Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Could you explain the inference used in Ephesians?Not really. I have argued against the notion that it was Paul himself because it shows up that people just don't read their Bible correctly and when it comes to reading the Bible, fall short in basic comprehension skills. I know that part of the skill of comprehension is inference, and I think that the theory that it was Paul who had the revelation springs from an inferential comprehension of the passage. But Paul is not one who uses inference in his writing. He is straight up and expects that people who read his letters take what he is saying literally. There are no "deeper" meanings in anything Paul wrote. What you see is what you get. People who base their interpretation on inference are in effect rewriting the Bible to suit their own prejudices. They are making the Bible say something that it does not actually say. This is why we get all sorts of strange and wonderful theological ideas, with silly treasure hunters coming up with a ring binder of golden pages with all sorts of stuff about a lost tribe of Israel and then building a whole religion on it, for example.
We can't go on to your inference until we read in context all of what was happening and what prompted the second letter to the church st CorinthLet's analyse the passage:
"I go on to visions and revelations from the Lord"
Paul is introducing the topic that he is now going to discuss.
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows."
He is saying here that he knows a man who was caught up to the third heaven. He didn't know how it happened. If it was actually Paul, he would have known whether in the body or out of the body. The literal interpretation of this is that he is speaking of someone he knows who has related the vision to him. There is no indication at this stage that he is talking about himself. There is no sub-text to Paul's writing in general. He says what he means and means what he says, so we can trust that what he is saying is what we are reading, and not some "between the lines" inference that he is talking about himself.
"And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell."
Paul goes on with the description of the man's vision. He is still referring to someone other than himself.
Now here is a key verse that we should not ignore:
"I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses."
Paul is saying that he will boast about a man who has visions like that, but he will not boast about himself, rather he will make a big deal about his own weaknesses. He does that when he talks of the shipwrecks, hunger, stonings and other persecutions that he had to cope with. Right at the start of the book he said that he was so hard pressed in Asia that he despaired of life. This verse clearly tells us that Paul was not speaking of himself when he described the man who had the visions. The problem is that people read into the Scripture what they want to see instead of what is actually there.
"Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say,"
This is telling us that Paul is actually not boasting at all, because he says that if he chose to boast, he would be telling the truth, but he is refraining from boasting so that people won't think of him more than the person he actually is. To say that Paul is making some sort of underhanded boasting statement about having a vision and downplaying it because of some supposed humility to making Paul out to be deceptive and therefore untrustworthy. If that is so, we have to cut out all of Paul's letters from our Bibles because we cannot depend on him telling the truth anywhere. I would rather believe that the theory that Paul was talking about himself about some sort of vision he had is a load of codswollop thought up by some silly dream from a person who is comprehension challenged, than to believe that all of Paul's writing is untrustworthy. I was a teacher of reading to young students, and I taught comprehension. I would say that those young students were more competent at basic comprehension than the people who are saying that Paul is talking about himself when describing the man with the vision.
"or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me."
Paul does not say that these revelations were actually given to him. He is still referring to the other person who received the revelations. Instead of great revelations, the Lord has given Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble and remind him that there is no good in him and his only claim to fame is what Jesus did on the cross for him and His mercy in revealing Himself to Paul on the Damascus Road.
"Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it way, but He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me."
So, instead of using the other man's revelations to spur him on to boasting about revelations that he might have had, he chooses not to follow the other man's examples but to boast about his weaknesses instead.
There is no way that anyone can interpret the passage any other way than what Paul literally wrote. Bible scholars, and I don't care how eminent or qualified they are, are in error and are misleading their readers if they say that Paul is talking about himself.
Would you say that the poster whose thread is discussing tongues is inferring more of Paul than should be inferred,
I know. The motive then was that if this man taken to the third heaven who saw all these things in heaven is Paul than GOD has attested to Paul's validity and position as Called and used by GODI don't know what his motive in starting that thread was, but that particular poster is anti Paul. He does not believe that he was an apostle or that his letters should be in the Bible.
I know. The motive then was that if this man taken to the third heaven who saw all these things in heaven is Paul than GOD has attested to Paul's validity and position as Called and used by GOD
I don't care if he doesn't accept it. It sheds a different light on his inferring that somehow he knows better than GOD and that Paul was somehow acting outside of complete obedience to doing THE WILL of his LORDThis other forum member concedes that Paul was God's chosen instrument. But because there is no verse which says "I, Jesus, am making you an apostle", he thinks that Paul just adopted this title for himself.
So even if it could be proved that the man in 2 Cor 12 was Paul; I doubt he'd accept it.
