Inspired or Not, how can you tell

[Tazman]

Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “The Spirit of the Lord is a candle searching the secret parts of the belly.”90 Let us reflect how near He is, and that none of the thoughts or reasonings in which we engage are hid from Him. It is right, therefore, that we should not leave the post which His will has assigned us. Let us rather offend those men who are foolish, and inconsiderate, and lifted up, and who glory in the pride of their speech, than [offend] God.

All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Any scriptures come to mind from the above?

 

[partialrapture]

yes... a few... It sure doesn't read like my AV though

 

[Nomad]

Those aren't from the Bible. Probably some early extra-canonical writings, although I can't identify them.

 

[JFox1]

Those are not quotes from the Bible but from the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, sometimes called 1st Clement, and it was written approximately 96 AD.

 

[BobRyan]

You can not insert something "into the Bible" simply by saying "the person was inspired".

Anna the prophetess at Jesus dedication was "inspired" but nothing she wrote is in scripture.

Philips daughters "inspired" as prophetesses but nothing added by them to scripture.

 

[Tazman]

Bob,

What is your contention? Or are you just answering my question?

I do believe that The Authority of the Apostles is greater than those they taught.

But I also believe that those that were closer to the apostles has more credit worthiness than anyone in our time.

You can not insert something "into the Bible" simply by saying "the person was inspired"

I'm tempted to agree, but I kind of curious as to why you think this way.

Also, who is Inserting and how?

 

[BobRyan]

The quotes in the OP appear to be used to ask the question about "inspiration". Later we see a comment about the Bible vs Clement. My point is that the Bible is more than just "inspired" it also has a binding authorotative purpose in the sense of Acts 17:11. It becomes the authorotative text by which all others are judged. It is "the standard" by which all doctrine, all teaching, all practice is judged.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The quotes in the OP appear to be used to ask the question about "inspiration". Later we see a comment about the Bible vs Clement. My point is that the Bible is more than just "inspired" it also has a binding authorotative purpose in the sense of Acts 17:11. It becomes the authorotative text by which all others are judged. It is "the standard" by which all doctrine, all teaching, all practice is judged.

In Christ,

Bob

My intent was not to position early christian writings against the bible, but in full view of the bible and to allow the early passages from those who lived during and after the apostles time to shed some light of some "Bible" passages that are often misunderstood today.

I agree with the Authority of the bible. However, this is not to say that I don't see early christian writings as not useful or inspired. There were some teaching given by Paul that are often misinterpretated to fit our modern day culture, but Its totally wrong compared to how the early church understood it.
Example would be 1 Cor 11

2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In sertain cultures "Head Covering" wouldn't pose a threat, but to western cultures it does. Because it does, we have to find a way to make it fit into our culture or render it's importance obsolete.

Many passages are approached that way.

in Christ

Stefon

 

[BobRyan]

I think we are agreeing on the point that other inspired (as in Spiritual Gifts - inspiration) Christians existed. Philip's daughters, Agabus, Anna in the temple with the infant Christ etc and we have no reason to doubt that they may have existed in every century.

 

[BobRyan]

7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

Is this a "new law" or an explanation of an existing one? Is Paul 'introducing' this concept or does he write as though the reader already knows it?

If the reader already knows it - is the source culture and tradition - or the Bible?

In Col 3 Paul goes into a great deal of effort to address the duty of slaves to serve their masters. Is this a new commandment from God or a long standing system of slavery? (He even sends an escaped slave back to his master -- so we are talking about "real" slavery)

 

[Tazman]

Is this a "new law" or an explanation of an existing one? Is Paul 'introducing' this concept or does he write as though the reader already knows it?

As expected, these are good questions. I don't know if it relates to the OC or not, but Paul usually destinguish between something from Himself or Something From God. And so my first choice it to accept it as needed.

If the reader already knows it - is the source culture and tradition - or the Bible?

At this point is where I sought to see what the leader during Pauls time taught their churches as they understood what the background behind what Paul was addressing. The only most reliable sources would be Paul and the Corinthians. But since we can't really ask them directly, we should then go to the next reliable source: The Early church fathers in order to see how they understood it. That's all.

In Col 3 Paul goes into a great deal of effort to address the duty of slaves to serve their masters. Is this a new commandment from God or a long standing system of slavery? (He even sends an escaped slave back to his master -- so we are talking about "real" slavery)

Again Paul doesnt' say from Him or God on this one, so I would lean that it was standing, but redefined (like with what Jesus done with the Sabbath) - This stands as my opinion on the matter. Presently many scriptures and thoughts are running through my head, but below is what I can share so far.

That topic is sensitive, but I don't believe that slavery maintian the same "Order" that It once held in the times of war for the Jews. God use them to carry out his judgements against other nations sometimes making them slaves (not often to be abused though). Able to gain freedom.
And not all forms of slavery were war related, but business and financially.

Slaves, though, were NOT to be traded, but to be love with Christ love.
1 Timothy 1:10

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly . 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers — and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.