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.
Sure it answered your question and evidently it stung you.
the answer is yes, but the WoF tend to dodge that, and throw it back upon those of us who refuse to accept and teach their "full Gospel"
You have to show that in the life of Jesus, He IS God. did He ever say to anyone who came to Him "no I will not heal you." Did the apostles ever say so?
No you are in error here. Just because Paul refers to a past even using “we” to refer to eithe he Silis and Timothy or he and Silus. Does not change the context of vs 6. When addresses them. We already saw that the we addressing the church was Paul Silvanus and Timotheus so the we as apostles would include all three.Then what you are doing is making unwarranted assumptions and reading you own ideas into scripture which are not there. The timeline in Acts indicates Paul was left on his own in Athens.
So you admit that "we" in 1 Thes 2:2 is just Paul and Silas who suffered in Philippi. If you say Paul is not using the word "we" loosely, but that he uses it consistently to refer to the same people, then your own logic proves that Timothy at least was not an apostle. Verses 1 and 2 are the same sentence, so the "our coming to you" in v1 must also be just Paul and Silas; and the other "we" in verse 2 must also be just Paul and Silas, the "we .... who speak to you" (otherwise Paul's grammar is completely up the creek). So if it is Paul and Silas who "came to you" and "spoke to you" then, as your logic would dictate, the "we" in the following verses must also be just Paul and Silas. So Timothy was not an apostle in v6. (But we knew that anyway from the way Paul referred to Timothy in the opening of his other epistles - "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...and Timothy our brother”).
The Pulpit commentary is right, Timothy was in Athens, and was sent to Thessalonica in 1 Thes 3:2. The so the "we" who were left behind in 1 Thes 3:1 definitely does not include Timothy. The timeline in Acts would indicate that it doesn't include Silas either.
Here are a couple of other more up-to-date commentaries:
Wayne Grudem - Systematic Theology
a. Qualifications of an Apostle: The two qualifications for being an apostle were (1) having seen Jesus after his resurrection with one’s own eyes (thus, being an “eyewitness of the resurrection”), and (2) having been specifically commissioned by Christ as his apostle.4
The fact that an apostle had to have seen the risen Lord with his own eyes is indicated by Acts 1:22, where Peter said that person to replace Judas “must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” Moreover, it was “to the apostles whom he had chosen” that “he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days” (Acts 1:2–3; cf. 4:33).
Paul makes much of the fact that he did meet this qualification even though it was in an unusual way (Christ appeared to him in a vision on the road to Damascus and appointed him as an apostle: Acts 9:5–6; 26:15–18). When he is defending his apostleship he says, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). And when recounting the people to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, Paul says, “Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:7–9).
These verses combine to indicate that unless someone had seen Jesus after the resurrection with his own eyes, he could not be an apostle.
...
Others have been suggested as apostles. Silas (Silvanus) and sometimes Timothy are mentioned because of 1 Thessalonians 2:6: “though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” Does Paul include Silas and Timothy here, since the letter begins, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy” (1 Thess. 1:1)?
It is not likely that Paul is including Timothy in this statement, for two reasons. (1) He says just four verses earlier, “we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know” (1 Thess. 2:2), but this refers to the beating and imprisonment which happened just to Paul and Silas, not to Timothy (Acts 16:19). So the “we” in verse 6 does not seem to include all of the people (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) mentioned in the first verse. The letter in general is from Paul, Silas and Timothy, but Paul knows that the readers will naturally understand the appropriate members of the “we” statements when he does not mean to include all three of them in certain sections of the letter. He does not specify “—that is, Silas and I—had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know,” because the Thessalonians will know who the “we” are that he is talking about.
(2) This is also seen in 1 Thessalonians 3:1–2, where the “we” certainly cannot include Timothy:
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you. (1 Thess. 3:1–2)
In this case, the “we” refers either to Paul and Silas, or else just to Paul alone (see Acts 17:14–15; 18:5). Apparently Silas and Timothy had come to Paul in Athens “as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15)—though Luke does not mention their arrival in Athens—and Paul had sent them back to Thessalonica again to help the church there. Then he himself went to Corinth, and they later joined him there (Acts 18:5).
It is most likely that “We were willing to be left behind at Athens alone” (1 Thess. 3:1), refers to Paul alone, both because he picks up the argument again in verse 5 with the singular “I” (“When I could bear it no longer, I sent that I might know your faith,” 1 Thess. 3:5), and because the point concerning extreme loneliness in Athens would not be made if Silas had stayed with him.8 In fact, in the previous paragraph, Paul means “I,” for he says, “We wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18). Apparently he is using “we” more frequently in this epistle as a courteous way of including Silas and Timothy, who had spent so much time in the Thessalonian church, in the letter to that church. But the Thessalonians would have had little doubt who was really in charge of this great mission to the Gentiles, and on whose apostolic authority the letter primarily (or exclusively) depended.