I believe I am going to review your input on these two threads to see if somehow you are being biased
I didn'tI just need to let your know that I spent the first 12 years of my Christian life from the age of 19 through 31 years of age in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. I saw the good, bad, and the ugly in them. I left my last Charismatic church because I became disillusioned with the gossiping, character assassination, spiritual abuse and bullying, and claims of healing that did not take place. I went to one big Charismatic conference and saw the preacher laying hands on people at an altar call and pushing them off balance so they fell backwards "in the Spirit". The Baptist pastor and I had a good laugh over that. I have since fellowshipped with Anglican Charismatics, who are quite a different breed than the mainline ones. I spent a number of years in Anglican and Baptist churches that were not Charismatic, and now I am the senior elder in a "middle of the road" non-Charismatic Presbyterian church. So, I have experience in a range of different churches. I also have a wife who came from the strict Catholic family, and who was educated in Catholic schools. She believes she is a Christian, from the Catholic perspective and I have no reason to doubt it.
But, when I left the Pentecostal church I vowed that I was going to reject everything Pentecostal. The strange thing was that I didn't stop praying in tongues. It still flowed out of me when I prayed. It was then that I realised that tongues was not exclusively Pentecostal or Charismtic. It was the Holy Spirit, and even though I have not been involved with Pentecostal churches since 1978, I have seen some amazing things happen when I have interceded for people, using tongues as the basis of my intercession. I have asked God to guide my tongue and found for a particular intercession, I have spoken a completely new and different language. I found that although I could control when and where I spoke, I did not always control the actual language. I have never experienced emotion while I have spoken in tongues. I have always been cool, calm and self controlled, and my speaking has come from a deliberate level-headed decision to use tongues for the intercession. There was once when a friend's mother was dying in hospital from excessive stomach bleeding, that I interceded for her. The tongue that came out was so fast it sounded almost like a fax machine. I was totally drained when it finally stopped. The next day my friend emailed me to say that the bleeding suddenly stopped and she was off the danger list. I can't explain that other than God used that particular intercession to cause a miracle to happen. This has not happened to me since, and I believe it was a one-off event for that particular purpose.
So I am not defending the Pentecostal or Charismatic church and its practices when I defend the modern day use of the gifts of the Spirit. All I am doing is reading and believing what Paul literally said in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.
Having had 12 years in the Pentecostal movement, some of that in leadership, and for the last 10 years being involved in an interdenominational prophetic group, I think that I have a better knowledge and insight into things Pentecostal than someone who has just visited a couple of times and form a set of generalisations based on what they have seen in just some public meetings and on Youtube.
Shall we start a new thread to expound the second letter to the church at Corinth?
I didn't
I didn't move from what and where I began
Something HE told us not to do
1 John 2
John 15
And you as well can say whatever you like. I won't add to, alter, or change what I was given to know from the beginning because I know I didn't do any extra "brain power" to come to any conclusions from within myselfYou can do that if you like. It will be interesting to see what discussion results.
I will say though that Paul expresses disappointment that the measures he advised in his first letter were not adopted to the degree which he desired.
It is also interesting that he does not continue with a discussion on tongues and prophecy in the second letter. Does this mean that they have got this bit right?
But it seems that they did not deal effectively with the immorality problem that was there.
I never leftI can understand that. I have been in my present church since 1996. There have been times when I have wanted to leave, but every time I nearly came to the decision to go, something happened to encourage me to stay - like being made the treasurer, then an elder, then the senior elder. This made it that I couldn't leave without letting the people down in some way. I was going to leave because of an over-controlling minister, and when I was about to submit my resignation, the minister resigned instead! Then I was asked to be part of the regular preaching team. I sort of got the idea that God wanted me to stay in that church, and I guess that I will be there until they cart me out feet first!
This other forum member concedes that Paul was God's chosen instrument. But because there is no verse which says "I, Jesus, am making you an apostle", he thinks that Paul just adopted this title for himself.
So even if it could be proved that the man in 2 Cor 12 was Paul; I doubt he'd accept it.
Here's something that Paul understood. If I live it is to the lord. If I die it is to the lordYou raise the question of Paul's errors or mistakes as an apostle. Let's look at an example. Consider Paul's final trip to Jerusalem, as a result of which he was arrested and eventually martyred by Nero. Notice what Dr. Luke reports about this fateful journey to Jerusalem: "Through the Spirit they [the disciples] told Paul, "Don't go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4)!" Paul, of course, is willing to die, if need be for his faith, but the point is that he defied the Holy Spirit's message by continuing his journey and paid the ultimate price for this disobedience! In my view, this disobedient act explains why Luke deliberately excludes the story of Paul's execution from the Book of Acts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?