pleonast.com: slave_of_jesus

I have appended below this new post a copy of an old one from November having a thorough-going contextual exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13 in connection with the "perfect" or "complete.". Feel free to supplement this new post with the one below it if you'd like more on 1 Corinthians 13 overall. But I would like your feedback on this poast on 2 Cor 3 in blue. Thanks!

The passage in discussion here is 1 Corinthians 13:12: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
I was tipped off years ago that "face to face" is an allusion to Moses' meetings with God in the OT (Num 12:6-8; Deut 34:10) emphasizing the intimate mode of the coming revelation that Paul is speaking of. I have employed this argument (see the past below this one) hoping to convince others to recognize that this "face to face" encounter which Paul was speaking of in 1 Cor 13:12 is nothing other than an anticipated encounter with the Lord.

After all, it would be strange if Paul had in mind the completion and collection of NT Scripture since:
(1) He himself wrote half the documents and its difficult to see how those documents could significantly improve his own knowledge of revelation, let alone make night and day difference.
(2) Paul didn't say "you will see face to face" but "I will see face to face," and Paul died before the last NT writings were finished. So when would Paul see this book? Never. But if it is being with the Lord, this will happen to him at the last day.
(3) Paul believed that the Lord could come back any time. This would preclude any definite expectation of a collection of documents in decades to come to provide the fulness of knowledge to guide the church for centuries later.

But not too long ago I discovered that I don't have infer Paul is making an allusion with "face to face" to Moses' encounter with God in the Old Testament. As it turns out, Paul makes a similar argument already in his second letter to the Corinthians.

In 2 Cor 3:6-18 Paul makes a contrast between the Law of Moses, a written code with no personal agency to assist believers, and the new covenant which he charaterizes as the "ministry of the Spirit." He argues that the new covenant comes with more glory than the old. Moses would come back from speaking to God with his face shining, but the people stopped seeing this fading glory because he wore a veil. But Paul argues that the believer through the Spirit is able to behold the face of Christ.

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. 2 Cor 3:18 NASB

My RSV doesn't use the word "mirror" so I never saw the connection to 1 Cor 13 before. The root for the word for "mirror" from 1 Cor 13:12 (esoptrou) is recognizeable in the word for "beholding as in a mirror" (katoptrizomenoi) in 2 Cor 3:18.

It is also translated "reflecting" in some translations, making the verb active. So you can translate it to mean that Christians reflect the glory of the Lord, or that Jesus is the mirror through which we see the glory of the Lord. The Greeks thought of mirrors to perform both the function of reflecting you and reflecting at you, so the early church writers gave both meanings simultaneously to the verse (we behold the the glory reflected through the Spirit of Christ and we reflect Christ).

Jesus is called God's "likeness" or "image" (Greek is "eikon" from which we get the word "icon") in the same context in 2 Cor 4:4. Two verses later we learn that God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 4:6

Thus, we have come full circle from 1 Cor 13:12. In discussing the perfect knowledge to come, Paul says we see in a mirror now but will then see face to face. In 2 Cor 3:6-4:6 Paul describes Jesus' face as the mirror, like Moses', that reflects the knowledge God's glory to us and transforms us gradually. But, as Paul holds out in 1 Cor 13:12, the final level of knowledge of God's glory will be had in our own "face to face" encounter with God, not a reflection of the "knowledge" of God's glory through the face of a Moses figure reflecting God's glory. We, greater than Moses' glory, will be changed by Jesus from our lowly body to be like his glorious body. (Phil 3:21)

We will see God's glory for ourselves and share in his glory. "Glory" is a word Paul uses a lot for the final hope, the final transformation. As Paul says in Col 1:27, the Spirit of Christ in the believer is "the hope of glory." Compare this with 1 John 3:2: it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This is why I have concluded that Paul teaches us in 1 Corinthians 13 that this whole age and our existence here under the new covenant is one of seeing in the the mirror dimly the knowledge of God's glory. And any spiritual gift we have is only a lesser degree of glory than that which we are ultimately seeking in the end. But love itself is the highest degree of glory we can attain in the here and now, unchanging in the next age.

