Scriptural paradoxes?

[Lief_Erikson]

Can anyone explain a scriptural paradox to me? It has me scratching my head .

The author of 2 Maccabees suggests that 2 Maccabees may include errors. We know from Sacred Tradition and the Holy Councils that 2 Maccabees is inerrant, but the inerrant document itself suggests it might have errors. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 is more difficult to reconcile. He says explicitly, during a certain part, that this is him talking, not the Lord, but the Early Church Fathers were very specific that the whole Bible is the inerrant Word of God written by the Holy Spirit.

I like paradoxes . They’re interesting and fun puzzles. This in no way causes me to doubt the Word of God. It just has me scratching my head a bit in bemused curiosity. What do the rest of you think about these passages?

2 Maccabees 15

38
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
39
Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.

1 Corinthians 7

10
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband
11
–and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.
12
To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;
13
and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.

One thing that these passages prove to me is that the Scripture’s writers, with the possible exception of the author of the Apocalypse, did not know that the Spirit was inspiring what they were writing. The Spirit was secretly inspiring their words. They did not know that they were writing the infallible words of Scripture as they penned the words we now cherish as from the Holy Spirit. This is very interesting to me. It gives a little clue as to how God conducted His inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and this reflects how He often acts through us when we have no idea of what good He is doing.

So that’s one interesting thing this shows me. I just say that as a reflection, though. It in no way resolves the paradox .

Here’s my little attempt to resolve the paradox. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7, and the author of 2 Maccabees’ words, simply show that they were unaware of the inspiration of their words. They do not show that the words are not inspired. Therefore yes, Paul is technically wrong in 1 Cor. 7 about the fallibility of his words, but the Holy Spirit’s intent, to reveal Paul’s ignorance of his divine inspiration, endures untarnished.

That’s my best attempt to resolve the paradox though I admit it may not work very well.

But what do the rest of you think about the passages?

 

[chaunceygardner]

Paul wrote letters to individual church communities; he wasn’t writing theology or scripture. It was only after the fact that it was considered as such. It seems that a lot of what he wrote was his own instructions to these churches, based on his understanding of Jesus. I doubt that the recipients thought of his letters as “inspired”, much like you would not consider a public letter from your Bishop to necessarily be inspired.

Maccabees is not accepted as inspired scripture in the Hebrew canon. Plus, the author of 2 Maccabees states that he is writing a summary of a much larger tome from another author. There also appear to be multiple writings combined into one and these could have different authors.

So your thought that the authors did not think of these writings as “inspired” is likely correct. In fact, I would think very few if any of the various authors of the books in the Bible thought that way at the time. Exceptions may be Revelations, as you say, as well as the writings of some of the Prophets, who seemed definitely inspired to speak out.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

For 2 Maccabees 15:39 “Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.”

• Haydock’s notes on the Douay Rheims says, “This is not said with regard to the truth of the narration, but with regard to the style and manner of writing, which in the sacred penmen is not always the most accurate.”

for 1 Corinthians 7:10- 12 “But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.
For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him; let him not put her away.”

• Haydock’s notes: “Jesus Christ has expressly declared that in one case only a divorce may be allowable, and that is in the case of adultery.
  Ver. 12-17 This was a case entirely new, which the wisdom of the apostle regulates according to the laws of charity. Tertul. thinks that some of the faithful, who had been converted from paganism, did not esteem it lawful to live any longer with their wives, who were yet buried in the superstitions of idolatry, which scruples S. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. Calmet. -Not the Lord. That is, it is the command of the Lord, for such even as are separated, not to marry to another, but when I advised the unmarried not to marry, this is a counsel, or advice, not a divine precept, which doctrine he repeats again before the end of this chapter.”

Jesus, The Lord, had declared “that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32

Jesus had not spoken about pagan converts divorcing their pagan wives because it wasn’t an issue yet. It’s like the Church applying the teachings of Jesus to new situations - like embryonic stem cell research - that didn’t exist in the time of Christ. The Holy Spirit is guides the Church into the truth, just as it was guiding St. Paul into the truth in this situation.

