Jesus' Words Only

[Gentle Lamb]

Has anyone heard of the book Jesus' Words Only? I got kind of caught up in reading that a few months ago, and other sources refuting Paul & his claim to apostleship, which was good because it helped me take my salvation & faith more seriously, but it was also bad because I doubt a lot of Paul's writings now, and look for other parts of the Bible where anything he says might be confirmed (or the opposite). But those are 13 letters of his in the NT, so I can't avoid them, and people use the verses from there in quotes all the time, and I see the validity in what is said. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to focus on mainly Jesus' words because He's Jesus and died for me, but now I just have this lingering doubt about Paul, who he was, etc. I mainly spend my time reading other parts of the Bible these days, as it bothers me that I see these issues now with Paul. Just wondering if anyone else has come across this issue?

 

[Look Up]

I have not heard of a book of Jesus' Words Only, but for some time Bibles have been available with Jesus' words in red, others in black ink. What you may be missing though is that red and black ink words are all inspired Scripture. Jesus in the Gospels trusted the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms as Scripture (Lk. 24) and cites from many books of what we call the Old Testament. And He virtually commissions a then-forthcoming "Jesus canon" (if I can call it that) to be written by His disciple/apostles under the guidance of the Comforter/Holy Spirit (cf. John 14 and 16). As to Paul, Luke (author of the unified work Luke-Acts) arguably has a regard for Paul equal to his regard for the Twelve; Luke records Paul's call by the resurrected Jesus to bear His name before Gentiles etc. in terms similar to Paul's own words even if there are various differences in theological intent and emphasis. Luke's record of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) has Paul present with the "pillars of the church" in Jerusalem (including at least James and Peter) agreeing with each other on matters central to the gospel of Jesus--as also later (esp. ch. 21) just before the outbreak of official schism (if I can call it that) between Paul (as spearhead) and mainstream Judaism in Jerusalem. Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16) names Paul's writings as Scripture, and there are thematic consistencies between Peter's presentation of the gospel and Paul's (1 Peter, Acts)--and John's (Gospel, epistles). There are many churches recorded in the NT which Paul did not plant; controversies in the NT appear between Christian and non-Messianic Jew, between Christian and pagan, and concerning various heterodox or aberrant individuals (e.g., Hymenaus, Diotrephes), but no record in the NT is found suggesting Paul was considered heterodox by the churches or her leaders. And Paul of course repeatedly claims to be an apostle of Jesus Christ not inferior to the Jerusalem apostles (cf. e.g., Gal. 2 and 1 Cor. 9). For some centuries, Scripture copies were preserved by the churches in clusters such as and particularly in form (1) the four Gospels and (2) the epistles of Paul. The Pauline epistles cluster was considered on par with the four Gospels cluster. Nor is Paul isolated as heterodox in the post-apostolic church.

 

[Look Up]

Paul is probably the best educated of the apostles and the deepest thinker theologically. As the "apostle to the Gentiles," he stood at the forefront (though not alone) of thinking through the implications of Jesus' coming, teaching, and cross-work for non-Jews, some hints of which we see in the Gospels and more so in Acts. He wrote sometimes to Jews who knew the Law, but also to Greeks (or rather converts to Jesus from a Greek heritage); each epistle (as indeed each book of the NT) was written in a particular context to address particular issues.

 

[Winken]

Has anyone heard of the book Jesus' Words Only? I got kind of caught up in reading that a few months ago, and other sources refuting Paul & his claim to apostleship, which was good because it helped me take my salvation & faith more seriously, but it was also bad because I doubt a lot of Paul's writings now, and look for other parts of the Bible where anything he says might be confirmed (or the opposite). But those are 13 letters of his in the NT, so I can't avoid them, and people use the verses from there in quotes all the time, and I see the validity in what is said. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to focus on mainly Jesus' words because He's Jesus and died for me, but now I just have this lingering doubt about Paul, who he was, etc. I mainly spend my time reading other parts of the Bible these days, as it bothers me that I see these issues now with Paul. Just wondering if anyone else has come across this issue?

Dear Sister in Christ, that is the reason I do not read books like "Jesus' Words Only." They only add to the confusion that is warned about in 2 Timothy 2:14-16, KJV. They create doubt, not clarity.

