The Word of God

[Jeremiah Ames]

The books of the Bible written by Paul are not direct from God.

Although they are part of the Bible, they are not part of the Word.

Why do I say this? It is quite apparent that the style is not the same as it is in the Word.

The prophets, David, the gospels and Revelation are of a similar style exemplifying an immediate communication with heaven. The apostles and Paul’s writings were doctrinal, and therefore not of the style found in the Word. Their content is evidence that they are in communication with heaven, but through an intermediary. They are useful in as far as they offer the same message of love and charity as strongly as the Lord himself. Yet they are not from the Lord directly.


In conclusion, thinking this way explains why reading certain passages in Paul, one asks ‘why would he say such a thing’ or ‘that sounds odd’. Paul wrote to specific people for specific reasons, mostly with the desire to give guidance to help new Christians build and grow their faith, and spread the word. His job was incredibly difficult, yet he did it admirably. A Christian can gain a great amount of insight from his writings, and we shoukd be thankful for his service.

A second point that one can learn, would be that a person who takes one or two verses from Paul, twists them into something that supports that person’s beliefs, and uses it against others, perhaps that person should check the Word for clarity.


imo

 

[Kenny]

The books of the Bible written by Paul are not direct from God.

Although they are part of the Bible, they are not part of the Word.

Why do I say this? It is quite apparent that the style is not the same as it is in the Word.

The prophets, David, the gospels and Revelation are of a similar style exemplifying an immediate communication with heaven. The apostles and Paul’s writings were doctrinal, and therefore not of the style found in the Word. Their content is evidence that they are in communication with heaven, but through an intermediary. They are useful in as far as they offer the same message of love and charity as strongly as the Lord himself. Yet they are not from the Lord directly.


In conclusion, thinking this way explains why reading certain passages in Paul, one asks ‘why would he say such a thing’ or ‘that sounds odd’. Paul wrote to specific people for specific reasons, mostly with the desire to give guidance to help new Christians build and grow their faith, and spread the word. His job was incredibly difficult, yet he did it admirably. A Christian can gain a great amount of insight from his writings, and we shoukd be thankful for his service.

A second point that one can learn, would be that a person who takes one or two verses from Paul, twists them into something that supports that person’s beliefs, and uses it against others, perhaps that person should check the Word for clarity.


imo

That certainly is a plausible position. I'm not sure I can quite agree.

Peter said in 2 Peter "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters."

If what Paul received was the wisdom of God, I think it bears listening to as words from God. And he admits that all the epistles bear the same import.

It is true that he wrote for specific reasons--mainly writing to the Church whereas Jesus was talking mainly to the Jewish nations.

As I have studied Paul vs Jesus, I really don't find anything at odds with each other when we understand to whom it was written to.

 

[InChrist]

I believe the letters of Paul included in the Bible were inspired by God. All the other Apostles and disciples of Jesus seemed to think so, as they were circulated among the early church.

Taking one or two verses from anywhere in the scriptures, twisting them into something that supports one's bias beliefs to use against others is wrong and dangerous, not just Paul's writings.

 

[Phantasman]

The books of the Bible written by Paul are not direct from God.

Although they are part of the Bible, they are not part of the Word.

Why do I say this? It is quite apparent that the style is not the same as it is in the Word.

The prophets, David, the gospels and Revelation are of a similar style exemplifying an immediate communication with heaven. The apostles and Paul’s writings were doctrinal, and therefore not of the style found in the Word. Their content is evidence that they are in communication with heaven, but through an intermediary. They are useful in as far as they offer the same message of love and charity as strongly as the Lord himself. Yet they are not from the Lord directly.


In conclusion, thinking this way explains why reading certain passages in Paul, one asks ‘why would he say such a thing’ or ‘that sounds odd’. Paul wrote to specific people for specific reasons, mostly with the desire to give guidance to help new Christians build and grow their faith, and spread the word. His job was incredibly difficult, yet he did it admirably. A Christian can gain a great amount of insight from his writings, and we shoukd be thankful for his service.

A second point that one can learn, would be that a person who takes one or two verses from Paul, twists them into something that supports that person’s beliefs, and uses it against others, perhaps that person should check the Word for clarity.


imo

An orthodox argument. The Word was truth from God. The Holy Spirit entered Jesus and spoke through him. The Holy Spirit entered Paul and spoke through him.

John 7:
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

When Jesus became glorified, the same Spirit (capital S) that Jesus spoke, spoke in Paul. Paul says no man taught him. But the Spirit revealed.

The Holy Spirit only speaks what it hears from the Father.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That certainly is a plausible position. I'm not sure I can quite agree.

Peter said in 2 Peter "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters."

If what Paul received was the wisdom of God, I think it bears listening to as words from God. And he admits that all the epistles bear the same import.

It is true that he wrote for specific reasons--mainly writing to the Church whereas Jesus was talking mainly to the Jewish nations.

As I have studied Paul vs Jesus, I really don't find anything at odds with each other when we understand to whom it was written to.

I never said they were at odds.
As a matter of fact, I said they were useful. And they were exceptionally compatible, as far as they reflected the Word.
And the divine wisdom within them is no doubt from the Lord.
Paul was a true Christian. But his writings reflect both the divine and the human, which can be deduced from their words and style.
Same goes for Peter.
Most of the remaining books, were directly from the Word, or the Lord’s breath.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

An orthodox argument. The Word was truth from God. The Holy Spirit entered Jesus and spoke through him. The Holy Spirit entered Paul and spoke through him.