PS Remember, there is a post just below this one giving a fuller discussion of 1 Cor 13 if you are interested.


	(81 older comments)
whodoyouthink	And, just to get on my own soapbox, I wish we would understand the full revelation of God to be Jesus Christ, not the scripture. The scripture (whether Hebrew of Greek) points to Christ; Christ does not point to scripture. (Yes, yes I know; Jesus argued from Scipture all the time; "the scripture can't be broken" but "it is these scriptures that testify of me"
whodoyouthink	The above comment sums them all up and makes them more readable and quicker to digest.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	You might find my next planned post on what the "new testament" is and isn't interesting.
whodoyouthink	My understanding of biblical theology has led me to the conclusion that all Scripture must be understood in the person and work of Christ himself. All scripture points to the person of Christ and must be understood with reference to him. The Bible is not naked propositions that can be understood apart from him. I have been heavily influenced by John Bright's "Authority of the OT;" and Goldsworthy's "Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture." I remain firmly convinced the bibliolatry is alive and well - there are too many people worshipping the Bible, rather than understanding it's role as God's way of point to Christ.
whodoyouthink	So, I'm sure I will like your next planned post.
whodoyouthink	sorry, i said "it's" instead of "its." I repent in dust and ashes.
deusvitae	That Christ factors heavily in revelation is beyond doubt. But the corollary between speaking in tongues/prophecy/knowledge as partial and Christ somehow being the completed form it is lacking and not really presented. Those three gifts were present to inform about Christ. The partial to complete would go from the partial revelation about (the will of) Christ to the complete revelation regarding (the will of) Christ. Perhaps the end verses in the chapter have a slightly different referent than vv. 8-10?
deusvitae	We must also remember that the three gifts mentioned in verse 8 involve the work of the Spirit, not Christ Himself. That which is partial of the Spirit would be completed by...the Spirit. I don't see any indication that would show why that which the Spirit provides in partiality in these three gifts would not be completed by Him.
whodoyouthink	I wasn't intending to argue that Christ is the referent. I think the "pefect" has something to do with love - i.e. love never fails; the other gifts are partial, but love is perfect - that's how I understand it (the exact referent is unclear); I don't think the end verses have a slightly different referent; why would Paul be talking about love, start talking about the completed NT canon for three verses, and then go back to love again? Or again, why should we think, contextually speaking, that the "partial" has any different of a referent than the "seeing in a mirror dimly?" Paul even uses the same language in verse 12 "Now I know in part?" Why should the "part" of verse 12 be any different than the "part" of v. 9-10?
whodoyouthink	My point about Christ has more to do with Josh's point about his next post. And it should be noted, that I am not arguing that we should read Christ into everything in some allegorical sense - rather the theology of the OT and NT find their consummation in Christ - that was really my only point about Christ.
whodoyouthink	I also think we need to understand the gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 13 within the wider historical context: Here are the Corinthians holding people with these gifts in high esteem. Paul says, in effect, "No. Love is greater than these gifts. For, even if I speak with the tongues of men but have not love, I am nothing. The gifts are only partial. Love is greater. Love is perfect." That seems to be more in line with the historical situation than, "These gifts are partial, but the completed NT canon is perfect." I just don't see how that would have made much sense to the Corinthians - and I don't see how it makes much sense of those verses.
whodoyouthink	And, as I mentioned in my citations in several comments before, there seems to be alot of evidence that the "face to face" language has an eschatalogical import; Surely Paul wouldn't have said "face to face" without thinking of Moses.
whodoyouthink	correction: not necessarily holding the people in high esteem, but holding the gifts themselves in esteem - not typing fast enough for my brain.
deusvitae	Then why doesn't Paul simply identify love as the perfect thing? Why call it a "thing" when love is feminine? I don't disagree with what Paul's trying to get across-- but I still think that there's something to his identification of these three elements and how he "puts them in their place" so to speak. I don't see how it's a stretch to see how Paul, in an overall discourse on the superiority of love, gets in a little nugget indicating that the very thing which the Corinthians are priding themselves upon will pass away soon.
cowboybrian	the bible is brought to us because of the gifts in the apostles. how could that possibly be the perfect. like i said we dont know fully. if a kid in bible class asks a curious why question or a weird question adults dont make, we usually tell them "well know in heaven" or "god didnt tell us in the bible."
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, I'm gearing up to respond to your comments to me, in fact I might just make a new post summarizing where we are. But before I do, I would like you to note that in 1 Cor 13, unlike prophecy and knowledge, "tongues" are not said to come to some sort of completion or perfection. I'm not sure what that would even entail on either view. What, an ispired complete lexicon of all languages?
whodoyouthink	You're really going to hinge your argument on "to teleiov" being in the neuter? Seriously? "prophetai" "glossai" and "gnosis" are all in the feminine. I can turn the question on you: Why relegate them to a "thing" ("to ek merous") when they are feminine? Paul does the very thing with those feminine gifts; i.e. turning something feminine into the neuter when speaking of "tongues, prophecy, and knowledge" as being "partial." I don't see how your grammatical argument works. It seems to me that Paul very clearly identifies love as the "perfect" thing. Love never fails; tongues, knowledge, and prophecy cease. i.e. - Love never ceases, but tongues, prophecy, and knowledge cease. If we are willing to concede that the "ceasing" feminine Spirit activities are the neuter "part," it seems to only make exegetical sense that Paul is intending to show that the never-ceasing feminine "love" is intended to be identified with the neuter "perfect." Does this understanding not make plain sense of the text? Am I missing something?
whats_his_name56	I'm willing to take all the help I can get...
deusvitae	Granted, Josh, tongues may not come to a "completion," but they are part of that which is partial that will cease when that which is completed comes.
deusvitae	I would not say that Paul turns them into a "thing"; instead, he is speaking about their referent. That which is prophesied and known is what is partial, and it is a "thing". It will be completed in that which is complete. So, if we plug in, say, "revelation" to "that which," we have the partial revelation as manifested through prophesy and knowledge that will be completed with the fullness of the revelation.
deusvitae	That is why love cannot be the "completed thing," because Paul is speaking not about the things themselves (speaking in tongues/prophecy/knowledge), but the greater whole of which the three are now a part (the revelation of God).
whodoyouthink	around and around in circles we go; I am done
autumn_rain	Ya know Josh...you never made up for not making it down to G-burg! ;) Have a good rest of the week!
tntitan	Josh, sorry I haven't stopped by to add to the discussion. I haven't read any of it, but from the amount of discussion, I assume you are wrong. :-P
heatherbrackeen	comment off the point a little i like the fact tht paul uses "face to face" imagery because as someone who heard the voice of god and then was struck blind im sure the idea of seeing face to face was enticing to him.
	login to comment