Scriptural Confusion

Contradicting scriptures cannot be Biblically endorsed or sustained.

Denominations and authors reflect the truth that multiple interpretations and applications of God's Word are non-Spiritual but are mind-mental constructs. They demonstrate that the mind of man is incapable of accuracy when compared to the enlightenment provided only, in every case, by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:15-16). The Holy Spirit will not provide one interpretation for Baptists, another for Lutherans, and another for Catholics, nor will He endorse a particular denomination or "opinion." He will not write off Paul while endorsing James, or Luke. He will not prompt an author to do that, Spiritually.

No, I'm not saying junk the brain. I'm saying it comes after the ministry of the Holy Spirit, never first, in Spiritual interpretation and application of Scripture. The Holy Spirit does not offer "opinions". An individual's opinion is entirely subjective. The Body of Christ does not engage in opinions. All input into the Body of Christ is Spiritual. God will not define the Body of Christ in multiple ways (baptized in water, not baptized in water, followers of the law and rituals, not followers of the law and rituals). HE does not today appoint ONE interpreter or group of interpreters for an entire denomination so that they can keep us informed. He certainly will not proclaim that Mormons and JW's and the assortment of cults abounding today, each or all get it right. We are not to look to "early church fathers" or similar theologians today for interpretation and application. "Tradition" is not Spiritual, therefore not reliable, Spiritually.

The problem is the mind distorting the context and the audience while declaring that an alternate understanding has been provided since the Biblical revelation beginning in our Bible as Genesis 1:1.

Think about it....

2 Timothy 2:14-16 (KJV) again.

Acts 1:6-8

Who were the questioners? The Apostles. What were they asking about? “…wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?” Restore again? When was/were former times? Pay attention to what our Lord reveals in Acts 8. Who shall receive power? What power? (IF you incorporate Mark 16:15-18*, you get an idea; have we had those powers since then? Just sayin' ---). Who shall be witnesses? Where? When Jesus says "Ye" (KJV), how many is that? Did "Ye" go into the uttermost parts of the earth? When?

Obviously, they were to witness to the Hebrew folk in Jerusalem and Judea, and eventually, Jewish people groups in Samaria. Did they have any fears or doubts about entering or passing through a Gentile (heathen) region? When? Where? What was their opinion of the goyim? They were not to go to non-Jews to proclaim that Jesus was the Promised Jewish Messiah. Jesus said so (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24).

Jesus came to fulfill (complete en toto) the promises made to the Hebrew folk. He incorporated ALL of the Law and the Prophets. Did the Cross have anything to do with the redemption of the Jews? YES! They just didn't know it! Was their redemption minus the Law and the Prophets? Will the totality of the Law and the Covenants be restored at some future date? Once they had made the rounds in those locations, those Jews who accepted Jesus as the Promised Messiah were to continue to take the message to who? Jews. What was the message? Accept Jesus as your Messiah. He has taken care of the "works." Now you receive Him as Redeemer, minus the works in the Hebrew Bible.

Did the 12 Apostles deliver the message "to the uttermost?" No. They were proclaiming the promise of a National Israel, not salvation for non-Jews. They told their kinsfolk, "receive it, believe it, and you will enter into the Kingdom of God on earth." Did it happen in their lifetime? No. Will it happen? Yes. When? The Millennium. Will those individuals who accepted Jesus as Messiah 2,000 years ago enter in? Yes. The 12 Apostles will be seated in the Presence of Jesus on the Throne of David. See Isaiah 2:2; Zechariah 8:23.

What about National Israel 2,000 years ago? They denied Jesus as the Promised Messiah. They (the leadership, and those who followed them), had one last opportunity. See Acts 2:38, Acts 3:11-26. In Acts 3:20-26, what was the promise? Water baptism per John? No. Gifts? Signs and wonders? No. The promise was Jesus, Himself! Did that happen then? No! Why didn't it happen? National Israel rejected Him as their Messiah! When will it happen? The Second Coming. What will Jesus do, upon His arrival, sequentially?

Read Psalm 2.

