you didnt read what i wrote…i said
“at least 2700 years ago”
your follow up of adding another 500 years is irrelevant to the point i made. Where you alive during the last 2700-3200 years to know who wrote it and when? It doesnt matter if the silver scrolls were written 500 years later, the silver scroll is not claimed to have been the original autograph by Moses (i dont think you realise this)
that is a fair point Richard, however, one should also concede that there are many sermons and interpretations that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would also claim that even sermons that are inspired, much of them is influenced by the deceiver and not God.
Satan seeks to influence even that which is inspired and twist its theology.
I personally think one of the greatest examples of this is found in the evidence used to deny the flood account of Genesis when scientists study the aftermath of it. Satan has had a hand in ensuring that the evidence does not easily fit the narrative. Fortunately, God has the foresight to leave just enough (that still small voice) to cast doubt on the corrupt sinful world view of what we see around us for those who are willing to ensure that their science adheres first to the biblical historical account.
Its important we listen to that still small voice because if we do not, then secularism ends up convincing those with poor foundations that Christianity is a fable…one only has to listen to the arguments of Bill Nye to be convinced that perhaps there is no God. He presents very compelling arguments.
Both of these “slippery slopes” vanish when you simply make a distinction between what comes from God and what has authority. Even something a child or criminal says to me might come from God. But that doesn’t mean it has authority for all Christians. What God says to each of us is about what we need and not what everyone needs. What is best for us personally is not the same as what is best for the whole church, let alone all of humanity.
In this way, you can be open to the word of the living God in sermons or whatever, without being susceptible to people starting new religions with claims about new revelations from God.
We do have canonical scripture to test things against. Sure, God can give us thoughts, too (so can the adversary), but we had best test any and all ideas against known standards. There has been a lot of woo promoted as coming straight from God and new sects and cults started with their leaders’ charisma being a deceptive ‘strength’ but having no substance.
Trouble is most sermons are based on a view of scripture or trying to explain it.
Yet the Mormons and JWs to name but two seem to persist.
Some churches are struggling, especially in the West, but many are thriving, especially in the South Americas It would be hard to try and fathom God’s current plans on a global scale.
Richard.
I am reminded of the story of Joan of Arc where the English “tested her against scripture” in order to justify burning her at the stake as a heretic. In truth it is not always about testing things against scripture which obviously has very little to do with personal messages from God (except to exclude things contrary to laws of God).
Correctly testing things against scripture is just a little implicit, as opposed to completely ignoring it.
The Holy Spirit must have asleep on the job and unfortunately allowed Paul’s alleged “cultural prejudices” to be enshrined in Sacred Scripture.
Sounds like you’ve made the mistake of actually taking feminist “theology” seriously. Feminism is poison; a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
No one can prove how God feels about someone, so no, I don’t think anyone can answer your question.
It was the Christian community of the early church that accepted Paul as an apostle, a role that had ascribed authority in their eyes and came with the responsibility to speak for God. I think the whole Jerusalem council incident showed that apostles were not treated like infallible cult leaders who spoke from on high and were unquestionably obeyed as the voice of God. The context of many of Paul’s letters indicate people in the local churches weren’t following his directives very well at all and he uses language like “I plead with you” and the rhetorical conventions of the day to persuade people to accept his teaching. It’s also clear from the letters that any number of individuals were traveling around claiming to speak from God but teaching different doctrines and these teachers and their writings were eventually rejected by the community.
So according to Christian beliefs, you have a community of believers indwelled by the Holy Spirit (who is God) affirming or disapproving of those messengers who claim to be sent by the same Spirit and speaking on behalf of God. The letters are an artefact of a larger aspect of community church life and practice that was oral and embodied, they are not the foundation of the beliefs or the acceptance of Paul’s apostleship as ordained by God. Paul the embodied human that people knew and spoke with and cared about was accepted by the community of believers as sent by God before his letters were canonized, and it’s that former acceptance that forms the basis of the latter.
Hi. I’m a feminist, nice to meet you. Stop it with the insults to other Christians. You are free to express your disagreement, but we don’t go around insinuating other people poisonous wolves around here.
I have no idea what “feminist theology” even consists of. I have never heard any of it. I was just raised in a free country with equal rights for all people regardless of race, sex, or religion. And certainly not in some subculture pretending they were living in Nazi Germany or Iran.
The Holy Spirit must have been asleep on the job when He didn’t enshrine your interpretation of scripture as part of the text.
No I checked. Nowhere does it say Paul is God or that his cultural prejudices in no way effected what he said/wrote. Nor does it say He is the mouth God second only to Buzzard himself.
The real poison is entitlement. It transforms religion into something evil.
What is bizarre here is that I was defending the authority of the writings of Paul in the Bible and so your over-reaction with regards to feminism which was not even alluded to in any way speaks to a problem which is entirely your own.
What “cultural prejudices” of Paul’s are you referring to?