hide comments

A study of the "perfect, "knowledge," and "love" in 1 Cor 13 in the context of 1 Corinthians

08-08-08 06:33pm EST

Apparently, the Corinthians prided themselves on having "knowledge" revealed to them in the Spirit. And Paul does not deny that they have received authentic knowledge from God. He does, however, chastise them for the way in which they use that knowledge--to elevate themselves. He says in I Cor 8:1-3, he lays out some very important principles which are developed all throughout the letter:

"Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." "Knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him."

Notice some key words here: "knowledge," "love," and "known." Sound familiar? You guessed it, they all show up in I Corinthians 13. The Corinthians were using things they knew inappropriately. They used it pridefully to build up their image and wield it as an instrument to put others in their places. You might think that he is talking about some kind of false knowledge. However, I think it is more that it is knowledge possessed without love. You know many folks in this position (you might be thinking of me at various times). Just take any fellow who is really studied in the Scriptures and whose interpretation of many passages is dead on, but he lacks love. He bashes and thrashes with his knowledge and really discourages others. I think that is more what is going on here.

In the letter of I Corinthians, Paul uses the phrase "Or do you not know that..." a lot of times, and it is not found in any of his other letters except twice in Romans 6. In other words, while the Corinthians know some things, they don't know other things that are also important and relevent. But the difference between Paul and them isn't simply that Paul knows more, but that he is mature enough to use what he does know for the sake of love (cf. I Tim 1:5ff). He says in I Cor 13, So what if I really did know absolutely all mysteries and "all knowledge." Would I be any better off for it if I lacked love? Not at all!

