Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have You Ever Read Ephesians?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 376 of 383 (699014)
05-13-2013 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Richh
05-11-2013 9:28 PM


Re: Paul, the uninspired
Take your time, I am in no hurry. Thanks for replying.
To be clear, the reason I brought up Acts was to support Paul's authority to demand that Philemon release his slave. Paul was not shy in claiming he had that authority in the letter to Philemon itself and he is supported by the authority on display in Acts. Either I was not being clear about this or you are dancing around it or both.
In the most simple reading of Philemon, the moral is the also the most high. Paul is saying he could in fact demand that Philemon act in a certain way but that he doesn't have to, because Philemon knows and will do more than what is right.
It is this moral that must necessarily be diminished to make this writing of Paul compatible with what is supposedly by him in Ephesians. You have tried to do this in two ways, one is to claims that Paul is not even asking for Onesimus to be free (I really hope this ridiculous idea is behind us). The second was that this only applied because of the "beloved brother" clause of the letter. In other words that this only matters because Onesimus was now a Christian. This only FURTHER contradicts Ephesians which seems to suggest that it is perfectly okay for Christians to own other Christians.
In all the other uncontroversial writings of Paul, nowhere does he give instructions on the proper way for a Christian to own people. Paul is vastly more concerned with other things. Then Ephesians comes along and all of a sudden he is worried about the "plight" of Christians who own other Christians. And how does he worry about this issue? It is not THAT these Christians own other Christians, it is that they threaten them from time to time (and presumably worse).
Then the writer says that the "slavery service" of the slave is the will of God! In Ephesians 1:1 the writer says, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God". He is an apostle by the will of God and you are a slave by the will of God! That is pretty radical! I have never been that radical to say that to anyone.
This is what is diabolical about these verses. This is what, if you want to call it "radical" is not so in the sense that it is enlightened but rather simply counter-intuitive to our basic moral understanding. The idea that people's desperate lot in life is the will of God has been used by religionists since its invention to justify nearly every self-serving form of worldly and primitive human exploitation of other humans. That slaves should persist in their "fear and trembling" because that is what God meant for them to do is such a base moral. It is so obviously serving of humans, to call it divine, if it is to mean anything, is an insult to the word.
This is the kind of thinking that has given us such wonderfully progressive ideas such as the divine right of kings and Manifest Destiny.
So I guess again I'll concede in this thread. These ideas are in fact radical. But they are most certainly NOT moral. I suppose that what I meant by mundane is that it is the same old abuse of humans by other humans that we are used to. I failed to take into account that no, this should not be considered mundane just because it is common. What I really meant to say is that these ideas are not inspired for good.
The one and only consolation in these verses is this notion that sometime later things will be equalized. This is an open faced admission that the situation as it is described is not okay! Paul is essentially saying that the situation is broken, we ALL know it is broken, but that we should accept it because justice will be had later. You should tone down the violence if you are a master, and you should lower your ambition if you are a slave, in expectation of that justice.
In no other form of discourse that we use, would we accept this kind of reasoning. This is a moral Ponzi scheme and the only reason it is given any credence is because we are pious and afraid.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Richh, posted 05-11-2013 9:28 PM Richh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by jaywill, posted 05-15-2013 7:19 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 377 of 383 (699214)
05-15-2013 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Jazzns
05-13-2013 11:00 AM


