Balugon
o( ' . ' )o
Balugon~ Some human wrote every book of the Bible. I don't see you arguing the "authenticity" of Ezra's words or Jeremiah's. If we take the stance that we really shouldn't listen too closely to the things written in the Word by Paul, because, you know... He wrote about men being leaders and women not having authority over men... then how exactly does the rest of the Word fit in? Way too many of us have filters on the Word simply because we don't understand the passage. Does some of the things Paul wrote confuse me still? Yes. Especially that "women must remain silent in the church" passage, which I've heard 1,429,109 different interpretations of. But we must balance it out with the rest of the Word (even with the Old Testament), search and study the Scriptures and take passages into the context they were written in. I believe a lot of the Old Testament is cultural; rules and regulations written specifically for the Israelite tribes, but I do not believe the New Testament, after Jesus and the New Covenant, to be cultural at all. That's just me though. I've read nothing in the NT that I decide can be passed off based on culture or Paul writing "to a particular woman in a particular church." If he didn't want that same teaching to apply to the Church at large, he would not have included it in his writings.
So do you eat Jesus' body and drink his blood (John 6:53)? Because that would be pretty difficult considering he is still carrying his body around with him. And yet the Scripture says: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Would you say you are unsaved then? Or perhaps one has to take the meaning in context and not take everything literally?
And what do you think about my post 88? Because it is definitely contradictory actions taken by Paul. Or what about this:
"36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, 'Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.' 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord." Acts 15:36-40
Paul and Barnabas were both chosen by God to go (Acts 13:2), so who was right? And clearly, if Paul was speaking and acting on behalf of God, he would have known the words to speak to Barnabas so that the disgreement would not have gotten sharp. So therefore Paul had to have been acting out of his own humanity here.
And we could also talk about the book of Ecclesiastes, and how it is written by the same author that wrote many of the proverbs. And yet do you hold all his words as equal truth? What about this passage of his:
"9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun." Ecc 9:9
And personally, I mean no offense. I don't expect anyone to do a 180 in here and change their opinion, because often people don't. But I think it becomes dangerous when people (not speaking specifically of you) choose to put their eyes so close to the Bible, that they miss the rest of the evidence that God may have put in the world around them (and sometimes even in other parts of the Bible) that raises questions with/contradicts the way they think. While all of the truth that is in the Bible will be found in God, not all of God will be found in the Bible, and so people shouldn't take individual Scriptures and simply make them doctrine, because they have no idea all the other issues that surround those singular scriptures.
Upvote
0