So it is just possible that Silas was himself an apostle, and that 1 Thessalonians 2:6 hints at that. He was a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), and could well have seen Jesus after his resurrection, and then been appointed as an apostle. But we cannot be very certain.
The situation with Timothy is different, however. Just as he is excluded from the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 2:2 (and 3:1–2), so he seems to be excluded from the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 2:6. Moreover, as a native of Lystra (Acts 16:1–3) who had learned of Christ from his grandmother and mother (2 Tim. 1:5), it seems impossible that he would have been in Jerusalem before Pentecost and would there have seen the risen Lord and come to believe in him, and then suddenly have been appointed as an apostle. In addition, Paul’s pattern of address in his letters always jealously guards the title “apostle” for himself never allowing it to be applied to Timothy or others of his traveling companions (note 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...and Timothy our brother”; and then Phil. 1:1: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus”). So Timothy, as important a role as he had, should not rightly be considered one of the apostles.
John Stott - The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians [Intervarsity, 1994], 71-74.
Three points may be made. First, Luke in Acts is quite clear that Paul was the leader of his mission team. Silas had been chosen to replace Mark, and Mark had been only a "helper' [cf. Acts 13:5; 15:37ff]. Timothy, though much loved, was clearly a junior [Cf. Acts 16:1ff]. Luke does indeed couple 'Paul and Silas' as fellow prisoners [cf. Acts 16:19, 22, 25, 29), Roman citizens [cf. Acts 16:38], and co-labourers [cf. Acts 16:40; 17:4]. Yet he makes it clear that Paul did the preaching, in both the Thessalonian and the Berean synagogues [cf. Acts 17:2-3, 11]. If, then, he was the leading preacher, it is all but certain that he was the leading writer (of 1 Thessalonians] too.
Secondly, Paul was an Apostle, whereas Silas and Timothy were not. True, Silas was a leader in the Jerusalem church, an official delegate of the Jerusalem Council and a Prophet [cf. Acts 15:22, 27, 32], but he is never named an Apostle. Nor is Timothy. In fact, in later letters Paul deliberately distinguishes himself from Timothy in this respect by writing 'Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus and Timothy our brother' (cf. 2 Cor 1:1; Col. 1: 1; cf. 1 Cor 1: 1; Phm 1).
It is in the light of this that we must understand the surprising expression 'as Apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you' (1 Thes. 2:6b). Either Paul was using the word 'Apostles' here in its broader sense of 'missionaries' (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25], or he was referring to himself as the Apostle but was forced by grammar to write 'Apostles' in the plural, in order to be in apposition to 'we' (rather like 'we were left alone [monoi, plural]' in 3:1).
Thirdly, there are many examples in Paul's other letters where he moves from "I" to "we" without appearing to change the identity of the subject. ... his use of "we" is never incompatible with his leadership role in the mission team and never lessens his authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ.
Actually if you have only biblical knowledge of God, and have not experience anything from Him, your knowledge is very very limited, only God can open our eyes to the spiritual truths described in the bible.
Objective truth is not determined by subjective experiences. If your experiences are not biblical they count for nothing.
I don’t actually agree yet that in 1 Thess 2:2 it was just Paul and Silus. If you read Acts 16 it seems that Timothy was also with them in all thier journeys but only Paul and Silus were “caught”Then what you are doing is making unwarranted assumptions and reading you own ideas into scripture which are not there. The timeline in Acts indicates Paul was left on his own in Athens.
So you admit that "we" in 1 Thes 2:2 is just Paul and Silas who suffered in Philippi. If you say Paul is not using the word "we" loosely, but that he uses it consistently to refer to the same people, then your own logic proves that Timothy at least was not an apostle. Verses 1 and 2 are the same sentence, so the "our coming to you" in v1 must also be just Paul and Silas; and the other "we" in verse 2 must also be just Paul and Silas, the "we .... who speak to you" (otherwise Paul's grammar is completely up the creek). So if it is Paul and Silas who "came to you" and "spoke to you" then, as your logic would dictate, the "we" in the following verses must also be just Paul and Silas. So Timothy was not an apostle in v6. (But we knew that anyway from the way Paul referred to Timothy in the opening of his other epistles - "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...and Timothy our brother”).
The Pulpit commentary is right, Timothy was in Athens, and was sent to Thessalonica in 1 Thes 3:2. The so the "we" who were left behind in 1 Thes 3:1 definitely does not include Timothy. The timeline in Acts would indicate that it doesn't include Silas either.
