What's up with this......thus saith Paul?

[Georges]

Came across this passage by Paul this morning.....does Paul oppose Jesus in Corinthians? Surely I'm misreading this....


Jesus said.....

Mar 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


But Paul says.......

1Cr 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

1Cr 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.


Is Paul usurping Jesus authority? Hmmmm, shouldn't we be witnessing to sinners?

 

[Imagican]

Oftentimes one takes the words of the Bible literal. This is sometimes to be preferred, but other times one must take the entire Bible into consideration to understand the meaning behind certain passages.

I believe the misunderstanding here lies in this: There is NOTHING wrong with offering testimony to those that are lost. This would include eating or socializing in any number of ways. But, only so long as those that one is offering testimony to are open and willing to listen. As any Christian well knows, there are some that will NOT hear or accept the Word regardless of how it is offered. These are those that have openly refected the Word. With this in mind, it is much easier to understand what Paul offers. Christ had a meal with Matthew a tax collector. Considered at the time to be unworthy of the Word. But look what Christ accomplished by spending His time with this 'sinner'. A convert. The important thing is to be able to discern 'who' is worthy of intimacy concerning the Word and 'who' may not be.

There is a major difference between sitting to a meal with those that may be willing to listen to ones testimony and sitting to a meal with those that obviously have 'turned their backs' intentionally without any possibility of conforming. In other words, I believe what Paul is offering is that we should not indiscriminately 'hang out' with sinners. To dine with those that 'need' the Word and are susceptible to it, nothing wrong here. But to dine or 'hang out' with sinners that have openly refused the Word and turned their backs on God is wrong. The key here is to be able to discern the difference. There are certainly those that aren't even aware that they are sinners and lost, and then there are those that 'choose' to live this way. Intentionally turning their backs on God and refusing to conform regardless of anything offered. With these, one should not even sit and eat.

 

[Imagican]

George,

If nothing else, I must admit that you are persistent. Paul is our source for over half of the NT. If you reject him, you basically reject the Bible as it has been offered. Your choice of course, but if this is the case, then I propose that you reject Christianity and are here simply to try offer doubt to those that are not strong in their faith. Shame, shame my friend.

 

[Georges]

George,

If nothing else, I must admit that you are persistent.

Just looking for the truth my friend.....

Paul is our source for over half of the NT.

That may be the problem with Christianity.....Too much Paul and not enough Jesus.....

If you reject him, you basically reject the Bible as it has been offered.

Not so my friend....I don't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water. I do not reject the OT....I guardedly read the NT...as being an edited manuscript (except for Revelation). I scrutenize Paul very carefully as of late....As far as the NT...shoot the canon wasn't finalized until several hundred years AD.....how many additions and subtractions....how many editings....There are known edits in the NT books.


Your choice of course, but if this is the case, then I propose that you reject Christianity and are here simply to try offer doubt to those that are not strong in their faith.

Not so my friend....however, I am more inclined to reject Pauline Christianity in favor of Messianic Christianity...

Shame, shame my friend.

Keep it for yourself ....my friend.

Thanks for the response...

 

[NRoof]

Is Paul usurping Jesus authority? Hmmmm, shouldn't we be witnessing to sinners?

Bottom line we should be witnessing to sinners.
That being said, the answer to your question about Paul is No.

Matthew 18
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

So what is Paul saying this passage?

1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

The key message here is we are dealing with someone who is claiming to be a follower of Christ but the fruits of his life do not bear witness to this.

So here is my understanding of what Paul is saying:
He is not saying we shouldn’t witness to this person but that they should be separated from the body of believers and treated as a heathen and a tax collector. This is right in line with what Jesus said.

Why should this person be separated from the body?
You may have heard the expression 1 rotten apple spoils the entire bunch. The same is true with believers. This person needed to be separated for the health of the rest of the believers. The person also needs to be separated from the body so they personally feel the absence from the body and seek God to become part of the body again.

I have personally witnessed what happens when a church doesn’t follow Gods word on this.

I knew a lady who wanted a divorce from her husband and made him out to be pure evil (for lack of a better way to put it). During this time she started having an affair. The church leaders did little to nothing (from my perspective) about the situation. I latterly saw the congregation split in half over this with half supporting her decision and making allowances for the adulteress relationship.
Had God’s word been followed and she was removed from the body of believers the following may or would have happened.
1) She wouldn’t have been able to split the body
2) She would have felt the separation and loss of fellowship and reconsidered her position.
To put this story in perspective it is my belief based on conversations with her and her husband at the time that she wanted out of the marriage simply because she was board and wanted a change.

 

[NRoof]

One additional thing to remember.
When believers got together in Paul's time they would gather at a house and they would fellowship, study and share a meal. This is what Paul is saying not to allow these individual to do.