Did the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost proclaim the return of Jesus, Spiritually? Was it the restoration of the earthly Kingdom, the evidence thereof speaking in "tongues"? Was it 18 known languages? Who did the Holy Spirit fall on? What was / were those flames? Were those there gathered actually internally occupied? Did the Body of Christ began that day, or did the Body of Christ come in only through the ministry by the Apostle Paul? If it was the latter, who was incorporated? Is the Body of Christ the Kingdom of God within each of us, or a future earthly Kingdom, or both? Are we the Bride of Christ, or is He our King?

What empowerment did they receive? Where are the scriptures concerning their "going forth" to proclaim Jesus as the Promised Messiah? To whom did the 18 language groups minister thereafter? What were they telling them? Were they laying hands on Gentiles? Or was it only that they received the revelation that Jesus was, indeed, the Promised Jewish Messiah? Does that mean that National Israel was born again then and there? Did the promised Kingdom of God (Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew) arrive then and there? If not, when will it arrive? Oops.... isn't that a reference to the Millennial Kingdom?

If Pentecost was meant for everyone, if it began the Body of Christ, were the folks living around the world simultaneous recipients? Surely they didn't have to wait until Emperor Constantine! Was he the key to it all? Did he embrace everyone in a unified whole, a gestalt? Or was it the Apostle Paul who did that, after 3 years in the wilderness, at the feet of Jesus?

Luke 4:16-20 ~ Taught where? Audience? It comes right out of Isaiah 61. Reference? The Millennial Kingdom. Where? On earth. The Holy Spirit will not provide a different message for each individual or people group today.

Acts 3:19-26 ~ Calling upon the Nation of Israel to return to the Abrahamic Covenant, to be redeemed by His Grace through their Faith, not the Law. To confess Jesus as Messiah, in view of His coming payment in full (Tetelestai!) for their years of rebellion. Jesus was sent to the Hebrew folk who had turned away from their Creator.

Read 1 John 4:1.

Wow. Fuel for debate? Endless questions, endless concepts, ideas, presentations, fruitless arguments swirling around in that which never gels ....... or.......

John 14:6, John 3:16-17, John 5:24, Romans 10:8-13. Then debate what that means? Now entertain lots of if's, and's, and but's? NO! Embrace your Spiritual re-birth (John 3:3). Rejoice as you inform others of the joy in your life. Rejoice that you will see in eternity those who likewise respond!
____________

*Mark 16:15-18 ~

Who was to go where?

---The 12, all over Jerusalem, Judea, eventually parts of Samaria.

What would happen to those who accepted Jesus as the Promised Messiah?

---They would be redeemed, re-instated.

How would the redeemed Jews devote themselves to witnessing, without fear? Is that applicable to missionaries today?

---Yes .... No .... Maybe so ....

What did Paul say in 1 Corinthians 1:22? Is the Holy Spirit a seeker of signs, a seeker of wisdom? Or is He their author?

---Isaiah 61.

Be blessed in Genesis through Revelation.

 

[Steeno7]

Has anyone heard of the book Jesus' Words Only? I got kind of caught up in reading that a few months ago, and other sources refuting Paul & his claim to apostleship, which was good because it helped me take my salvation & faith more seriously, but it was also bad because I doubt a lot of Paul's writings now, and look for other parts of the Bible where anything he says might be confirmed (or the opposite). But those are 13 letters of his in the NT, so I can't avoid them, and people use the verses from there in quotes all the time, and I see the validity in what is said. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to focus on mainly Jesus' words because He's Jesus and died for me, but now I just have this lingering doubt about Paul, who he was, etc. I mainly spend my time reading other parts of the Bible these days, as it bothers me that I see these issues now with Paul. Just wondering if anyone else has come across this issue?

ALL of the Bible is God's word. Remember that Jesus in His earthly ministry was a Jew, born under the Law in order to free those under the Law...and He was successful. Through His death on the cross He ushered in a new age of a new covenant, and He gave to Paul the ministry of proclaiming and explaining that new covenant. Ignore, diminish or reject the Paulines scriptures and you will never grasp what it means to be a Christian living under the new covenant of grace, in the newness of life together with Christ Jesus.