Here are a couple of other more up-to-date commentaries:
Wayne Grudem - Systematic Theology
a. Qualifications of an Apostle: The two qualifications for being an apostle were (1) having seen Jesus after his resurrection with one’s own eyes (thus, being an “eyewitness of the resurrection”), and (2) having been specifically commissioned by Christ as his apostle.4
The fact that an apostle had to have seen the risen Lord with his own eyes is indicated by Acts 1:22, where Peter said that person to replace Judas “must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” Moreover, it was “to the apostles whom he had chosen” that “he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days” (Acts 1:2–3; cf. 4:33).
Paul makes much of the fact that he did meet this qualification even though it was in an unusual way (Christ appeared to him in a vision on the road to Damascus and appointed him as an apostle: Acts 9:5–6; 26:15–18). When he is defending his apostleship he says, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). And when recounting the people to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, Paul says, “Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. 15:7–9).
These verses combine to indicate that unless someone had seen Jesus after the resurrection with his own eyes, he could not be an apostle.
...
Others have been suggested as apostles. Silas (Silvanus) and sometimes Timothy are mentioned because of 1 Thessalonians 2:6: “though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” Does Paul include Silas and Timothy here, since the letter begins, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy” (1 Thess. 1:1)?
It is not likely that Paul is including Timothy in this statement, for two reasons. (1) He says just four verses earlier, “we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know” (1 Thess. 2:2), but this refers to the beating and imprisonment which happened just to Paul and Silas, not to Timothy (Acts 16:19). So the “we” in verse 6 does not seem to include all of the people (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) mentioned in the first verse. The letter in general is from Paul, Silas and Timothy, but Paul knows that the readers will naturally understand the appropriate members of the “we” statements when he does not mean to include all three of them in certain sections of the letter. He does not specify “—that is, Silas and I—had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know,” because the Thessalonians will know who the “we” are that he is talking about.
(2) This is also seen in 1 Thessalonians 3:1–2, where the “we” certainly cannot include Timothy:
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you. (1 Thess. 3:1–2)
In this case, the “we” refers either to Paul and Silas, or else just to Paul alone (see Acts 17:14–15; 18:5). Apparently Silas and Timothy had come to Paul in Athens “as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15)—though Luke does not mention their arrival in Athens—and Paul had sent them back to Thessalonica again to help the church there. Then he himself went to Corinth, and they later joined him there (Acts 18:5).
It is most likely that “We were willing to be left behind at Athens alone” (1 Thess. 3:1), refers to Paul alone, both because he picks up the argument again in verse 5 with the singular “I” (“When I could bear it no longer, I sent that I might know your faith,” 1 Thess. 3:5), and because the point concerning extreme loneliness in Athens would not be made if Silas had stayed with him.8 In fact, in the previous paragraph, Paul means “I,” for he says, “We wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18). Apparently he is using “we” more frequently in this epistle as a courteous way of including Silas and Timothy, who had spent so much time in the Thessalonian church, in the letter to that church. But the Thessalonians would have had little doubt who was really in charge of this great mission to the Gentiles, and on whose apostolic authority the letter primarily (or exclusively) depended.
So it is just possible that Silas was himself an apostle, and that 1 Thessalonians 2:6 hints at that. He was a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), and could well have seen Jesus after his resurrection, and then been appointed as an apostle. But we cannot be very certain.
The situation with Timothy is different, however. Just as he is excluded from the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 2:2 (and 3:1–2), so he seems to be excluded from the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 2:6. Moreover, as a native of Lystra (Acts 16:1–3) who had learned of Christ from his grandmother and mother (2 Tim. 1:5), it seems impossible that he would have been in Jerusalem before Pentecost and would there have seen the risen Lord and come to believe in him, and then suddenly have been appointed as an apostle. In addition, Paul’s pattern of address in his letters always jealously guards the title “apostle” for himself never allowing it to be applied to Timothy or others of his traveling companions (note 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...and Timothy our brother”; and then Phil. 1:1: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus”). So Timothy, as important a role as he had, should not rightly be considered one of the apostles.
John Stott - The Message of 1 & 2 Thessalonians [Intervarsity, 1994], 71-74.
Three points may be made. First, Luke in Acts is quite clear that Paul was the leader of his mission team. Silas had been chosen to replace Mark, and Mark had been only a "helper' [cf. Acts 13:5; 15:37ff]. Timothy, though much loved, was clearly a junior [Cf. Acts 16:1ff]. Luke does indeed couple 'Paul and Silas' as fellow prisoners [cf. Acts 16:19, 22, 25, 29), Roman citizens [cf. Acts 16:38], and co-labourers [cf. Acts 16:40; 17:4]. Yet he makes it clear that Paul did the preaching, in both the Thessalonian and the Berean synagogues [cf. Acts 17:2-3, 11]. If, then, he was the leading preacher, it is all but certain that he was the leading writer (of 1 Thessalonians] too.
