honorentheos wrote:Thanks ontheotherhand (I hope you don't mind if I shorthand this to otoh from here on out?)
I like that better!
honorentheos wrote:Thanks ontheotherhand (I hope you don't mind if I shorthand this to otoh from here on out?)
Peter was already dead for centuries. Duh.
Hoops wrote:
Peter was already dead for centuries. Duh.
As were all the others. Duh.
honorentheos wrote:Would you happen to have any thoughts on the meaning of Romans 13? I read it more as instructions to subjects of governments who, at the time, were under Roman rule. It doesn't seem too out of place compared to other instruction by Paul for servants to obey their masters, etc.
People. What are you talking about? Peter was already dead for centuries ....in relation to what?
Me neither.I’m not a Bible scholar
Me to.but to me it seems reasonable that we use some parts of the Bible to interpret other parts.
And the other way around.The old testament is read and interpreted in light of the new testament.
Ditto.Paul’s epistles are read and interpreted in the light of the gospels.
But we also believe that the apostles were "given" their teachings by The Holy Spirit - who is an equal member of the Godhead. So I'm not sure if I can support you here or not. True, Jesus is The Word made Flesh. But equally true that The Holy Spirit by the apostles set the foundations of the church, with Jesus as the cornerstone. The apostles conferred upon Paul his authority, his writings as scripture. That is a difference that Joseph Smith can not match.If there is any apparent conflict between the two then Jesus’ words would have more weight than Paul’s because he is after all the Word incarnate. Christians believe that the Word was made flesh, not paper and ink.
honorentheos wrote:I don't read it, however, as some form of divine protection for government action. I don't read it as condemnation, either. Merely that Paul was telling a group of people in a certain place (and I may be off given the timeline, but I don't recall Rome being a great place to live as a Christian) how to live under that particular government and avoid trouble. In other words, do justly and don't break the laws because God is using the Romans as the sword to punish your breaking of the laws.
I'm also curious now about the statement "there is no power but of God"? Could one interpret this to mean any government that gets established automatically must have the sanction of God for some perhaps unknowable purpose?
Hoops wrote:
People. What are you talking about? Peter was already dead for centuries ....in relation to what?
Harmony seems to think I didn't know Peter is dead, she adroitly educated me.
But the subject at hand is: something about Paul's writing being The Word.
Hoops wrote:I think you're looking for division for division's sake.
That's ironic. A Protestant (I presume) who is worried about division in the Body of Christ.
I guess its a step in the right direction at least. You'll be crossing the Tiber before you know it.