[quote]pookie wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Heh Pookie, what’s up dude. You must have a special program that regularly searches for this type of thread.
Yeah, you really need a program to find religious discussion on T-Nation… it so seldom happens. 
Sorry though, as is typical, you are just picking a fight, and haven’t really studied the scripture as I have indicated is neccessary.
It appears to me that until I come around to your way of seeing it, that answer will always apply. Any contradiction or objection or question I raise about it will be answered with: You need to study it more.
1Cor 7:12 is in contrast to 1Cor7:10 which states:
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.
Paul is saying here that the Lord Jesus has made a direct pronouncement on this, which is found at Mat 5:32. In 1Cor 7:12, he is not saying his own pronouncement is not inspired, only that the Lord Jesus has no direct statement on it. (I can also tell you why there isn’t, but you don’t deserve the help at this point.) 1Cor7:25 would be the same idea.
I fail to see what that changes. Paul is saying that on some particular subject, he has no pronouncement from the Lord, so instead he gives what he thinks is the correct course of action. Would he need to explicitly give this disclaimer if he knew his view was “inspired?” Everywhere else, no such claim is made; it is assumed that all pronouncement are, in fact, insipired. Here, he explicitly makes it known that he speaks, not the Lord, seemingly indicating that he’s had no divine inspiration on the subject.
Your textual interpration skills are very poor pookie, you ignored a relevant passage just a few lines away. Shame on you.
Possible. But no matter how much I read what comes before or after that passage, I can’t find a way for Paul’s declaration to seem “inspired” when Paul explicitly states that he speaks, not the Lord in one case; and in the other that he has “no commandment of the Lord.”
Why say those things if his pronouncements are inspired? If he had divine inspiration, he’d simply state the Lord’s will, as he knew it.
[/quote]
In fact, I don’t even know you pookie, although your attitude doesn’t quite seem to be that of an unbiased skeptic. Maybe I’m wrong though, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to answer your question.
As far as your warts go, there are some good OTC meds for that, just look at Walgreens, I won’t concern myself with them. The part about the special program was a joke of course, relax.
As far as Paul’s inspiration goes, the exact term is only used once in the whole bible, being 2Tim3:16 which I already pointed out. So, if you insist on that word only, then none of the NT writers are inspired. Paul does claim to be an Apostle “by the will of God”, and the “commandment of God”. He uses these phrases several times as part of the salutation of several of his epistles. It is a clear enough claim for me to accept his writings as inspired.
As far as the 2 verses in 1Cor7 go, I don’t know why you insist on ignoring the context, other than in doing so you can maintain your opinion that the bible has contradictions. In textual interpretation of this type, whether it be the bible or Shakespeare, to ignore the context is just ignorant. Why do you think it’s correct to do so?