 

[kepha1]

2 Maccabees 15

38
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.

Can you spell H-U-M-I-L-I-T-Y?
The author is not renouncing inspiration whatsoever, as some may claim.

1 Corinthians 7:10- 12 "But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.

And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.
For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him; let him not put her away."/quote]
Sorry folks, but unchastity or adultery are NOT grounds for divorce, and Jesus is not saying it is. For one thing, couples who have suffered from this painful crime can be reconciled and healed. I disagree with Haydock’s commentary as posted.

1 Cor. 7:12-15 - these verses set forth what the Church calls the “Pauline privilege” - two unbaptized people marry, and afterwards one of the people is baptized. If the unbaptized person decides to leave the marriage, the Christian is free to remarry (because the first marriage was not sacramental, and a union between a baptized and an unbaptized person can jeopardize the baptized person’s faith).

Ezra 10:1-14 - these verses support what the Church calls the “Petrine privilege” - a baptized person marries an unbaptized person. To save the baptized person’s faith from being jeopardized, the Pope may dissolve such a marriage pursuant to his binding and loosing authority.

(an example might be that the unbaptized person forbids the baptized person from going to Mass)

Getting back to what Jesus said about divorce.

Matt. 5:31-32 - the Lord permits divorce only for “porneia.” This Greek word generally means unlawful sexual intercourse due to either blood relations (also called incest) or nonsacramental unions. The Lord does not permit divorce for “moicheia” (adultery). It is also important to note that in these cases, a marriage never existed in the first place, so the Lord is not actually permitting divorce, but a dissolution of the unlawful union.

Rev. 19:9 - the marital union of man and woman reflect Christ’s union with the Church at the heavenly marriage supper. Just as Christ and the Church have become one flesh through the Eucharist and the union brings forth spiritual life for God’s children, a man and a woman become one flesh and their union brings forth physical life for the Church. This union is indissoluble.

Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18 - Jesus says that whoever divorces and remarries another commits adultery. This is an offense against the natural law.

Rom. 7:2-3 - again, Paul reiterates Jesus’ teaching that sacramental marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage is adultery. He who commits adultery destroys himself. (Prov. 6:23). Many Protestant denominations have rejected this teaching of Jesus and His Church.

Please note: Nowhere in the whole Bible is divorce a sin, it is re-marrying when a valid marriage exists that is a sin. Why? Because if a person re-marries while still validly married, they are commiting adultery. All marriages must be presumed to be valid until the Church can prove otherwise. Protestants have no mechanism for determining the invalidity of a marriage, which may explain why so many of their Bibles are altered to excuse them for their moral compromises.

This is a very touchy issue, and many Catholics have left the Church because they don’t understand her teachings on marriage, or they wrongly consider the annulment process an imposition on their private life, so they leave the Church after a painful divorce and go to a Protestant minister to get re-married. Worse, they “get saved” and become anti-Catholics, another faucet of adultery.

It’s worth noting that in Scott Hahn’s conversion story, he mentions how the Catholic Church’s teaching on Matrimony was instrumental in his conversion.

 

[Cachonga]

Lief Erikson:

Can anyone explain a scriptural paradox to me? It has me scratching my head .

I would suggest that Paul, though he was giving his (inspired) opinion, not a command from God, was not introducing anything unbiblical. I believe Paul knew enough to give sound, biblical advice (as compared to Ezra 10:1-14). This is not a paradox or contradiction, it simply requires a better understanding of the OT.

As a former roman catholic, I do not accept Maccabees as inspired, therefore I will not comment on it (or the other “apochryphal” books, as that is not the subject of this thread).