That is incorrect. I never said anything of the kind.
There is a difference between saying any misogyny in his writing doesn’t come from God and saying he is a misogynist. One can have a culturally ingrained prejudice with regards to women without being “strongly prejudiced against women.”
Many women can see a culturally ingrained prejudice (male chauvinism) even in a man who is actively working for women’s rights. Cultural attitudes are insidious and men and women frequently don’t see things quite the same way. So this seems to be a highly relative issue.
We all have cultural prejudices. It is a human condition. For example… I am a total Yankee and it is often difficult for me to understand and relate to the people of the deep south.
Paul was human therefore he had cultural prejudices.
Is there something in one of the writings attributed to Paul which I don’t like? Yes, there is.
1 Timothy 2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
The worst part of this is verse 15 which suggest a gospel of salvation by works contrary to everything Jesus and Paul taught elsewhere. We are saved by the grace of God and not by works whether we happen to be male or female. Are women damned if they cannot have children. Sheesh!!!
Furthermore, in no church I ever attended were women required to keep silent and I don’t think I would want to be in a church where that was the case. I think Adam was the first sinner because the first sin was refusing responsibility for his actions and playing the blame game. Eve followed his example – if only she hadn’t then things might have been very different.
Now some people think this epistle didn’t even come from Paul at all. And maybe it didn’t. But… maybe it did and Paul is just a human being who isn’t perfect and makes mistakes.
What makes you think Paul’s comments in Scripture regarding women are the result of a “culturally ingrained prejudice” and not the result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
What Paul writes about how the woman was deceived and not the man, caught me one day. Something about it bothered me in a way that it did not bother me before. So I did a little digging and found a real gem about how Christ as the second Adam guards his bride from deception and secures her in a way that Adam failed and could not do.
So, what you’re implying is, the Holy Spirit is incapable of preventing anyone from expressing and enshrining their cultural prejudices in Sacred Scripture.
That sounds like a rather impotent Holy Spirit to me … and Sacred Scripture that is not very sacred, but is potentially riddled with faulty and false human opinions.
Well, there’s your first mistake …
James preached salvation by faith and works:
“a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
Paul preached salvation by faith and works:
He warns believers in Gal 5 and 1Cor6 that their sins can prevent them from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
Heb 12:14 - “Strive … for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
John preached salvation by faith and works:
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” (John 3:36)
“And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1John 2:3-4).
Peter preached salvation by faith and works:
"As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile (1Peter 1:14-17).
Jesus himself preached salvation by faith and works:
When the rich man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him to “keep the commandments” (Matt 19).
Jesus says, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
Jesus judges believers in the seven churches in Rev 2 and 3 according to their works. And seven times in those chapters, Jesus promises eternal life to believers who repent and “overcome/conquer” their bad work, declaring certain believers “worthy” of eternal life according to their works.
Of course not. You’ve obviously misinterpreted Paul’s words.
Jesus must have been “sexist” like Paul - all the Apostles he chose were men. Oh no … not Jesus too!!
Maybe you should consider the possibility that you yourself have adopted “a culturally ingrained prejudice” … one that is souring your interpretation of Scripture.
Gee, you must have a different Bible to mine. Mine says it was Eve who was deceived and sinned first and then Adam foolishly followed her example.
That’s sounds very interesting. Can you tell me please which Scripture you base that on? Thanks.
Matthew 13:52 
Christ as the second Adam and his marriage to the Church are pretty wide ranging in the Bible. That it was Eve who was deceived and not Adam is there in the Genesis account. It’s also presumable there was a time when Adam was alone before the creation of his wife, and the serpent could have tempted him. Instead the serpent was crafty enough that waited until it’s moment of time had come.
Nope. Only that God didn’t. We definitely see cultural prejudices in the Bible as well as mistakes and contradictions which do not obstruct the message of the Bible. Example… Matthew 27:9 says it is quoting Jeremiah when it is actually quoting Zechariah. Why didn’t the Holy Spirit prevent the writer of Matthew from making such a mistake? Because it is not important. AND maybe because God wants us to read the Bible with a functional brain, one which can see the difference between various things like… insignificant details and the actual message, or… the difference between Paul’s teaching which comes from Jesus and his cultural prejudices.
but that is not what it says in 1 Tim 2:15
In other words… you don’t agree with Paul’s words any more than I do. …you need to add your own explanations to the text…
Gee, you must have a different Bible to mine. There are no such words in the text of Genesis.
I think that view oversimplifies the situation. Adam was responsible for his disobedience, as it was he that God instructed, and he only compounded his sin when he blamed Eve. Even Paul said sin entered the world through Adam, not through Eve. Of course there are layers of cultural influence both in the Genesis story, and Paul’s use of it as an example, and proper interpretation takes that into account to the extent we are able to understand. To deny the cultural and linguistic issues to interpret with our modern conceptions overlayed on the original meaning rather than letting the Bible speak as it was written is improper.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.