In fact, all propositional/factual knowledge of this world will some day be just as important as the stats on the back of an old baseball card for a guy that nobody today has ever heard of, bent up and rotting away in a dump somewhere. But there is another kind of "knowledge" that Paul treasures more than anything else. This is not factual knowledge, but to "know" in the sense of having a relationship with someone.

Back in I Cor 8:3, Paul had said, "But if one loves God, one is known by him." Remember earlier how we had said that that upon the believer is bestowed the Spirit which brings us into a more intimate relationship with God, in which we received adoption as sons and daughters. The idea of I Cor 8:3 is recapitulated in the John 14:23: "answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (see Holy Spirit in verse 25).

For Paul, to be possessed by the Spirit of God now is to have a downpayment on the future hope of being transformed, not just on the inside "from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18), but to be transformed on the outside in the resurrection body so as to be able to undergo heavenly living (I Cor 15:48-52). But for Paul, the greatest benefit of this resurrection is to know Jesus more fully: "Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil 3:8). And we all know the joy he had over the thought that he would go "be with Christ" (Phil 1:23).

Furthermore, he writes to the Galatians that, "now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God" (Gal 4:9). He had just mentioned at the beginning of the chapter that they had received the Spirit of adoptions, so as to become God's children. That is the way in which are now "known by God" in the fullest sense, for they are already his children ready to be redeemed at the appointed time. However, their mode of existence in the flesh is still less than ideal, but the Holy Spirit living within them is "the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it" (Eph 1:14).

The possession is presumably their resurrection body, in which they will meet the glorified Lord. As he says in Colossians 1:4, "When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory." And Paul tells the Thessalonians to comfort one another because when they meet the Lord in the air after being raised from the dead, "Thus we shall always be with the Lord" (I Thes 4:17). This is the same sentiment (note: "know") in I John 3:1-2: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."

Getting back to I Corinthians 13, it is no accident that a bunch of verses about "love" are jammed right between Paul saying how worthless "knowledge" is without love and how knowledge will pass away but love remain later. I think what I have written so far should be adequate for the person reading I Cor 13:8-13 again to see that "knowledge" is the knowledge given through God's Spirit that pertains to the world in the here and now, whereas the the perfect knowledge is "perfect" or "complete" because it is the true object of what our temporary knowledge combined with love is working toward: our perfect "knowing" of Jesus which is not possible while in the flesh.

"Perfect" knowledge will not simply be the adding up of the pieces of knowledge acquired in the first century. No, the perfect knowledge will make the partial knowledge (propositional data or down payment through Spiritual gifts) pass away and become obsolete entirely. The complete knowledge is a new mode of knowledge. He says that the incomplete mode of knowledge will "pass away" (I Cor 13:10). While grammatically it might be unobvious whether or not it is the "incomplete" that will pass away or the "knowledge" that will pass away," I think all things considered that it is the package that is passing away and replaced with a new and fuller mode of knowledge.

As Paul has primed us in I Cor 8:3: "But if one loves God, one is known by him." Love never fails and will not "pass away" or lose relevence for eternity. And the one who loves God now is "known by God." That is, because the Spirit of God and of adoption dwells within the believer, God knows him fully. Paul says in I Cor 13:12 "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." Surely this idea has to do with being revealed with Jesus in glory, the downpayment being upgraded to inheritance. After all, if he was speaking of the "New Testament," I wonder just what we think Paul could have learned from the New Testament as we have it today that he didn't already know. And when was he going to receive a copy? Never!

Just before that, still in I Cor 13:12, Paul wrote: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." This really seems to be an allusion to the Old Testament where Moses is described as having a most intimate relationship with Yahweh because he spoke to Yahweh "face to face" (Dt 5:4; 34:10). Especially Ex 33:11: "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." In addition, Yahweh says his relationship with Moses is closer than with your run of the mill prophet, because while he speaks to normal prophets in riddles and dreams, he speaks to Moses "mouth to mouth" (Num 12:7-8). It may be true, based on John 1:18 that Moses did not literally see God in all his glory, but he is surely used by Paul as a type for his seeing the Lord in glory, or to have the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2 Cor 4:6) more fully than the temporary knowledge provided through the Spirit.