 

[Gentle Lamb]

Thank you for the replies everyone, greatly appreciate your taking the time to comment

My main issue that stood out for me from the JWO book is that it was making the point that like Balaam, Paul may have been one who was originally doing the Lord's work but then goes apostate. The main thing that held this up for me is where Paul says it's okay to eat food that has been offered to idols, when in Acts 15:28-29 and Acts 21:25, the disciples clearly specify that this is something that should not be engaged in. But then in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, Paul is saying that food offered to idols (and all worship dedicated to idols goes directly to Satan, the father of lies and the founder of all false religions) shouldn't really be seen as anything different and should only be avoided if someone is of weak conscience! That sounds absolutely two-faced. Why wouldn't he just say what the disciples say and tell believers to avoid all meat and all food offered to idols? The Lord God has promised to provide for us in every way, shape, and form, so if a believer is hungry and has no provisions (other than food offered to idols) why wouldn't Paul tell them to chuck that food and pray to God their Father to provide for them a meal untainted by satan worship? Also, eating food offered to idols is a form of partaking in idol worship, which he writes against in 1 Corinthians 10, even saying (v. 20) "What i am saying is that what is sacrificed on pagan altars is offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be partners with demons. (v.21) You cannot drink from the Lord's cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons" (TEV). Then he turns around and goes on to say, (v. 25) "You are free to eat anything sold in the meat market without asking any questions because of your conscience." This sounds like he is confused! As believers, ought we not to practice diligence in what we put into our bodies? Shouldn't we ask questions in order not to partake in demon worship?

Another problem that I have with Paul now is how boastful he is and he even boasts about how much he boasts. I can't find any other disciples who lack humility in this way and Jesus never boasted about anything, He almost never even said directly who He was, and if anyone had reason to boast, it was Him for sure, being the Son of God and creator of all things. I think that Paul's writings are useful for some things, as in Ephesians 6:10-20 he teaches us about wearing the whole armor of Christ, which refers back to parts in Isaiah (11:5, 59:17, 52:7) and also about how husbands, wives, parents, children should treat each other, etc. (Eph. 5-6:9) and in the 1 & 2 Thessalonians, he talks a lot about the Lord's coming. However, I'm unhappy about his boastfulness and the issue I mentioned above as well, and to me, it definitely seems like something is wrong there.

Does anyone have insight on these issues?

 

[Steeno7]

Thank you for the replies everyone, greatly appreciate your taking the time to comment

My main issue that stood out for me from the JWO book is that it was making the point that like Balaam, Paul may have been one who was originally doing the Lord's work but then goes apostate. The main thing that held this up for me is where Paul says it's okay to eat food that has been offered to idols, when in Acts 15:28-29 and Acts 21:25, the disciples clearly specify that this is something that should not be engaged in. But then in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, Paul is saying that food offered to idols (and all worship dedicated to idols goes directly to Satan, the father of lies and the founder of all false religions) shouldn't really be seen as anything different and should only be avoided if someone is of weak conscience! That sounds absolutely two-faced. Why wouldn't he just say what the disciples say and tell believers to avoid all meat and all food offered to idols? The Lord God has promised to provide for us in every way, shape, and form, so if a believer is hungry and has no provisions (other than food offered to idols) why wouldn't Paul tell them to chuck that food and pray to God their Father to provide for them a meal untainted by satan worship? Also, eating food offered to idols is a form of partaking in idol worship, which he writes against in 1 Corinthians 10, even saying (v. 20) "What i am saying is that what is sacrificed on pagan altars is offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be partners with demons. (v.21) You cannot drink from the Lord's cup and also from the cup of demons; you cannot eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons" (TEV). Then he turns around and goes on to say, (v. 25) "You are free to eat anything sold in the meat market without asking any questions because of your conscience." This sounds like he is confused! As believers, ought we not to practice diligence in what we put into our bodies? Shouldn't we ask questions in order not to partake in demon worship?

Another problem that I have with Paul now is how boastful he is and he even boasts about how much he boasts. I can't find any other disciples who lack humility in this way and Jesus never boasted about anything, He almost never even said directly who He was, and if anyone had reason to boast, it was Him for sure, being the Son of God and creator of all things. I think that Paul's writings are useful for some things, as in Ephesians 6:10-20 he teaches us about wearing the whole armor of Christ, which refers back to parts in Isaiah (11:5, 59:17, 52:7) and also about how husbands, wives, parents, children should treat each other, etc. (Eph. 5-6:9) and in the 1 & 2 Thessalonians, he talks a lot about the Lord's coming. However, I'm unhappy about his boastfulness and the issue I mentioned above as well, and to me, it definitely seems like something is wrong there.