I note that kepha1 seems to want to take this thread off topic onto the subject of divorce. I would suggest that you start a thread with that topic if you want to discuss it.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

kepha1, thanks for your comments about divorce, but that wasn’t the thrust of what my question was after. I explain my question better than I did before to Cachonga below in this post, so if you wouldn’t mind responding to that part, I’d appreciate it .

chaunceygardner:

So your thought that the authors did not think of these writings as “inspired” is likely correct. In fact, I would think very few if any of the various authors of the books in the Bible thought that way at the time. Exceptions may be Revelations, as you say, as well as the writings of some of the Prophets, who seemed definitely inspired to speak out.

I agree about that. It doesn’t help me with the paradox though, for Paul said some of his words were his advice, not necessarily commands of the Lord, but we know that every word he said was inspired by God.

Cachonga:

I would suggest that Paul, though he was giving his (inspired) opinion, not a command from God, was not introducing anything unbiblical.

Here’s the issue I’m trying to work out with that passage. He said what he was saying was from him, not the Lord, but we know that he was speaking infallibly from the Holy Spirit when he said that . So how can he say from the Holy Spirit that he is not speaking from the Holy Spirit? I still don’t get it . Not that it hurts my faith in the infallibility of this passage; I just don’t profess to understand it. And seeming paradoxes certainly are interesting . They can be fun mind puzzles.

For 2 Maccabees 15:39 “Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.”

• Haydock’s notes on the Douay Rheims says, “This is not said with regard to the truth of the narration, but with regard to the style and manner of writing, which in the sacred penmen is not always the most accurate.”

Thanks, the resolves the Maccabees matter as far as I’m concerned.

for 1 Corinthians 7:10- 12 “But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband.
And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.
For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him; let him not put her away.”

• Haydock’s notes: “Jesus Christ has expressly declared that in one case only a divorce may be allowable, and that is in the case of adultery.
  Ver. 12-17 This was a case entirely new, which the wisdom of the apostle regulates according to the laws of charity. Tertul. thinks that some of the faithful, who had been converted from paganism, did not esteem it lawful to live any longer with their wives, who were yet buried in the superstitions of idolatry, which scruples S. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. Calmet. -Not the Lord. That is, it is the command of the Lord, for such even as are separated, not to marry to another, but when I advised the unmarried not to marry, this is a counsel, or advice, not a divine precept, which doctrine he repeats again before the end of this chapter.”

I don’t understand this point about Paul very well . Sorry; I still don’t follow. But thanks for bringing up this commentary. It’s very useful and was a great idea.

 

[Cachonga]

Lief Erikson:

Here’s the issue I’m trying to work out with that passage. He said what he was saying was from him, not the Lord, but we know that he was speaking infallibly from the Holy Spirit when he said that . So how can he say from the Holy Spirit that he is not speaking from the Holy Spirit? I still don’t get it . Not that it hurts my faith in the infallibility of this passage; I just don’t profess to understand it. And seeming paradoxes certainly are interesting . They can be fun mind puzzles.

It sounds like the main part of the question is “Did the writers of Scripture know what they were righting was God-breathed?” Of course, the writers of Scripture (Old and New) wrote as they were inspired by God, and what they wrote is inerrant, but God allowed them to write in their own style. When Paul gave his opinion, he did not have a clear “Thus saith the Lord” insight, but being the biblical scholar that he was, he was certainly giving a correct (and God-breathed) ‘opinion’, which can be supported from the OT. Since there is no way of knowing if any of the writers of Scripture knew they were writing Scripture at the time, I don’t know that the question (“Did the writers of Scripture know what they were righting was God-breathed?”) can be answered, but that doesn’t take anything away from Scripture (which you have made clear that you agree with).

 

[chaunceygardner]

Paul said some of his words were his advice, not necessarily commands of the Lord, but we know that every word he said was inspired by God.