When Paul speaks of putting away "childish ways" in I Cor 13:11, the childish ways seem to be the old mode of existence as children adopted through the Spirit, but becoming a man is receiving the inheritance and coming to know God fully when appearing with Christ in glory. Alternatively, it could be a reference to the childish way in which the Corinthians are using knowledge, instead of letting the eternal and abiding love guide them, the true fruit of the Spirit.

"Love" abides forever because it carries the believer into eternity, whereas faith and hope wear out their usefulness upon the day of glory. It is this very subject of "hope" that Paul takes up in Romans 8 in the context of final redemption: "For who hopes for what he sees" (v24). And that hope is to be "glorified with Christ" in verse 17. And, indeed, he emphasizes again the enduring nature of "love." He says that nothing can "separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (v39). Not even death. It endures and never fails. That is why it is imperative that it characterize our lives, so that we be "sons of the Most High" now to receive the inheritance later (Luke 6:35-36).


	login to comment

Question for you all about the NT Canon

08-06-08 12:02pm EST

What makes you so sure that the 27 books of the New Testament constitute "the canon" by which God chooses to regulate all Christian practice for this age?

This is different than asking why you think each of the 27 books is inspired. Assuming they are all inspired, how do you know these particular 27 books constitute one whole canon designed to communicate God's will for Christian practice?

This is also different from asking how it came about historically that we have the 27 books we do in our NT. Obviously many early Christians thought all these books were orthodox and inspired. But this doesn't necessarily mean that it is God's intention to use the 27 books that have come down to us as one book communicating all Christian practice.

The NT indicates there were other inspired documents besides the ones we have record of (that is, there is other Scripture we don't have), so merely asserting the inspiration of the 27 NT books we have is not enough to establish that they were intended to function as a unit when put together.

My question is not whether or not all of the inspired writings that we have are authoritative. Just whether or not the way they communicate together is different than how they communicate as individual documents. Do they communicate God's will differently as a collection, a whole, a canon, than they do simply as individual inspired writings?

Again, here, I'm not saying that the inspired writings would disagree, so of course they compliment each other. But one church receiving 1 Corinthians would not think they had received all of God's will for them. Then when they received Romans they would expect that to compliment what they already knew, but they wouldn't then expect that since they had two letters they had the full will of God. So also when they received three, ten, twenty and finally 27. Why think that having 27 individual inspired writings somehow constitutes and exhaustive expression of God's will and that they function to express something together that they wouldn't express merely as individual documents?

Why should we believe the 27 books we have, though inspired, should function together as a unit to express God's will, incomplete without all 27 parts, but as a whole "it" is exhaustive? Are the 27 books after our OT an "it" or simply a "them"?

Do you have any Scripture to support you conclusion?