Does anyone have insight on these issues?

The apostle Paul was not an apostate.

 

[Look Up]

...
Another problem that I have with Paul now is how boastful he is and he even boasts about how much he boasts. I can't find any other disciples who lack humility in this way and Jesus never boasted about anything, He almost never even said directly who He was, and if anyone had reason to boast, it was Him for sure, being the Son of God and creator of all things. I think that Paul's writings are useful for some things, as in Ephesians 6:10-20 he teaches us about wearing the whole armor of Christ, which refers back to parts in Isaiah (11:5, 59:17, 52:7) and also about how husbands, wives, parents, children should treat each other, etc. (Eph. 5-6:9) and in the 1 & 2 Thessalonians, he talks a lot about the Lord's coming. However, I'm unhappy about his boastfulness and the issue I mentioned above as well, and to me, it definitely seems like something is wrong there.

Does anyone have insight on these issues?

For the moment I will focus on the issue of Paul's boasting. Otherwise, I will only remark here that the decision to avoid foods offered to idols that came in letter-form from the Jerusalem Council (of apostles and elders) seems to have been a kind of exhortation for the sake of unity between Christians of Jewish and Gentile background rather than as an edict for all Christians to obey: "if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well" (Acts 15:29)--which of course hardly answers all questions, but I think it a point worth suggesting. Paul at Corinth on the matter of meat offered to idols by contrast seems particularly concerned with a largely Hellenized set of Christians of various socio-economic classes (cf. 1 Cor. 11:21), some of whom tended toward snobbery and/or hedonism (e.g., "all things are lawful for me").

As to Paul's boasting, I assume you mean in context of Corinth and his epistles to the church in that city. The issue with which we are concerned may start with evidence (which I will not elaborate on at the moment) that we have historical record remaining to us of one side (Paul's epistles) of a controversy; we are left to make inferences from Paul about what the other side was arguing, that is. That and broader contextual clues from the culture at large and city of Corinth.

To make a long story short, apparently what happened (e.g., see Peter Marshall's monograph Enmity in Corinth) is that a socio-economically powerful faction in the church at Corinth (recall "I am of Cephas, I am of Apollos" divisions Paul mentions)--or some sort of alliance--sought to become Paul's patrons, obliging him to their wishes in opposition to competitors (or God). Paul's rejection (cf. 1 Cor. 9--Paul accepts donations from the church at Phillipi, but wants to be free from Corinth's money) is subsequently taken as a sign of enmity (the opposite of friendship); Paul's powerful detractors among the Christians at Corinth then hire (we would call it something like "hire") Judaizing false apostles ("false apostles" are Paul's words, and they probably had ties to Jerusalem) who accuse Paul in Greek rhetorical fashion of being untrained in speech, hypocritical, weak, deceitful and suspect in motive (e.g., the flatterer figure behind 2 Cor. 1), and otherwise unworthy of respect.

It has been adequately demonstrated so far as I understand (e.g., Christopher Forbes, "Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric") that Paul made use, in some cases skillful use, of some rhetorical principles (as they appear in contemporary Greek works on the subject) in trying to win back the heart of the church at Corinth in this contest.

One of the rhetorical principles is comparison. As close to this as we are likely to get in our day is the use of resumes in seeking placement in a high-status job. One lists one's credentials, boasts in one's accomplishments and merits. Or in the US at least, political stump speeches. "Are they [Paul's competitors] Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I" (2 Cor. 11:22). In other words, Paul's detractors have already attacked him using their own list of credentials, calling for his response.

You will recall that Paul repeatedly labels all such boasting as foolishness and unprofitable--his, he writes, included. Then Paul turns the categories of boasting on their heads: "If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness" (v. 30). Granted, rhetorical principles of the day also included attempts to show the opposition crossed into excess, but apparently Paul's detractors in Corinth were more interested in social power and reputation (even in religious garb) to excess rather than a certain limitation on one's practice. Paul by contrast and going much further than social conventions of modesty boasts (ch. 11-12) that he was shipwrecked, beaten, hungry, impotent, defeated and so on though (12:6) boasting in what one has actually accomplished or experienced is truthful.