Re: Paul, the uninspired
In all the other uncontroversial writings of Paul,
Depends on who you are talking to. Many think Romans is controversial. Others find Galatians plenty controversial.
nowhere does he give instructions on the proper way for a Christian to own people. Paul is vastly more concerned with other things.
You seem to be the one vastly hung up on what Paul gives relatively light attention to in Ephesians in contrast to considerable more emphasis on Christ and His mystical Body.
All that Paul teaches in Ephesians has in view accomplishing the high climax of chapters two, three and four - the habitation of God in spirit, the household of God, the one Body.
The ones making a mountain out of a molehill are the people totally chocking on his words to those who find themselves new lovers of Christ while in one of the imperfect social systems of the day.
Both in Ephesians and in Philemon with Colossians Paul's vastly greater burden of attention is to building up the church life. They way some of you criticize Paul you would think that his epistles would open with statements about how he was sent by God to reform social systems for the benefit of the furtherance of the Roman empire.
Paul's focus in all three books is the new covenant church being built up as an anti-testimony to godless, Christless world "alienated from the life of God"
Then Ephesians comes along and all of a sudden he is worried about the "plight" of Christians who own other Christians. And how does he worry about this issue? It is not THAT these Christians own other Christians, it is that they threaten them from time to time (and presumably worse).
The "concern" of Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon is basically the same. What is best for the building up of the new testament church as the expression of Christ being all in all - lived out to the full in every constituent.
The concerned is expressed in varied ways. The situations are not identical. His goal does not shift. And the consistency of vision argues for one mind being behind all the letters.
You all are trying to stir up a Jupiter size hurricane in a teapot. Paul has to deal with people turning to Christ's Gospel in all kinds of environments.
The criticisms I have heard here seem like Paul demanding that prostitutes submit to their pimps and children being molested submit to their pedophiles. Some of you are making it sound as if Paul is instructing the mugged to submit to their muggers and the raped to acquiesce to those violating them.
The moral offence that some of you are reading into Philemon and Ephesians is overblown. That passages were exploited by slave holders is not the fault of the New Testament. Men ALWAYS have exploited things found in the Bible in one way or another since Genesis 4. There Lamech twisted God's words concerning Cain to justify an unpunished homicide committed by himself (Gen. 4:23)
This is what is diabolical about these verses. This is what, if you want to call it "radical" is not so in the sense that it is enlightened but rather simply counter-intuitive to our basic moral understanding. The idea that people's desperate lot in life is the will of God has been used by religionists since its invention to justify nearly every self-serving form of worldly and primitive human exploitation of other humans.
Christ gave His disciples plenty of heads up that exploitation and twisting of the words of God would abound.
Since we know that no one is getting away with anything we are not discouraged to follow Christ.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, was it not in Your name that we prophesied, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name did many works of power ?
And then I will declare to them: I never knew you. Depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matt. 7:22,23)
He never acknowledged many things done under the banner of Christ. He never approved many things, even seemingly supernatural tasks supposedly done in His name. They were not done according to the Father's will. They will be counted as reckless or lawless - not within the guidelines of how a disciple of Christ should live.
And God has many ways to further perfect His children after the second coming of Christ. I do not say only unbelievers are there rebuked in Matthew 7:22,23.
We have Paul concurring that some will lose reward and be saved yet only as through fire. And he is speaking to Christians.
"If anyone's [Christian's] work which he has built upon the foundation remains, he will receive a reward. If anyone's [again Christian's] work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:14,15)
Some of us realize that all believers will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ. And all unbelievers at the great white throne judgment. Evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse.
But the disciples living Christ and building well upon that foundation endure. It is certainly not in vain.
This is the kind of thinking that has given us such wonderfully progressive ideas such as the divine right of kings and Manifest Destiny.
If all wayward "thinking" concerning the word of God was able to halt His will then the move of God would have stopped probably in the third chapter of Genesis.
The gates of Hades still have not prevailed to destroy the Christian church though they have tried.
And Christians who were Christians while they were servants did not stop in its tracks the moving of God to build up "a habitation of God in spirit". And master of slaves in the church life has not stopped the Body of Christ from building up itself in love.
The imperfect and even bad social orders have been a challenge. They have not been a defeat to the church of Christ. That is not in Paul's day nor latter.
But some of you are attempting very hard to portray Paul as morally corrupt. It really doesn't work.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Jazzns, posted 05-13-2013 11:00 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Richh, posted 05-22-2013 5:57 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 378 of 383 (699227)
05-16-2013 1:03 AM


Jesus uses slave / master example
Jesus gave this teaching about masters and slaves in Luke 17:7-10
quote:
But which you, having a slave who is plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, come immediately and recline at table?
Will he not rather say to him, Prepare something that I may dine, and gird yourself and serve me until I eat an drink; and after that you will eat and drink ?
He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were ordered, does he ?
So also you, when you do all the things which are ordered you, say, We are unprofitable slaves; we have done what we ought to have done."

For those of you condemning the Apostle Paul for giving instructions to Christian slave owners and Christian slaves, do you also condemn Jesus Christ for giving example of slave / master interaction to His disciples here ?
Do you severely chastise Christ implying His disciples might have had slaves - "Which of you, having a slave who is plowing or tending sheep ... etc." ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2013 11:38 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 379 of 383 (699664)
05-22-2013 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by jaywill
05-15-2013 7:19 PM


Re: Paul, the Inspired
I agree with your comments in this post. It seems like there is not much interest in things like God's selection before the foundation of the world, His predestinating to sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, redemption, forgiveness, the sealing and foretaste sealing of the Spirit, the hope of His calling and things like this and the other things you mentioned. I wish we could fellowship about the building up of the Body of Christ, etc.
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.
Edited by Richh, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by jaywill, posted 05-15-2013 7:19 PM jaywill has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 380 of 383 (699688)
05-23-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by jaywill
05-16-2013 1:03 AM