	(49 older comments)
janedoe	I'll have to ponder it.
deusvitae	I guess that shows some of the deficiencies of our "all-or-nothing" approach. Personally, if such a work were found, I would consider it profitable for reading and understanding. It would no doubt shed greater light about the church in the first century, which would itself be beneficial. But since God did not see fit to preserve it for all saints at all times, I could not in good conscience add it to the "canon." But I don't honestly expect it to happen-- we have lively chats among early Christian authors about works that are inspired or not, and we are in possession of all of them.
tntitan	Kevin, I could be wrong, but I think you underestimate what Josh is getting at. I have made that mistake before.
tntitan	If you read back through Josh's comments, he is clearly questioning whether Scripture - not just the Scripture we have, but Scripture itself - is the only way God intended to communicate his will to us. Take this quote for instance: "You might think that Jesus was promising to lead the apostles into all truth and then, after that was finalized, we would just inherit all truth from them in the form of Scripture. But you don't actually have any Scripture that says that." Something "other than the Bible" is exactly what Josh is talking about. I have asked Josh where he is getting this other truth, but he has not answered yet. Whatever it is will probably explain how Buddhists can be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit without being baptized into Christ.
tntitan	Actually, I'd be pretty surprised if these discussion were not directly linked. Regarding the loving Buddhist who is obviously saved although he rejects Jesus, Josh says "But at least thats not a detrimental loss if God has already found a way to commune with him and know him." This "way God found" would have to be extra-Biblical, so Josh needs to show that the Bible doesn't claim to be the only way God has chosen to communicate his will to us today.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	No Garland, this has nothing to do with that. The "why" behind my questions, which I have attempted not to specify so as not to skew the answers, has to do with how the Scripture does or does not express God's authority, I am not exploring other means of getting authority or salvation. There are many good comments that I would like to speak to and hope to do so soon, but I wouldn't want discussion to stop on account of Garland's guessing on what I'm trying to get at personally. I think not focusing on "Why Josh is asking" is better for a more well-rounded and deeper discussion of these important questions.
tntitan	Fair enough, brother. Carry on...
simon_says	In response to kevin's question, "...is the Bible, as we have it now (as 1 big collection of letters), what God intended us to have?" Yes. I think we can use the same passage I used above in 2 Peter. Peter said God provided us with all the things we need to know on how to find salvation and live a godly life (obviously paraphrasing). I have faith that God wouldn't for thousands of years lead man astray by only allowing part of His plan and instructions to be widely accepted as His Word. If God gave us all things, we have all things. We have no evidence of God giving us what we need to know in any other form but the Word. I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't had any new revelation or a new letter found in hundreds and hundreds of years. How unmerciful would God be to do something like that to His people? Maybe, as I said above, I'm too simple minded and relying too much on my faith that God loves all men and wants all to come to Him for salvation and has provided, as He promised, an easy-to-understand and direct path to Him (e.g. His Word).
kevin	To clarify your understanding of my statement above. If another "letter" were found, I don't think it would "reaveal" any great truth we don't already have. In fact, there are some books in the NT that we could possibly do completely without. While I'm not positive, I would bet there are some letters (probably the shorter ones) that simply "clarify" or shed light on other matters. That is, everything said in these letters can be confirmed or supported from other inspired writings. If these books aren't truly "necessary" to understanding God's love of man, our sinful nature, and our need for Christ, then I don't see why another "book of the Bible" would constitute God being "unmerciful and doing that to his people." A new epistle, might simply clarify or reinforce other ideas. Believe me, I have confidence that my bible, all 66 books of it, has everything that I NEED to be able to be pleasing to God. In fact, I would say that I don't really NEED every single book in the Bible. If I lived in some remote area of the globe and only had a NT, could I be pleasing to God? Absolutely. Does having access to an OT provide amazing insight into what Christ truly did for us. Absolutely. What this comes down to is, we don't HAVE to have Paul's letter to the Laodicians. It did exist though. We do know that. So if it were ever found, what would we do with it. Personally, I wouldn't see it as God "playing a big trick" on humanity and allowing us to be "deceived." It would be God, in His providential way, providing something to mankind that he thought we needed now.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	John, thanks for popping in on my blog. Jesus' reference to the tripartite Old Testament is a good example of how Jews were to be "a people of the book." From the get go in the Law of Moses we are told that the Law was to be written and serve as the foundation of revealed practice for the people. There is no such foundation in the NT. Undoubtedly the apostolic writings were to supplement what had been taught to the churches, but there is no reference to any sort of law of sorts, whether written or verbal. They were taught things and preached the "word", but there is no law ever referred to. And it is certainly not documented if there was one, though I don't think so since its never spoken of. The old law was document centered, the new is not (though supplemented). Correct me if I'm wrong.