Here’s the issue I’m trying to work out with that passage. He said what he was saying was from him, not the Lord, but we know that he was speaking infallibly from the Holy Spirit when he said that . So how can he say from the Holy Spirit that he is not speaking from the Holy Spirit? I still don’t get it . Not that it hurts my faith in the infallibility of this passage; I just don’t profess to understand it. And seeming paradoxes certainly are interesting . They can be fun mind puzzles.

The words I underlined may be the problem for you. When we say that an evangelist or Apostle was inspired in what they tell us, does that mean that every word is from inspiration? Paul was writing letters to communities; does this mean that every word he wrote was inspired, rather than a mix of inspired instruction and words coming from his own thoughts and perceptions? So in saying that a particular passage in his letter was something “from him”, he is letting us know that these words are his own personal thoughts, and not something he received from God. I am certain he had many thoughts and made many comments that were not “from God”.

It would be illogical and silly to think that every thought, every spoken word, and every written word by Paul was inspired and infallible. I think we are placing too great of an expectation on Paul’s letters (and other “scripture” as well) that was never meant to be there. I doubt whether Paul or those reading his letters considered them inspired or “infallible”. That was a designation that was placed on his epistles at a later time.

Once you get past the idea that every word of Paul’s must be inspired, the passage you cite creates no issue or paradox at all.

 

[Cachonga]

chaunceygardner:

Once you get past the idea that every word of Paul’s must be inspired, the passage you cite creates no issue or paradox at all.

The problem I see with this argument is - How do you determine what is “inspired” and what is not? Either all of Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and completely trustworthy, or Paul lied to Timothy when he wrote “**All scripture is inspired by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16 RSV emphasis mine).

 

[chaunceygardner]

The problem I see with this argument is - How do you determine what is “inspired” and what is not? Either all of Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and completely trustworthy, or Paul lied to Timothy when he wrote “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16 RSV emphasis mine).

To answer your first question, you probably can’t know what is inspired or not, except when the writer tells us so, as Paul did. But “inspired” does not necessarily mean “devoid of error”, or “only containing words from God”. And in your quote Paul didn’t say every word was factual and true, but that as a whole they could be used for teaching and learning. We have taken the original idea of writing and teaching about God and inspired by God to become the idea that every word in every part of what WE label scripture is inspired by God, AND without error in every way. By doing so, we spend a lot of time trying to explain contradictions and set ourselves up for a great fall whenever we learn of something from history or science that doesn’t agree with what is in the Bible.

Paul did not lie to Timothy, as Paul truly believed what he said. But what was “scripture” to Paul? It certainly wasn’t HIS letters or any other NT writings which didn’t exist yet. To Paul, scripture was what it was to Jesus and all the other disciples, the Hebrew Scriptures: the Pentatuech, the Prophets, the Psalms, etc. Paul is not talking about what he wrote, but what Jews accepted (at that time) as scripture.

I just finished a very good book that contained many wonderful ideas and insights. In it, however, the author made two or three inaccurate statements regarding historical events. They appear to be unintentional and were not made to deceive the reader, were not critical to his thesis, and they did not detract from the overall value of the book.

It is the same with the Bible; it’s purpose is to communicate to us about God, to help increase our faith and understanding, to guide us in our relationship with God. It can do that whether or not every word is “inspired” or “inerrant.”

 

[Cachonga]

chaunceygardner:

To answer your first question, you probably can’t know what is inspired or not, except when the writer tells us so, as Paul did. But “inspired” does not necessarily mean “devoid of error”, or “only containing words from God”. And in your quote Paul didn’t say every word was factual and true, but that as a whole they could be used for teaching and learning. We have taken the original idea of writing and teaching about God and inspired by God to become the idea that every word in every part of what WE label scripture is inspired by God, AND without error in every way. By doing so, we spend a lot of time trying to explain contradictions and set ourselves up for a great fall whenever we learn of something from history or science that doesn’t agree with what is in the Bible.