 

[Imagican]

George,

If nothing else, I must admit that you are persistent.

Just looking for the truth my friend.....

Paul is our source for over half of the NT.

That may be the problem with Christianity.....Too much Paul and not enough Jesus.....

If you reject him, you basically reject the Bible as it has been offered.

Not so my friend....I don't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water. I do not reject the OT....I guardedly read the NT...as being an edited manuscript (except for Revelation). I scrutenize Paul very carefully as of late....As far as the NT...shoot the canon wasn't finalized until several hundred years AD.....how many additions and subtractions....how many editings....There are known edits in the NT books.


Your choice of course, but if this is the case, then I propose that you reject Christianity and are here simply to try offer doubt to those that are not strong in their faith.

Not so my friend....however, I am more inclined to reject Pauline Christianity in favor of Messianic Christianity...

Shame, shame my friend.

Keep it for yourself ....my friend.

Thanks for the response...

You indicate that you believe that God in incapable of preserving His Word. And that Paul was chosen by Christ to spread His Word. Dangerous ground my friend. If your way is the 'truth' then I guess we could all just write our own Bibles containing whatever we choose to add or delete.

Man's hand has certainly been involved with the creation of the Bible. But from your perspective, God is completely unable to influence the Word that He has offered to mankind.

And I maintain that the Bible is only the beginning of understanding. One is to learn from it but it is NOT God Himself. Those that truly seek the truth through the Spirit will certainly be led to understand ANY and EVERYTHING that is contained within the Word. If there are mistakes or misleading statements, the Spirit will lead one to understanding.

I really don't believe that there are any mistakes or additions to the Bible that are capable of fouling the hearts and minds of those that are truly saved. Like any other writings, it can certainly be twisted and altered by interpretation, but this doesn't change that it is true. It only proves that reading with ones mind without the guidance of the Spirit is NOT the way in which one learns and understands the will of God.

 

[Collier]

Here is my take on these two passages.Mark 2:16-17 and I Corinthians 5:9-11 are two different circumstances. In Mark 2, Jesus is teaching us that even the worst of sinners are worth the effort to teach. He came to save them as well as any devout person.In the Cor. passage, Paul was addressing a problem within the church there. They were treating and accepting those who were living contrary to God's will as though they were doing nothing wrong. A professed Christian who lives as a fornicator or covetous, etc. is not to be treated as though they are Christians.So the difference is that Jesus was eating with these people in an effort to show they are worthy of His love and sacrifice, while Paul was showing that we are not to allow "Christians" to live as they want and still call them brother.A good study on disfellowshipping would be helpful to understand Paul's intentions here in I Cor.

 

[Georges]

You indicate that you believe that God in incapable of preserving His Word.

God gave his word to the Jews in the form of the OT....The scribes knowing the implications of misliterating scriptures counted every letter, not only that but had a witness who would count also.....So the OT is fairly pristine. The NT is a different matter.....You can look up the 3 most famous additions for yourself....1. The end of Mark 2. The Matthew 28:19 3. The Johanine comma 1 John 5:7-8. These are known additions....so you tell me. How many versions of the Bible are out there?

And that Paul was chosen by Christ to spread His Word.

According to Paul.........witnesses? Why is his version of Christianity different than the other Apostles?

Dangerous ground my friend. If your way is the 'truth' then I guess we could all just write our own Bibles containing whatever we choose to add or delete.

You've got it backwards my friend....if the NT agrees with the OT great....if not.......


Man's hand has certainly been involved with the creation of the Bible. But from your perspective, God is completely unable to influence the Word that He has offered to mankind.

I never said that....God has the power to do what ever he chooses, including writting the book in stone and setting it here and now....Again, how many versions do we need? Why does God allow all of the different versions to exsist?

And I maintain that the Bible is only the beginning of understanding. One is to learn from it but it is NOT God Himself. Those that truly seek the truth through the Spirit will certainly be led to understand ANY and EVERYTHING that is contained within the Word. If there are mistakes or misleading statements, the Spirit will lead one to understanding.

Does that include the additions I've listed above?.....

I really don't believe that there are any mistakes or additions to the Bible that are capable of fouling the hearts and minds of those that are truly saved.

Except in the fact that 2 of the 3 I've listed are Trinitarian additions....I would say that is a major fudge factor.....Funny how those 2 are the only 2 verses in the Bible that mention all three personalities in the same verse...

Like any other writings, it can certainly be twisted and altered by interpretation, but this doesn't change that it is true.

Agreed...if the text is pure....

It only proves that reading with ones mind without the guidance of the Spirit is NOT the way in which one learns and understands the will of God.

Ima.......come on.....Time, distance, culture, language, deception......all have played part in the NT as we have it today.