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Leah, thanks a bunch for coming and participating in the discussion. The more the merrier. I totally concur with 2 Peter 1, that God has provided "all things" pertaining to godliness "through the knowledge of him" [Jesus]. The problem of course is that the verse isn't talking about Scripture, its talking about the knowledge of Jesus that was available from the day of Pentecost onward, right? So my disagreement is not there. The rest of your argument seems to come from how your presuppose that knowledge is given and what that knowledge entails. What does it mean to know Jesus? Paul describes people coming to know Jesus in his earliest writings. Shoot, the Ethiopian Eunuch appears to have come to know Jesus in a matter of minutes or hours according to Acts 8, since Philip "preached Jesus" to him on the spot. Yes, there is a "word" which we should be confident that God has preserved or else we all would be hosed. But my question isn't whether we can still have "all things" pertaining to life and godliness through coming to know Jesus. I don't think that is a terribly lofty project. I'm questioning how the 27 surviving inspired documents function to express God's authority. If we simply add together positive statements from each one, that is different than assuming "everything important" is explained in them. For instance, many people have a side and an argument for or against Christians participating in the army, but the person who claims the Bible in words clearly says is making an incredible statement. Yet you can't say its not an "important" question. All I am getting at here is that the Bible leaves more for the Spirit-filled believer to reason out than the "canonical authority" project brethren have cooked up. When people decide the 27 are more than just 27, they are "a whole," they start saying things about "silence" and making positive arguments from "inferences" that just have to be there since the 27 gives us "all things" the way they define "all things."
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan's statement: "we have lively chats among early Christian authors about works that are inspired or not, and we are in possession of all of them" boggles my mind. For the first several centuries of the church we have numerous and diverse quotes from believers citing lots of intertestamental Jewish literature as Scripture. And we have them refering to those writers among themselves as "inspired" and even using theopneustos from 2 Tim 3:16. Furthermore, Ethan, you are dreaming if you think you can eliminate documents as worthy of being added to the canon because they were not universally available to all believers for all time, since undoubtedly there was significant delay to various churches as to when they received all 27 documents we now have...whether decades or centuries. One church received Mark 10 (or Luke) without an exception clause for diverse while another congregation at a different time received Matthew 19 having an exception clause and who knows how long it was till both communities had both documents. Leah, you speak totally out of presumption when you refer to no new revelation or inspired documents or whatever and how mean God would be.
deusvitae	Why does the statement boggle your mind, Josh? Which document that was even considered to be inspired by anyone do we not have? The Shepherd? We have that-- from the fourth century no less. We have 1 Clement. 1 Enoch. The Apocrypha. So what document is missing that anyone considered inspired, of which we have not a copy and not a clue regarding its contents?
j_a_c_o_b	Josh, your posts always hurt my brain.
jlmanager	Responding to your response to me above, it is true that the Law was written down - but what about the Prophets? How does, say, Obadiah relate to the Jewish law, other than as an example of God's judgement against Edom for failing to "love thy neighbor as thyself"? While written against a different people, it carries the same theme and exemplifies the Law, and Jesus gave it the same weight. Peter wrote (2 Pet. 1) that he intended to "remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have" and that "I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things". The Apostles taught as Jesus had commanded them, and we have both the Gospel that they preached written from 4 perspectives, the history of the early church, and the writings, mostly from Apostles, that serve both to remind of principles that can be traced back to the Gospels and to rebuke those who were not holding "to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thes. 2:15). By seeing what they corrected, commanded, etc., in essence we get the picture of what those traditions were.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, I guess I was speaking of documents referred to in the NT by Paul, such as in 1 Cor 5:9, Philippians 3, the "letter to the Laodiceans" in mentioned in Colossians, potentially 2 Cor 1, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1f suggests that Paul was a known letter writer already at that time (presumably his second letter we have on file). Are you saying that none of these were inspired? Or that the rest of the twelve probably never wrote anything? With all the first century prophets we hear of no more than 27 inspired documents were written?
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Brother John, thanks again for your response. Obadiah would not be adding to the Law, he was a preacher of the Law. So also with the documents we see in the NT. They are supplemental in that way, not foundational. The foundation of the NT is not a legal code that was enumerated at some point that we just down happen to have recorded an have to infer from various occassional letters. Rather, the foundation of the new covenant was the Holy Spirit. Paul makes exactly this contrast in 2 Corinthians 3. A good read. With regard to the written exhortations and reminders of the apostles, again my post is not about whether the NT writings we have are inspired, authoritative, or providentially preserved for our profit. My post is about the nature of God's intention with what has been providentially preserved. Do they function together as a unit to enumerate the Law? And, as some say, to provide us with every important to know about God's will? Or does it more modestly present us with what we need to know to enter Christ and allow our Spirit-filled judgment to hash out the rest? With some apostolic training wheels via scattered letters? I contend that the "New Testament" (27 documents) is not the "new covenant" as is assumed by many ("testament" being the word used in Hebrews to refer to the covanent). And the difference is important, me thinks.
deusvitae	Yet, Josh, none of those are under discussion in early patristic works.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I'm sorry, Ethan. I think I was/am confused about what you were saying.
smiley_mcbutterbutt	I don't mind at all.
deusvitae	What I am saying is that the likelihood of ever finding anything that could be considered "inspired" is next to nil, considering that all the documents concerning which discussion existed regarding their inspiration in the period after the New Testament are known and in our possession.
chooselove	dude. it's cool. i'll just email you :)
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Ethan, so are you including any post-NT documents as inspired or no?
browneyedpeas	Hey, remember that shampoo you left when you moved from Tampa? No, you probably don't, and I don't blame you. Well, the widow's oil is still going strong...! I don't understand it...it's incredible! How much did you pay for the neverending shampoo?
deusvitae	I don't think any are, but they are part of the "discussion" that existed in the second/third centuries.
	login to comment