Paul attempts a variety of arguments for the upbuilding of the church (12:19). Can you suggest improvements to Paul's approach with the church at Corinth were you in his sandals at the time? (Read both epistles rather carefully before answering.)

 

[Winken]

For the moment I will focus on the issue of Paul's boasting. Otherwise, I will only remark here that the decision ...........

..........Paul attempts a variety of arguments for the upbuilding of the church (12:19).

A very inspirational post, indeed. Thanks.

 

[Winken]

Thank you for the replies everyone, greatly appreciate your taking the time to comment

I would like for you to review a couple of times my post #4. The thrust, to separate imperatives for Jews from Christains and those who aspire to be Christians, should be kept plainly in view. We are not the 12. We are not going to go into all the world preaching and teaching that Jesus is the Promised Jewish Messiah and that we must obey a Jewish format for our Faith in Him.

The idea that Paul became apostate is no where found in the Pauline Epistles. No where. The Apostles / disciples were speaking to an entirely Jewish audience. After Jesus calls Paul, he makes it perfectly clear that what one eats is no longer an issue (Jesus paid it all; nothing else applies)! Paul then goes on to suggest that if a Christian is in the presence of someone who objects, postpone eating that particular food. If it bothers the Christian himself, then don't eat it, not because of some penalty that would be applied by God, but simply to avoid feeling personally guilty about it. That was a difficult transition for Jews seeking to know Christ, but an underlined fact in Paul's letters for Jew and Gentile with Paul's awakening in Acts 9. He struggled to get that point across to the Jews in Acts 13:44ff.

Your parenthetical comment, (and all worship dedicated to idols goes to Satan, etc....) is utterly out of place and not applicable to what Paul is teaching.

Paul is teaching what Jesus taught him. He is teaching those who desire to become Christians, and those who have already accepted Jesus as Savior. His message is for those Jews who seek to understand salvation by Grace through Faith without qualifiers, salvation with no rules and regulations attached.

Your "why" questions are easily answered. They are your own. You cannot insert your "why" questions into the Gospel. It is not up to you to "fill in the blanks." It is what it is.

Your speculation about pagan altars, cups of demons, is misplaced. Paul is clearly drawing a distinction between the Mosaic Law for the Hebrew folk, and Grace through Faith for everyone. There is not a hint of confusion on Paul's part.

Paul boasts to his Hebrew brethen about his former status as a Pharisee, skilled in the Law, a Jewish lecturer, THEN he says without hesitation that none of that matches his conversion, his Faith, his message.

The idea that "something is wrong there" is simply the failure of so many Christians to separate Hebrew imperatives from Christian Grace through Faith. They are absolute opposites ... they cannot be combined to produce a revised gospel, and God forbid, doubt.

Nothing in my post is harsh; it is a statement of Spiritual Truth. My prayer is that Christians everywhere will come to a common interpretation and application of God's Word, as they open the door to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gentle Lamb]

Thanks for the replies, again, these are doubts mostly raised by reading JWO. The arguments in the book were pretty strong (it was written by a lawyer), but in any case, the Bible's been around helping change lives through the power of Christ for this long and it'll keep doing so till the Lord returns. Just wanted to bring up this issue since it's been bothering me so much, thanks for taking the time to reply guys, I appreciate it. I'll just keep reading the Word as the Lord leads & hopefully He'll be back soon to gather us all up and bring a reign of no pain, sorrow, doubt, or confusion for anyone ever again God bless

 

[Gentle Lamb]

One more thing actually, after reading through these responses, I went back to read in Revelations, and at chapter 2:14, Jesus says (to the church in Pergamum) "But there are a few things I have against you: there are some among you who follow the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak how to lead the people of Israel into sin by persuading them to eat food that had been offered to idols and to practice sexual immorality." (TEV) Isn't that refuting whatever reasonings Paul gives to justify eating food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8?