John 7:
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

When Jesus became glorified, the same Spirit (capital S) that Jesus spoke, spoke in Paul. Paul says no man taught him. But the Spirit revealed.

The Holy Spirit only speaks what it hears from the Father.

Obviously, I cannot agree.
But on a side note, I find it interesting that the Holy Spirit must hear something before he/it can speak. Interesting concept.
The statement no doubt implies there are two separate entities at work.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I believe the letters of Paul included in the Bible were inspired by God. All the other Apostles and disciples of Jesus seemed to think so, as they were circulated among the early church.

Taking one or two verses from anywhere in the scriptures, twisting them into something that supports one's bias beliefs to use against others is wrong and dangerous, not just Paul's writings.

I do agree they were inspired by God. I don’t recall saying otherwise. Communication from heaven means that to me. Paul had inspiration from God, and then Paul wrote what he wrote.
What I did say, was that the others were from God directly.
There is a difference.

 

[Kenny]

I never said they were at odds.
As a matter of fact, I said they were useful. And they were exceptionally compatible, as far as they reflected the Word.
And the divine wisdom within them is no doubt from the Lord.
Paul was a true Christian. But his writings reflect both the divine and the human, which can be deduced from their words and style.
Same goes for Peter.
Most of the remaining books, were directly from the Word, or the Lord’s breath.

I don't have a problem with you having your perspective. But, at this time, I don't see where Peter or Paul said something that was outside of the Word of God.

Since they were led by the Spirit of God, as were the OT Prophets, I would hold on to the position that they spoke inspired by the words of God.

To wit:

Eph 2:
19Consequently, 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.

Based on this, I would hold that they spoke the Lord's breath. Since they never contradicted the word of God, there is no reason for me to hold a different position.

 

[Kenny]

I do agree they were inspired by God. I don’t recall saying otherwise. Communication from heaven means that to me. Paul had inspiration from God, and then Paul wrote what he wrote.
What I did say, was that the others were from God directly.
There is a difference.

Maybe it is just a matter of symantics.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Maybe it is just a matter of symantics.

It must be.
You continue to argue the same thing.
Read my other response above. I know I have a hard time communicating, but I thought it was clear.

I assume you believe you personally have had communication from the Holy Spirit?
The same as Paul or anyone else right?

 

[InChrist]

I do agree they were inspired by God. I don’t recall saying otherwise. Communication from heaven means that to me. Paul had inspiration from God, and then Paul wrote what he wrote.
What I did say, was that the others were from God directly.
There is a difference.

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I would think that since Paul was met by Jesus face to face on the road to Damascus that he did have direct communication. Just my thought.

 

[Dantedeven]

I shall inspect this right now.

 

[nPeace]

The books of the Bible written by Paul are not direct from God.

Although they are part of the Bible, they are not part of the Word.

Why do I say this? It is quite apparent that the style is not the same as it is in the Word.

The prophets, David, the gospels and Revelation are of a similar style exemplifying an immediate communication with heaven. The apostles and Paul’s writings were doctrinal, and therefore not of the style found in the Word. Their content is evidence that they are in communication with heaven, but through an intermediary. They are useful in as far as they offer the same message of love and charity as strongly as the Lord himself. Yet they are not from the Lord directly.


In conclusion, thinking this way explains why reading certain passages in Paul, one asks ‘why would he say such a thing’ or ‘that sounds odd’. Paul wrote to specific people for specific reasons, mostly with the desire to give guidance to help new Christians build and grow their faith, and spread the word. His job was incredibly difficult, yet he did it admirably. A Christian can gain a great amount of insight from his writings, and we shoukd be thankful for his service.

A second point that one can learn, would be that a person who takes one or two verses from Paul, twists them into something that supports that person’s beliefs, and uses it against others, perhaps that person should check the Word for clarity.


imo

That idea is quite interesting, I find.
I don't think it's possible for us to determine that some scriptures are directly communicated by God - except perhaps where it is directly stated.

I find, in my reading of all scripture,an element of human freedom in style of writing - which I like, because I can easily relate to it.
There is candor in every part of scripture imo.
For example,
Jeremiah wrote about his own emotions - his fears, sorrows, etc.
This I found to be the case with practically all the writers actually, right down to John.

I think although God influenced their thoughts to write what he wanted included, he allowed them their freedom, to write with that human element, and I think that's important, since his audience is made up of humans.
The experience would be more relative, imo.

 

[Klepperman]

I will tell you that Paul is one of the most important apostles, for Paul was a persecutor of Christians that converted immediately upon seeing the truth. And he was a very learned man stationed in the most important places of earth. There is nothing wrong with Paul's writings, he didn't corrupt the Bible. it is all good because Jesus Christ appointed him to be His apostle.

 

[nPeace]

I will tell you that Paul is one of the most important apostles, for Paul was a persecutor of Christians that converted immediately upon seeing the truth. And he was a very learned man stationed in the most important places of earth. There is nothing wrong with Paul's writings, he didn't corrupt the Bible. it is all good because Jesus Christ appointed him to be His apostle.

Good point.