hide comments

New Improved playlist

08-06-08 11:53am EST

(I like to listen to it from other people's computers when I'm away from my own. This time no autoplay)

How is love spelled?

08-03-08 09:20pm EST

T-I-M-E


sarahinthesun	sooo.. are you saying your primary "love language" is quality time? Mine is time and gifts. I love Christmas, haha.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	Actually, its not. I heard someone say that today and it struck me as being generally true. Its hard to be a servant without giving your time away. Some people are just rich, and thats great, but most of the time "love" is spelled with T-I-M-E.
slave_of_jesus_jdb	In fact, some people give money so they don't have to give time. Of course, thats better than many who give little time or money to others :/
singforjoy	Who's the artist of that song? It's good.
janedoe	I try to pretend like time doesn't exist but it doesn't always work...
Gods_Country_Girl	Yes I so agree! Nick & I live 5 hrs away from one another, so our time together is very special to us both.. :)
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I guess, but I didn't mean spending time with those with whom we already long to spend time with. I mean the sacrifice of time.
rapunzel	I think our country has reached such a prosperous point that time is more valuable than money. I think that's why so many different churches (speaking generally) want to support halfway houses, etc., etc., because the members can feel like they're helping the poor. And we want to support multiple preachers so we don't feel like we have to go out and teach.
rapunzel	It extends to the home, too--parents spend money on their kids to make up for not being around them. It's really kind of sad.
fullofgrace	but it took us time to earn that money...so....it's still our time we're giving...in my humble opinion... frankly, sometimes people need a strong pair of arms to help them move, sometimes they need a gentle voice to soothe them in times of distress, sometimes they need a good kick in the rear, sometimes they need financial assistance.... i think that each situation can be assessed with an open heart and the most helpful solution found for the immediate need regardless of its nature. i do understand the sentiment that people can substitute things or money to avoid getting involved, and granted, that's not always best....but sometimes people just need money more than they need the well intentioned involvement and i don't think someone should feel not-as-good-as when they offer financial gifts when appropriate. p.s. i'm totally not knocking any previous comments...just participating in the conversation with my thoughts..
slave_of_jesus_jdb	I certainly didn't mean to say that giving money at the right time isn't as important or helpful as spending time. Again, there is a lot of people who give little time or money.
angelad	I didn't know that you know my brother and sister in law Zac and Katey. This sure is a small worldd.
j_a_c_o_b	Jacob is confused
nick_katie	Wow! Ok I still thought you were moving to TX (hence why we're leaving TX... ;-) JUST JOKING, of course! But that's cool about IN. We WILL be closer. 5-6 hours isn't bad. Are you going to be going to Purdue or do you know yet. I did read your post about the job.
mayflower	I'm with you on the TIME thing, brother.
sheofgod	aww...i just read your last post. i'll pray for you josh:)
angelad	Their number is six five one seven zero seven three zero three zero. I know they would love to hear from you.
	login to comment

hide comments

5 >> 25 >> >>>