deacon used to discribe her.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

I meant Phebe. (the editting time limit is just to short!)

Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
[2] That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Phebe is a "servant of the church" and a "succourer of many" Succourer means helper.

I don't have a Hebrew Bible, not do I understand the language. But my English translation does not use the word Deacon in referrence to Phebe.

No, not all Christians are Deacons. That is an appointed office similar to Pastor in it's guidelines for qualifying for the position.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
I meant Phebe. (the editting time limit is just to short!)

Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
[2] That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Phebe is a "servant of the church" and a "succourer of many" Succourer means helper.

I don't have a Hebrew Bible, not do I understand the language. But my English translation does not use the word Deacon in referrence to Phebe.

No, not all Christians are Deacons. That is an appointed office similar to Pastor in it's guidelines for qualifying for the position.

The word that is translated Servant is the Greek word for Deacon. The translators, quite simply, got it wrong.

 

[Gunther]

Wisdomseeker, the translation is correct. Those who are not content with the actual meaning will find fault.

Servant is the english translation. Deacon is a transliteration. Scott, please explain why that is a bad translation.

For an excellent webpage that deals with all issues, please go to the following:

CBMW

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Servant is the english translation. Deacon is a transliteration. Scott, please explain why that is a bad translation.

Then why the inconsistency? What are the reasons that this time it doesn't mean the position of "deacon" while elsewhere it does?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Gunther:
For an excellent webpage that deals with all issues, please go to the following:

CBMW [/QB]

That website has some very...interesting...papers. One of them: "A Female Apostle? A Lexical-Syntactical Analysis of Romans 16:7" so butchers and re-writes the text that any person who knows how to exegete would dismiss it. The dismissing of what is an almost unanimously held belief by the church fathers is also interesting. It's quite sad the lengths some people will go to get rid of certain verses that disprove their strongly-held, extra-Biblical beliefs.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The word that is translated Servant is the Greek word for Deacon. The translators, quite simply, got it wrong.

Great. Well, if part of the Bible isn't true, why should I believe that any of it is?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
The word that is translated Servant is the Greek word for Deacon. The translators, quite simply, got it wrong.

Great. Well, if part of the Bible isn't true, why should I believe that any of it is? </font>[/QUOTE]He is NOT saying the Bible is wrong, he is saying that the translators, for some reason, translated that word inconsistently.

There is a measure of interpretation involved in translation work. To a degree, the translators prior understanding and interpretation of the text influences the way they translate the text. If a translator believes that women cannot be deacons, they have the tendency to reinforce that belief through their interpretation/translation.

I doubt the intent of the translator was malicious, but it is something to keep in mind when you read your English translation.