Re: Jesus uses slave / master example
Jesus gave this teaching about masters and slaves in Luke 17:7-10
What is clear here is that Jesus gives a teaching that referenced the life experiences of his listeners. He reminds them of the way in which they themselves treat their servants and encourages them to work in service to God without waiting for pats on the head.
What is not so clear is whether Jesus can be seen as endorsing slavery. He clearly acknowledges the practice among his disciples. I find this quite different from Jesus instructing his disciples on how to own slaves. If, in fact, the disciples were in the habit of treating their slaves in a more friendly manner, say as hirees or brothers, Jesus would have drawn on another example.
Of course, that still leaves the passage as a difficult reading. Clearly eliminating slavery was not Jesus mission on earth. I can say that there is in Luke 17:7-10 a lesson that transcends our cultural rejection of slavery.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by jaywill, posted 05-16-2013 1:03 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 381 of 383 (714768)
12-27-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jazzns
01-24-2013 12:41 AM


Re: Authenticity and Content - Content in this post
quote:
As you get into the disputed epistles, such as Ephesians, and then into the garbage that is the Pastoral epistles, you are looking at a very different Paul. This Paul is more concerned with durable institutions and the day to day mundane issues of life as a Christian. This Paul also just seems to have it in for women and really goes out of his way to make sure that their inferiority is established.
I just wanted to add a note about the Pastoral Epistles. I agree that Paul's style and content changes as he ages. I mentioned that in a previous post. But I wanted to quote something I recently came across (as we are going through the Pastoral epistles in the church I attend). This is from The Expositor's Greek Testament, volume 4, page 75, 76:
From the time of Irenaeus, Clement of Al. and Tertullian - that is practically from the time that N.T. books were quoted by their author's names - until the year 1804...no one, Christian or non-Christian, doubed that the Pastoral Epistles were genuine letters of the apostle Paul. They are included in all MSS., Versions and Lists of the Pauline Epistles without exception, and in the same order...
[with the exception of the order in]
the Muratorian Fragment...
...it must be acknowledged that some early heretics, who acknowledged the genuineness of other letters attributed to St. Paul, rejected these. ... In any case, the fact that the rejection of the Pastorals by some heretics was noted amounts to a positive testimony in their favor by the contemporary church.
There is a case for the view that these epistles are genuine.
BTW - I did not really change any of my positions with the exception of admitting that 'knowing you will do even beyond what I say,' while not changing Paul's entreaty merely to 'receive him as myself' leaves unspecified the nature of the 'beyond.' As such, manumission was a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jazzns, posted 01-24-2013 12:41 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Richh
Member (Idle past 3738 days)
Posts: 94
From: Long Island, New York
Joined: 07-21-2009


Message 382 of 383 (714781)
12-27-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by jaywill
02-27-2013 1:40 AM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
Hi, Jaywill. I noticed I did not reply to this.
I came across something relating to your post recently in our study of Thessalonians in our church meetings.
2 Th2:2That you be not quickly shaken in mind nor alarmed, neither by a spirit nor by word nor by a letter as if by us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
The following is a quote from A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, volume 4, page 48:
It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over the use of his name by the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a 'pious fraud' was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.
Lightfoot in Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, page 110 says,
But he must have had some reasons for believing that an illicit use had been made of his authority in some way or other: and the suspicion of a possible forgery seems to have crossed his mind at an earlier date, when he wrote the first epistle (see the note on I Thes. 5:27); and he guards against it at the close of this epistle also (II Thes 3:17).
2 Th3:17The greeting in my own hand Paul which is the mark in every letter; so I write.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by jaywill, posted 02-27-2013 1:40 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2013 8:32 AM Richh has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 383 of 383 (714893)
12-29-2013 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Richh
12-27-2013 4:22 PM


Re: Authenticity AND Revelation
Greetings Richh,
The comments remind me of how much the Christians of old, who were closer to the events, already carefully sifted through the plethora of spiritual writings that were around. To think that 2000 years latter some skeptical scholars originated such cautionary discrimination is absurd hubris.
It is also evident that the apostles themselves were careful to ascertain what was a genuine report of what Jesus said from an distorted rumor. At least we see John setting the record straight about misunderstandings circulating.
quote:
" This word therefore went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? " (John 21:23)
John set the record straight on misunderstandings among the early disciples so that the truth would be passed down to us.
Often due credit is not given to the integrity of these apostles. Now I will have to go back over this thread to see what it was all about.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Richh, posted 12-27-2013 4:22 PM Richh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024