I will not get into a debate with you over what is and is not Scripture, but I would ask, do you think Paul’s statement to Timothy (that all scripture is God-breathed) only applies to the OT? I would also point out (again), that when Paul gave his ‘opinion’, it was based on Scripture, so I would assert that he, in fact, gave an inspired interpretation (even though the actual OT reference isn’t given).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I am so glad I do not think like you do, chaunceygardner. If I held to your loose view of infallibility and was a non-Catholic Christian, my faith would be founded purely on subjectivism. For you decide for yourself which part of the scripture is infallible and which isn’t, which means it has no authority over you, but you claim complete authority over its role in your life.

I respect you, but I believe your beliefs on this matter are a recipe for disaster. Matthew 5:18 and the 2 Timothy passage Cachonga brought up appear to contradict your view, and the Early Church Fathers, who knew better than any how the scriptures written by their people in their time period were to be interpreted, saw the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, written by God the Holy Ghost Himself.

Cachonga:

It sounds like the main part of the question is “Did the writers of Scripture know what they were righting was God-breathed?” Of course, the writers of Scripture (Old and New) wrote as they were inspired by God, and what they wrote is inerrant, but God allowed them to write in their own style. When Paul gave his opinion, he did not have a clear “Thus saith the Lord” insight, but being the biblical scholar that he was, he was certainly giving a correct (and God-breathed) ‘opinion’, which can be supported from the OT. Since there is no way of knowing if any of the writers of Scripture knew they were writing Scripture at the time, I don’t know that the question (“Did the writers of Scripture know what they were righting was God-breathed?”) can be answered, but that doesn’t take anything away from Scripture (which you have made clear that you agree with).

I don’t think the authors of the Bible did know their writings were inspired or infallible, with the only exceptions being Revelation and parts of the writings of the Prophets. The reference in 2 Maccabees and this reference in Paul’s writings do seem to imply they didn’t know their words were inspired by God. My question isn’t in whether they knew about their inspiration or not; my question is how can someone writing from the Holy Ghost say that he is not writing from the Holy Ghost? I mean, Paul says part of his words are, “I, not the Lord,” yet it was the Lord who wrote those words through Paul.

I find it a puzzle .

On the other hand, I just got another theory for how this could work. What if Paul meant that this was not a prior command from the Lord when he said, “I, not the Lord,” and he didn’t know that he was speaking from the Lord. In this case, he would be correct that his words were not an earlier command from the Lord, but his recommendation for people’s behavior nonetheless was from the Holy Spirit.

For truly, Paul would not have given his recommendation if he thought it was not the Lord’s will, for who would recommend what they think is wrong? Thus he thought his recommendation was right and best, but he acknowledged it was not an earlier command from the Lord, and he didn’t explicitly declare his words to have divine authority as he spoke because he didn’t know his words were infallible.

 

[Cachonga]

Lief Erikson:

On the other hand, I just got another theory for how this could work. What if Paul meant that this was not a prior command from the Lord when he said, “I, not the Lord,” and he didn’t know that he was speaking from the Lord. In this case, he would be correct that his words were not an earlier command from the Lord, but his recommendation for people’s behavior nonetheless was from the Holy Spirit.

For truly, Paul would not have given his recommendation if he thought it was not the Lord’s will, for who would recommend what they think is wrong? Thus he thought his recommendation was right and best, but he acknowledged it was not an earlier command from the Lord, and he didn’t explicitly declare his words to have divine authority as he spoke because he didn’t know his words were infallible.

By George, I think he’s got it! :newidea:

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It makes sense to me too.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I will not get into a debate with you over what is and is not Scripture, but I would ask, do you think Paul’s statement to Timothy (that all scripture is God-breathed) only applies to the OT?

Of course I think that. New Testament scripture did not yet exist, and actually wouldn’t be compiled and labeled as such for many decades after Paul. How could he be talking about something that he knew nothing about??

I would also point out (again), that when Paul gave his ‘opinion’, it was based on Scripture, so I would assert that he, in fact, gave an inspired interpretation (even though the actual OT reference isn’t given).