 

[Georges]

Here is my take on these two passages.Mark 2:16-17 and I Corinthians 5:9-11 are two different circumstances. In Mark 2, Jesus is teaching us that even the worst of sinners are worth the effort to teach. He came to save them as well as any devout person.In the Cor. passage, Paul was addressing a problem within the church there. They were treating and accepting those who were living contrary to God's will as though they were doing nothing wrong. A professed Christian who lives as a fornicator or covetous, etc. is not to be treated as though they are Christians.So the difference is that Jesus was eating with these people in an effort to show they are worthy of His love and sacrifice, while Paul was showing that we are not to allow "Christians" to live as they want and still call them brother.A good study on disfellowshipping would be helpful to understand Paul's intentions here in I Cor.

Fair enough....and a good point....

But consider this......I would rather have Jesus come and sit with me (a sinner) and eat and preach, rather than be kicked out of fellowship with indifference. The Church body is made up of sinners......not righteous people is it not? Are we not to associate with anyone? Church would be full of crickets, no?

Paul says.....turn your back on them.....I say no....IMHO.

 

[Collier]

Hello Georges! Hope all is well with you.You wrote:

But consider this......I would rather have Jesus come and sit with me (a sinner) and eat and preach, rather than be kicked out of fellowship with indifference. The Church body is made up of sinners......not righteous people is it not? Are we not to associate with anyone? Church would be full of crickets, no?

Paul says.....turn your back on them.....I say no....IMHO.

The difference is that Jesus came to eat with those who were not a part of the kingdom where as Paul is addressing those that are. Granted we are all sinners but the church is made up of those sinners who have had their sins cleansed by the blood of Christ. So in that sense they are righteous.We must associate with others but Paul is saying to the Corinthians that they are not to just act like everything is fine with Christians living like the world. II Thes. 3:6 says, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." This is exactly what the Corinthians were failing to do.

 

[Georges]

Hello Georges! Hope all is well with you.You wrote:

But consider this......I would rather have Jesus come and sit with me (a sinner) and eat and preach, rather than be kicked out of fellowship with indifference. The Church body is made up of sinners......not righteous people is it not? Are we not to associate with anyone? Church would be full of crickets, no?

Paul says.....turn your back on them.....I say no....IMHO.

The difference is that Jesus came to eat with those who were not a part of the kingdom where as Paul is addressing those that are. Granted we are all sinners but the church is made up of those sinners who have had their sins cleansed by the blood of Christ.

I hear what you are saying (or written) and being a former Lutheran you are not telling me anything I haven't heard (or believed). Still believer's do sin (knowingly) and are constantly forgiven. I'm not following the reasoning of kicking someone out of the Church body for sins multitudes of believers commit......I think Paul is imposing his own rule......

So in that sense they are righteous.We must associate with others but Paul is saying to the Corinthians that they are not to just act like everything is fine with Christians living like the world. II Thes. 3:6 says, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." This is exactly what the Corinthians were failing to do.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I'm (kinda) with Georges on this one. I too feel that Paul is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus at times and, therefore, suspect. I could be wrong on this (it wouldn't be the first time!) but Paul seems to have become a law unto himself. He has become the mentor for untold thousands of Christians ...even to the exclusion of Jesus Himself, I feel.

If we were to check the scriptures that are used to confirm or refute a particular argument on this forum, you can almost bet money that the texts used will be those of Paul, even if they might appear to be ambiguous or/and contrary to those of Jesus. I sometimes sense an arrogance in Paul, i.e. "I have all the answers and the rest of you are absolutely clueless plebs," that makes me feel uncomfortable. Have any of you ever wondered where all of Paul's vast knowledge of 'everything' suddenly came from? God? Well, okay. I guess we can assume that.

Is questioning some of the writings of Paul REALLY 'walking on dangerous ground'? Or is it, perhaps, a healthy thing to do?

 

[Georges]

I'm (kinda) with Georges on this one. I too feel that Paul is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus at times and, therefore, suspect. I could be wrong on this (it wouldn't be the first time!) but Paul seems to have become a law unto himself. He has become the mentor for untold thousands of Christians ...even to the exclusion of Jesus Himself, I feel.

If we were to check the scriptures that are used to confirm or refute a particular argument on this forum, you can almost bet money that the texts used will be those of Paul, even if they might appear to be ambiguous or/and contrary to those of Jesus. I sometimes sense an arrogance in Paul, i.e. "I have all the answers and the rest of you are absolutely clueless plebs," that makes me feel uncomfortable. Have any of you ever wondered where all of Paul's vast knowledge of 'everything' suddenly came from? God? Well, okay. I guess we can assume that.

Is questioning some of the writings of Paul REALLY 'walking on dangerous ground'? Or is it, perhaps, a healthy thing to do?

That's all I'm saying......