How do you know if Paul was speaking gods words and not just his opinion?

[Linet Kihonge]

OPUnless you've the Holy Spirit you can't know the Books inspired by God and those written by Man. Anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern God's voice and moreover, once you read the Bible especially the books accepted by the Jews themselves you will know why some Apocrypha wasn't accepted as part of Cannon. There's a distinction between God's writing and other types of writings. In fact, the only way Jews were able to accept Christ was one of them was because of the writings in both NT and OT. The prophecies confirmed the works of their Jesus and they confirmed he was Jew too because of His WORDs So Paul's writings, are the Epistles not his words but Letters of the Bible.

 

[Colter]

Why stop with Paul?
How do we know (the author of) Ezekiel or (the author of) Ezra or (the author of) Esther really inspired by God? How about the author of Hebrews (we don't really know who that was.)

That doesn't follow. There have been several biographies of President Roosevelt (both of them, pick one), J. Edgar Hoover and Ghengis Kahn, all written after the death of the subject. Does that mean all those biographies are fake?

Inspiration from God comes from the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Inspiration does not come from physical interaction with God.

So if anyone can help with the justification for Pauls letters etc being the word of God I'd be grateful, one person said that Paul had himself stated he was speaking God's words, but lots of people have said that. Is there something we are missing?

As mentioned, Paul's letters were carefully scrutinized prior to being added to the 'accepted' books of the New Testament. To doubt Paul's letters now requires a double vote of no confidence. First, one has to be convinced Paul was not inspired; Two, one has to be convinced the men who did the studying and 'okaying' the books of the Bible were wrong.[/QUOTE]

God is absolute truth, man is finite and just beginning to formulate conceptions of deity that he can understand. Therefore all truth is relative and essentially dumbed down for mans consumption in the ages that revelations great and small occur. We are supposed to keep an open mind and grow in spirit, bearing more fruit from what has been given in the past.

Paul was sincere in his personal interpretation and theology, but Paul wasn't Jesus.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Why stop with Paul?
How do we know (the author of) Ezekiel or (the author of) Ezra or (the author of) Esther really inspired by God? How about the author of Hebrews (we don't really know who that was.)

That doesn't follow. There have been several biographies of President Roosevelt (both of them, pick one), J. Edgar Hoover and Ghengis Kahn, all written after the death of the subject. Does that mean all those biographies are fake?

Inspiration from God comes from the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Inspiration does not come from physical interaction with God.

So if anyone can help with the justification for Pauls letters etc being the word of God I'd be grateful, one person said that Paul had himself stated he was speaking God's words, but lots of people have said that. Is there something we are missing?

As mentioned, Paul's letters were carefully scrutinized prior to being added to the 'accepted' books of the New Testament. To doubt Paul's letters now requires a double vote of no confidence. First, one has to be convinced Paul was not inspired; Two, one has to be convinced the men who did the studying and 'okaying' the books of the Bible were wrong.[/QUOTE]
You didn't really address the point of this thing, just gave your opinion along with some slippery slope fallacy stuff. I have no.problem with the men who studied the bible and included the books being wrong they typically are, as repeatedly demonstrated by Jesus.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

In other words, the Apostles and the Prophets barely shared anything of their understanding other than what the Spirit Said. Just as you catholics assert that the words of the Fathers were infallible, Protestants say, the words of the Epistles were 100% infallible meaning the words were 100% God's. There are many areas Paul admitted to what was not his meaning the Spirit didn't agree with his opinion ,so it was a personal choice to listen to Paul or not. However, all the other scripture is 100% God-Breathed.

 

[aieyiamfu]

OPUnless you've the Holy Spirit you can't know the Books inspired by God and those written by Man. Anyone with the Holy Spirit can discern God's voice and moreover, once you read the Bible especially the books accepted by the Jews themselves you will know why some Apocrypha wasn't accepted as part of Cannon. There's a distinction between God's writing and other types of writings. In fact, the only way Jews were able to accept Christ was one of them was because of the writings in both NT and OT. The prophecies confirmed the works of their Jesus and they confirmed he was Jew too because of His WORDs So Paul's writings, are the Epistles not his words but Letters of the Bible.

So people with no Bible are screwed, I think Paul himself would dissent from that opinion. Odd way to defend Paul.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

So if you don't believe that all scripture is God-Breathed then you will scrutinize everything based on the author but if you believe all scripture is God breathed you will scrutinize everything based on the Spirit of God. You decide who's the author of the Bible is it sons of mankind or GOD???

 

[Linet Kihonge]

So people with no Bible are screwed, I think Paul himself would dissent from that opinion. Odd way to defend Paul.

I never said that, and I barely defend authors I defend the Bible and it's authority in determining a person's faith or conviction. So I'm yet to get your view. I also think as long as you have the Holy Spirit you can almost live without the Bible. Murky but he bears witness to things authenticated by GOD

 

[Colter]

So if you don't believe that all scripture is God-Breathed then you will scrutinize everything based on the author but if you believe all scripture is God breathed you will scrutinize everything based on the Spirit of God. You decide who's the author of the Bible is it sons of mankind or GOD???