If that is what you want to believe, that’s perfectly fine with me. Again, we have no way of knowing what of Paul’s statements were “inspired”; apparently to some, if he told his servant to take out the garbage that must be “inspired” as well?

I understand where you are coming from; I was once there myself. But one must have blinders on and using less than one’s full intellectual capabilities if you think that everything that Paul wrote had to be from God. If we had asked Paul that (and I wish we could) I really think he would look at us funny and laugh. He was not writing scripture, he was writing letters of instruction and encouragement.

 

[Cachonga]

chaunceygardner:

Of course I think that. New Testament scripture did not yet exist, and actually wouldn’t be compiled and labeled as such for many decades after Paul. How could he be talking about something that he knew nothing about??

If you believe that, could you please explain what Peter meant when he said, “And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16 RSV). Notice that he compares the writings of Paul with Scripture (or do you consider these words of Peter as ‘uninspired’?).

 

[chaunceygardner]

I am so glad I do not think like you do, chaunceygardner. If I held to your loose view of infallibility and was a non-Catholic Christian, my faith would be founded purely on subjectivism. For you decide for yourself which part of the scripture is infallible and which isn’t, which means it has no authority over you, but you claim complete authority over its role in your life.

Preferably me to someone else who is letting the aura of a claim to divine authority dictate to me what I should believe. My reading of the Gospels strongly indicates that Jesus expects us (as individuals) to make the effort to understand His message and follow his lead. Not to blindly obey what someone else says. While I certainly use both OT and NT scriptures to help me on my journey of faith (along with the words of other enlightened people), my ultimate authority is God.

I respect you, but I believe your beliefs on this matter are a recipe for disaster. Matthew 5:18 and the 2 Timothy passage Cachonga brought up appear to contradict your view, and the Early Church Fathers, who knew better than any how the scriptures written by their people in their time period were to be interpreted, saw the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, written by God the Holy Ghost Himself.

I respect your position as well, but think that the recipe I follow comes from Jesus, and will not lead me to disaster. Truthfully, I find it is leading me closer than ever to God.

I don’t think the authors of the Bible did know their writings were inspired or infallible, with the only exceptions being Revelation and parts of the writings of the Prophets. The reference in 2 Maccabees and this reference in Paul’s writings do seem to imply they didn’t know their words were inspired by God. My question isn’t in whether they knew about their inspiration or not; my question is how can someone writing from the Holy Ghost say that he is not writing from the Holy Ghost? I mean, Paul says part of his words are, “I, not the Lord,” yet it was the Lord who wrote those words through Paul.

I find it a puzzle .

Many things in life and in our relationship with God are puzzles. But God, through Jesus and others, gives us what we need to solve them.

And I of course agree with your first sentence. Is inspiration from the Holy Spirit obvious? I would say rarely so. Paul says he was, clearly, given a mission to proclaim the Gospel. But to insist that therefore everything he said or wrote was inspired takes that idea a little too far. That’s my view, and I respect your right to a different one.

On the other hand, I just got another theory for how this could work. What if Paul meant that this was not a prior command from the Lord when he said, “I, not the Lord,” and he didn’t know that he was speaking from the Lord. In this case, he would be correct that his words were not an earlier command from the Lord, but his recommendation for people’s behavior nonetheless was from the Holy Spirit.

For truly, Paul would not have given his recommendation if he thought it was not the Lord’s will, for who would recommend what they think is wrong? Thus he thought his recommendation was right and best, but he acknowledged it was not an earlier command from the Lord, and he didn’t explicitly declare his words to have divine authority as he spoke because he didn’t know his words were infallible.

I like that idea as well. There is a difference between saying that Paul was parroting what the Spirit told him to say vs. using the inspiration of the Spirit to do and say what he did. The statement I made earlier, that Paul believed he was right, is in that same vein. He was acting at the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I can certainly go along with that.