 

[Winken]

One more thing actually, after reading through these responses, I went back to read in Revelations, and at chapter 2:14, Jesus says (to the church in Pergamum) "But there are a few things I have against you: there are some among you who follow the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak how to lead the people of Israel into sin by persuading them to eat food that had been offered to idols and to practice sexual immorality." (TEV) Isn't that refuting whatever reasonings Paul gives to justify eating food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8?

There are SOME among you. SOME do that. These were Jewish Christian assemblies in what is now Turkey. They were permitting the presence of Balaam followers in their assemblies. Paul doesn't "justify" Balaam.

 

[Look Up]

One more thing actually, after reading through these responses, I went back to read in Revelations, and at chapter 2:14, Jesus says (to the church in Pergamum) "But there are a few things I have against you: there are some among you who follow the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak how to lead the people of Israel into sin by persuading them to eat food that had been offered to idols and to practice sexual immorality." (TEV) Isn't that refuting whatever reasonings Paul gives to justify eating food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8?

Granted I'm tired and shooting from the hip, but I think a brief response may be worth something. In Jesus' warning to the church at Pergamum, He draws an analogy with the OT.

Prophet Balaam counseled Moab and co. per the book of Numbers to entice Israel into a sex sin/idolatry thing ("the Baal of Peor" incident--adultery and idolatry are attached in various OT places, cf, Hosea)--apparently since Balak was so disappointed that Balaam had to bless and could not curse Israel (deliberately reminiscent of God's promises to Abraham, cf. Gen. 12).

That of course was more than a thousand years before the glorified Jesus writes to the church in Pergamum (or Pergamon in what we call western Turkey today). So Jesus says the Pergamum thing (among some in the church) was LIKE the Balaam sex sin/idolatry thing; the people of God are enticed and enter into idol worship and accompanying sexual immorality. The Christian participation in the food of the local Pergamum gods is a part of their genuine idol worship, hence Jesus' severe warning.

Paul in Corinth (across the Aegean Sea from Pergamum) forbade the eating of meat offered to idols among those whose consciences regarded the eating as a participation in idol worship (ch. 8, cf. drinking the cup of demons in 1 Cor. 10), but in context where the meat was removed from an idol's temple or idol celebration setting and placed in the marketplace (10:24)--the grocery store or butcher's shop to us--among those who recognize the food as created by the living God for our sustenance (for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof) and for which they were thankful to the living God, having a "strong" conscience, eating that meat is permissible provided it is not (re-?)attached to idol worship by persons around the strong conscience Christian (e.g., a host serving meat), raising questions about the consciences of others and the need not to be a stumbling block to others.

Meat is meat regardless, but humans (others or oneself) can regard it as having one significance or a very different one depending on religious context and culture. Faithfulness to God is key, I think Paul would say, rather than eating or abstaining.

 

[Dialogist]

All of the books of that are found in the New Testament today are there for no other reason than that they were placed in the Scriptural canon by the Church during the first millennium. Fairly consistent lists of the New Testament books had been circulating since perhaps the 2nd century and local Church councils had been enumerating lists since the late 4th century. The final universal acceptance of the canon took place during the 7th Ecumenical Council, which was held in Nicaea in 787.

The Church Fathers had very good reason for accepting the books they did, completely rejecting others (e.g. the Gnostic Gospels), and placing others aside as spiritually helpful, but not part of Scripture (e.g. the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas). Their reasons for doing so are described in their own writings and in the canons of local and Ecumenical Church Councils.

That is not to say, however, that anyone is not free to construct whatever canon they like. That we have a canon at all is due to the fact that a 2nd century heretical Christian named Marcion decided that he liked Luke and Paul and rejected everyone else. Until Marcion came, no one had thought seriously about organizing and "certifying" so to speak the different writings that were circulating around the local churches. As a result of Marcion, Christians began to divide the texts that were floating around between those that were apostolic and authoritative and those that were not.

From what you describe, it seems that we have some modern-day Marcions out there who are inventing their own New Testament canon to suit their beliefs. (or I guess we should say anti-Marcions, since Marcion favored Paul but rejected everyone else and the folks you describe are doing the inverse).

 

[Gentle Lamb]

Interesting insights, thanks again for taking the time to comment