Sons of mankind. God doesn't write books, Jesus never left one shred of anything on earth that we might make an idol or fetish with. If God wrote the Bible he wouldn't have gotten so many things wrong or portrayed himself in such a dim, conflicted light.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Sons of mankind. God doesn't write books, Jesus never left one shred of anything on earth that we might make an idol or fetish with. If God wrote the Bible he wouldn't have gotten so many things wrong or portrayed himself in such a dim, conflicted light.

What's your illustration for that issue? :/

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Colter if you read the bible in pieces you will get conflicted mind on who the LORD is but if you read as whole as if it's consistent with itself it will make sense. After all, that's how man ends up with many guidance and procedure doctrines.

 

[Colter]

Colter if you read the bible in pieces you will get conflicted mind on who the LORD is but if you read as whole as if it's consistent with itself it will make sense. After all, that's how man ends up with many guidance and procedure doctrines.

I have read the Bible, it was written by Holy men, it reflects the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who authored, edited and redacted the scriptures. The Bible books contain spiritual truth, human speculation and conjecture. It's a collection of books about faith and revelations colored through the minds of bias Israelites.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

What parts of scripture do you find self-contradictory?

I have read the Bible, it was written by Holy men, it reflects the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who authored, edited and redacted the scriptures. The Bible books contain spiritual truth, human speculation and conjecture. It's a collection of books about faith and revelations colored through the minds of bias Israelites.

 

[Colter]

What parts of scripture do you find self-contradictory?

The most glaring would be the portrayal of God in the OT (largely God created in the image of the men of that age and their own behavior credited to God) and the Son incarnate.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

The most glaring would be the portrayal of God in the OT (largely God created in the image of the men of that age and their own behavior credited to God) and the Son incarnate.

Are you saying the Son incarnate and man created in his image don't make sense at all? We shall look at Adam and Eve then and see what could have been right and wrong?

He knew what he was doing when created them the way he did. Also, none of them were aware of the "Serpent" (Adam/Eve). So I don't know how to say it but I think the original man was created with a pure heart like God's but as a result of not knowing good and evil he sinned out of GULLIBLITY. I think man was more of an "infant" to things of the world. Perhaps, the enemy was the wake up call, I don't even think they knew there was someone like the Devil, weird but that's how I have believed things were. :/ (Yeah, babies don't know why they shouldn't speak to strangers but LORD Have Mercy they don't even think about it)

 

[Colter]

Are you saying the Son incarnate and man created in his image don't make sense at all? We shall look at Adam and Eve then and see what could have been right and wrong?

He knew what he was doing when created them the way he did. Also, none of them were aware of the "Serpent" (Adam/Eve). So I don't know how to say it but I think the original man was created with a pure heart like God's but as a result of not knowing good and evil he sinned out of GULLIBLITY. I think man was more of an "infant" to things of the world. Perhaps, the enemy was the wake up call, I don't even think they knew there was someone like the Devil, weird but that's how I have believed things were. :/ (Yeah, babies don't know why they shouldn't speak to strangers but LORD Have Mercy they don't even think about it)

I'm saying that the Father revealed in the life of the Son is far greater than the dim view of God created largely in the image of the holy men who wrote the Old Testament.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I'm saying that the Father revealed in the life of the Son is far greater than the dim view of God created largely in the image of the holy men who wrote the Old Testament.

Help me see your concern. The Father in Life of the Son was possibly deeper than the one in the OT. Father in the OT was a little bit impatient in my view and after even the Holy Spirit, He's been much more patient but I don't think it should mean he's changed. Although I don't know from which perspective you say it but yeah, there's a bigger difference in the Holy Men. Still, he preached Grace even in the chosen servants, Moses had enough crimes but the LORD called him righteous and David was called a man after God's own heart. Rahab ended up being in the lineage of David's descendants that lead to the Son of God. So if I were to be asked, God was just as God even with his son. The only thing could be the Son was able to do more (in terms of miracles) and even so, it didn't mean it was never done before.

What are you saying? :/

 

[Linet Kihonge]

The Lord still favored people who would have otherwise, been considered rejects in the OT and the same thing applied in NT. His son never came in expensive diamonds and rings but he was born in a manger, his dad was a carpenter, his disciples were jacks of all trades, and hey, he even walked with drunkards. So I don't see which God you are referring as pictured dimly in OT; from another perspective it can switch to any side.

 

[Colter]

Dup

 

[Colter]

Help me see your concern. The Father in Life of the Son was possibly deeper than the one in the OT. Father in the OT was a little bit impatient in my view and after even the Holy Spirit, He's been much more patient but I don't think it should mean he's changed. Although I don't know from which perspective you say it but yeah, there's a bigger difference in the Holy Men. Still, he preached Grace even in the chosen servants, Moses had enough crimes but the LORD called him righteous and David was called a man after God's own heart. Rahab ended up being in the lineage of David's descendants that lead to the Son of God. So if I were to be asked, God was just as God even with his son. The only thing could be the Son was able to do more (in terms of miracles) and even so, it didn't mean it was never done before.

What are you saying? :/

True, God doesn't change, mans understanding of God changes. The incarnate Son is the closest we've gotten to seeing the Father.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

True!