When we worry less about the inerrancy and inspirational source of each and every word in scripture, and instead look at what it is telling us, we then grow closer to the Kingdom of God. Exactly what Jesus teaches us.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

If that is what you want to believe, that’s perfectly fine with me. Again, we have no way of knowing what of Paul’s statements were “inspired”; apparently to some, if he told his servant to take out the garbage that must be “inspired” as well?

Of course we know which of Paul’s statements were inspired - the Church has infallibly defined the writings included in the canon of the New Testament as divinely inspired. If he told his servant (not sure when Paul ever had a servant) to take out the garbage - since the Church did not include that in the canon of the New Testament, we can assume that it was not divinely inspired. Like the Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, only when he teaching ex catedra on matters of faith and morals.

I understand where you are coming from; I was once there myself. But one must have blinders on and using less than one’s full intellectual capabilities if you think that everything that Paul wrote had to be from God. If we had asked Paul that (and I wish we could) I really think he would look at us funny and laugh. He was not writing scripture, he was writing letters of instruction and encouragement.

The Church has infallibly declared that the writings of Paul included in the canon of the New Testament are indeed divinely inspired - “from God.” You have no way of knowing what Paul’s reaction to your question would be. Paul was very aware that he was being used by the Lord ever since his conversion on the road to Damascus. He starts his letters “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1) Sounds like he was pretty aware that God was working through him.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Preferably me to someone else who is letting the aura of a claim to divine authority dictate to me what I should believe. My reading of the Gospels strongly indicates that Jesus expects us (as individuals) to make the effort to understand His message and follow his lead. Not to blindly obey what someone else says.

Where exactly does Jesus say that we are to individually interpret his message and individually to decide what parts we want to follow and which we don’t? My reading of the Gospels strongly indicates to me that Jesus established a Church (And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaved Matt 15:18-19)

My reading indicates to me that Jesus wants us to follow his commandments, and that he sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth, and that we are therefore to follow the teachings of his Church (If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the father, and he will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. John 14:15-17) (When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak of his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 16 13-14)

While I certainly use both OT and NT scriptures to help me on my journey of faith (along with the words of other enlightened people), my ultimate authority is God.

How do you know what God wants - does he speak to you directly? Of course the Scriptures are important, but we also need Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church if we are to really to know and to do God’s will.

I respect your position as well, but think that the recipe I follow comes from Jesus, and will not lead me to disaster. Truthfully, I find it is leading me closer than ever to God.

Interesting, where exactly does Jesus teach this “recipe”?

When we worry less about the inerrancy and inspirational source of each and every word in scripture, and instead look at what it is telling us, we then grow closer to the Kingdom of God. Exactly what Jesus teaches us.

And what do you think Scripture is telling us?

 

[chaunceygardner]

If you believe that, could you please explain what Peter meant when he said, “And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16 RSV). Notice that he compares the writings of Paul with Scripture (or do you consider these words of Peter as ‘uninspired’?).

I would be careful to put too much faith in 2 Peter as a proof for Paul’s writings. There are several problems with this letter as stated here in the NAB intro to this letter:

Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.

The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and “our ancestors” as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (2 Peter 3:2-4). A collection of Paul’s letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (2 Peter 3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 1:4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of “scoffers” who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter.

These points are in agreement with what I have read from other biblical scholars. It appears that this epistle was written by someone other than Peter, and well after his death. It does show that within the Christian community of the 2nd century the importance of Paul’s letters was being recognized. But if I were to pick something from 2 Peter to remember and live by, this would be my choice (2 Peter 1:5-9):

make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge,
knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion,
devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love.
If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Anyone who lacks them is blind and shortsighted, forgetful of the cleansing of his past sins.

A wonderful lesson, and note that nowhere does the author mention “blind obedience” or “inerrant and inspired scripture” as necessities. The key terms he does use, however, are certainly based on what Jesus taught in the Gospels.

Peace and Blessings on your journey of faith.