Secondly, Paul was an Apostle, whereas Silas and Timothy were not. True, Silas was a leader in the Jerusalem church, an official delegate of the Jerusalem Council and a Prophet [cf. Acts 15:22, 27, 32], but he is never named an Apostle. Nor is Timothy. In fact, in later letters Paul deliberately distinguishes himself from Timothy in this respect by writing 'Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus and Timothy our brother' (cf. 2 Cor 1:1; Col. 1: 1; cf. 1 Cor 1: 1; Phm 1).
It is in the light of this that we must understand the surprising expression 'as Apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you' (1 Thes. 2:6b). Either Paul was using the word 'Apostles' here in its broader sense of 'missionaries' (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25], or he was referring to himself as the Apostle but was forced by grammar to write 'Apostles' in the plural, in order to be in apposition to 'we' (rather like 'we were left alone [monoi, plural]' in 3:1).
Thirdly, there are many examples in Paul's other letters where he moves from "I" to "we" without appearing to change the identity of the subject. ... his use of "we" is never incompatible with his leadership role in the mission team and never lessens his authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ.
opinion based on zero scripture.
the 2 prophets told of in revelation are just proof the 2 prophets havnt come yet
No you are in error here. Just because Paul refers to a past even using “we” to refer to eithe he Silis and Timothy or he and Silus. Does not change the context of vs 6. When addresses them. We already saw that the we addressing the church was Paul Silvanus and Timotheus so the we as apostles would include all three.
Also I have to check wether Timothy was wityPsul and Silus in the situation and perhaps only Paul and Silus were taken so they may have all been there.
And because Luke may not have recorded every detail doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The words “we” “us” and “our @ refer to all three of them or two f them in certain context. Either way vs 6 is clearkyall three of them speaking in context to the Church. All through chapter 1,2,3 we see Paul speaking in the plural form of he Dilvanus and Timotheus.
I don’t actually agree yet that in 1 Thess 2:2 it was just Paul and Silus. If you read Acts 16 it seems that Timothy was also with them in all thier journeys but only Paul and Silus were “caught”
So Paul May be speaking of al three again.
Its shear arrogance to claim that God doesn't speak to people today, when there are millions of Christians who regularly hear his voice.Now when Jesus said my "sheep hear my voice" we are told this was a figure of speech (John 10:6). Jesus is not literally a shepherd; we are not literally sheep; and we not literally hear his voice. It is a metaphor. So if it not the audible voice of God, then it must be other option. The Lord's voice is his speaking to us in scripture. Not thoughts popping into our heads.
But swordsman you are not being reviled for the name of Christ at all."If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed" (1 Peter 4:14)
Woah, like a true cessationist there!, if you say God opening your eyes to spiritual truths, or things that the Holy spirit do are 'subjective' experiences you can't rely on, then you are more mistaken.
The spiritual truths need to be revealed to you by God, either with understanding from God or an experience, you don't get them by just reading a phrase.
No, biblical experiences are legitimate. They match the truth of scripture. I'm referring to charismatic 'experiences' that are not biblical - non-human tongues, prophecies and "hearing My voice" that are fuzzy feelings, clairvoyancy, slain in the Spirit, etc, etc.
Hearing the voice of God is very biblical, also the Holy spirit says will guide us to the truth.
If God would like to warn someone of something, or say he will do something to them, he is going to do it to people, and this is hearing the voice of God too, even if some others don't believe.
I wonder where abraham would be if he couldn't listen to God, there was no bible back then.
God just didn't got muted becasue some people refuse to believe.
Having a strong feeling and claiming it is God's voice or a 'word from the Lord" is very unbiblical. Where in scripture are feelings described as the voice of God? I've just shown from scripture the only possible meaning of God's 'voice'. If I'm wrong then please refute it.
The voice of God can be spiritual, it doens't neccesarily is an audible voice, and when he tells you something, you usually can understand, and can tell its Him, he makes himself understand.
The voice of God is scripture. See my previous post.
You may wish to look up the word refute again .No, im simply refuting your assertion. As for your question, I have love in my heart for those with mental health issues who suffer at the hands of charismatic extremists. Does that count?
Thats your answer?No, im simply refuting your assertion. As for your question, I have love in my heart for those with mental health issues who suffer at the hands of charismatic extremists. Does that count?
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?