dob@ihuxj.UUCP (Daniel M. O'Brien) (11/28/83)
As Byron Howes pointed out, the writer of ROMANS was Paul, and so, ROMANS contains Paul's words, but his words are not unneccessarily those of God's. Howes no doubt has forgotten most of his New Testament that deals with NT authorship. Consider the following verses from Scripture (New American Standard Bible). Paul, writing to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" The words translated "inspired by God" literally mean "God-breathed" (as translated in the New International Version). Peter, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, elaborates further, "But know this first of all, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Note that mere men spoke God's words as inspired by his Holy Spirit. Men wrote, God spoke. Yes, Paul was infallibly human, except for when it came time to pen Scripture, then he wrote what God wanted said. Paul was an apostle, a chosen instrument of God. From Acts 9:15 we read (Jesus himself speaking to Ananias) about Paul, "for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;" Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus, thought highly of Paul's writings equating them with Scripture (remember at that time Scripture was the Old Testament) in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." ------------------------ This ought to fan the net.flames a little. Remember to look it up yourself in your own Bibles. Never take someone's word for what the Bible says. Compare translations for difficult passages. Know that the LIVING BIBLE is not. It is an interpretation not a translation. Always use a good translation, King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Internation Version, Revised Standard, etc. Have fun. -- Daniel M. O'Brien AT&T Bell Laboratories IH 1C-202 Naperville, IL 60566 ....!ihuxj!dob
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/29/83)
From: dob@ihuxj.UUCP Subject: Paul's words only his alone? Message-ID: <297@ihuxj.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Nov-83 19:51:58 EST As Byron Howes pointed out, the writer of ROMANS was Paul, and so, ROMANS contains Paul's words, but his words are not unneccessarily those of God's. Howes no doubt has forgotten most of his New Testament that deals with NT authorship. Consider the following verses from Scripture (New American Standard Bible). You miss Byron's point. You're assuming that the New Testament is divinely inspired, then quoting it to prove your point. (You even quote Paul on the inspiration of his own writings -- clearly circular.) Without such an assumption -- which I and many others are not necessarily prepared to make -- the most one can conclude is that someone named Paul claimed that certain thoughts were of divine origin. It isn't even overly skeptical to say that all we can ascertain is that these writings are *attributed* to Paul, rather than actually being written by him -- certainly, that can be said of the Gospels. Archaeological and/or textual evidence may say more on this matter. But without an act of faith -- which is not necessarily wrong or unfounded, but certainly is not objective evidence -- one cannot go any further. What we are left with is a set of writings which make certain value judgements. What attention one pays to these judgements depends almost exclusively on one's assumption as to their origin -- and Byron is not necessarily willing to accept your assumptions. Remember to look it up yourself in your own Bibles. Never take someone's word for what the Bible says. Compare translations for difficult passages. Know that the LIVING BIBLE is not. It is an interpretation not a translation. Always use a good translation, King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Internation Version, Revised Standard, etc. I agree completely. And check the best that modern scholarship has to offer on the meaning of obscure words, idiomatic expressions, etc.
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (11/29/83)
>>As Byron Howes pointed out, the writer of ROMANS was >>Paul, and so, ROMANS contains Paul's words, but his >>words are not unneccessarily those of God's. Howes no doubt >>has forgotten most of his New Testament that deals with >>NT authorship. Consider the following verses from >>Scripture (New American Standard Bible). >>Paul, writing to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture >>is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, >>for correction, for training in righteousness;" The words >>translated "inspired by God" literally mean "God-breathed" >>(as translated in the New International Version). Ok. Right off the bat we're in a quandry. It makes no sense to try to use Paul's supposed infallibility as evidence for Paul's supposed infallibility. Obviously, he has an axe to grind. As to what is scripture and what is not scripture, that it a question I will take up later. Suffice it to say for the moment that I refuse to accept Paul's declarations of his own infallibility as evidence. >>Peter, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, elaborates further, "But know this >>first of all, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of >>one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by >>an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit >>spoke from God." Note that mere men spoke God's words as >>inspired by his Holy Spirit. Men wrote, God spoke. ...Nor will you get me to believe that all "prophecy" is inspired by the Spirit of Ghod. This is precisely the point about what we are arguing. In context, he is not referring to specific prophecies, but in general the notion of prophecy. He goes on to say (next verse:) "But Israel had false prophets as well as true; and you likewise will have false teachers among you. They will import disastrous heresies, disowning the very Master who bought them, and bringing swift disaster on their own heads. They will gain many adherents to their dissolute practices, through whom the true way will be brought into disrepute. In their greed for money they will trade on your credulity with sheer fabrications." So this really doesn't tell us anything, save that there is good prophecy and bad... >>Yes, Paul was infallibly human, except for when it came time >>to pen Scripture, then he wrote what God wanted said. Um, you make it sound like the New Testament was written deliberately. Actually, it was a codification and canonization of what the early Apostolic bishops thought to be inspired. There was a great deal of available religious writing left out. The actual codification of the New Testament as we know it was not completed until the 4th century. Basically, people just wrote. Penning Scripture wasn't exactly in their minds. >>Paul was an apostle, a chosen instrument of God. From >>Acts 9:15 we read (Jesus himself speaking to Ananias) about >>Paul, "for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name >>before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;" Agreed, at least in some points. Is this, however, an edict or a limitation. Paul's charge is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When he goes beyond that, does he still speak with the same divine inspiration? The dividing line between personal belief and divine revelation is one that has historically often been crossed even by the most well-meaning of persons. >>Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus, thought highly of Paul's writings >>equating them with Scripture (remember at that time Scripture was the >>Old Testament) in 2 Peter 3:15-16, "just as also our beloved >>brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, >>as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, >>in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught >>and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, >>to their own destruction." >> You are again taking verses out of context. "These things in which are some things hard to understand" refers specifically to the lord's patience being mankind's salvation. I am not saying that Paul was not an Apostle nor that much of his work was not inspired. Like the 12 original Apostles, however, Paul was quite capable of error and of transcribing that error into writing. If, politically, Paul's work was in consonant with the beliefs of the early Apostolic bishops, than the passages in question would have been adopted as canon, whether they came from Paul or Ghod. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (12/02/83)
#R:ihuxj:-29700:uokvax:8300019:000:631 uokvax!emjej Nov 30 20:54:00 1983 >Remember to look it up yourself in your own Bibles. Never take someone's word for what the Bible says. Compare translations for difficult passages. AMEN. >Always use a good translation, King James Bible... Amen once again. But do you really think that KJ, wherein Isaiah's prophecy is made to look rather better than it is, or in any case more Christian, by translating "almah" (young woman) as "virgin," is a good translation? (The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah." My ignorance of Hebrew and its transliteration into the Latin alphabet is quite severe; I am here relying on an article by Leo Rosten.) James Jones