An Inconsistent Interpretational Hermeneutic

[Mellontes]

why must one assume that Paul had the entire mind of God when he was writing his letters? he even admits in some that he did not. that is not to say his writings are not inspired, but like I said I think his letters are allowed to have language of hope or expectation (but not certainty) and not lose their inspiration.

i am not sure what I am missing about this, specifically.

TK

When Paul admits his lack of knowledge we are aware of it. But when he offers no such lack then he is to be believed. Right? Tell me, where (what exact Scriptures) does Paul offer his admittance of lack of knowledge and what relationship is it to the context? I am curious, but can't be bothered to read all of his epistles to guess at what you are getting at. Hope you understand. It would really help if you included Scriptural support for your assertions (even though they may be correct) so we don't have to constantly ask where the source it. It makes communication better and faster...

Blessings, Mellontes

[Allyn]

why must one assume that Paul had the entire mind of God when he was writing his letters? he even admits in some that he did not. that is not to say his writings are not inspired, but like I said I think his letters are allowed to have language of hope or expectation (but not certainty) and not lose their inspiration.

i am not sure what I am missing about this, specifically.

TK

With all due respect and brotherly love, TK, this is the kind of comment that would put the whole NT in question.

[TK]

why must one assume that Paul had the entire mind of God when he was writing his letters? he even admits in some that he did not. that is not to say his writings are not inspired, but like I said I think his letters are allowed to have language of hope or expectation (but not certainty) and not lose their inspiration.

i am not sure what I am missing about this, specifically.

TK

With all due respect and brotherly love, TK, this is the kind of comment that would put the whole NT in question.

well, i certainly dont want to do that. i guess my point is this: it seems clear when Paul is espousing a certain doctrine. but when he is making personal encouraging comments to a specific church, i am not sure if this is espousing doctrine. mellontes is saying that since paul was making comments to the thessalonians about christ's return, it was done to encourage them. i certainly dont disagree with that. but many times, even in our own daily lives, we may say encouraging things to people in order to keep their hopes up. not that we are lying to them, we may be honestly expressing our true hope. e.g.: "dont worry, everything will be all right." it may or may not be.

look at it this way- are there not some things in paul's epistles that are simply statements and not doctrine? of course- like when he asked timothy (i think) to bring his parchments and papers.

of course, i may totally off base. maybe someone else can chime in who may have some idea what i am talking about.

but for heavens sakes i dont mean to say anything heretical about Paul or the authenticity or inspiration of the letters we have. i am simply saying that maybe we dont fully understand how every line of paul's letters are to be taken. that doesnt sound too good either, but it's the best i can do at the moment.

as far as specific examples, there are too many to list out here.

TK

[Conquest]

Mell,

I'm a bit confused, is it your position that the 2nd Coming in 70AD only applied to those churches in Thessalonica? Do you think the church in Rome have been beneficiary of the 2nd Coming in 70AD as well?

Conquest

Paul is writing to the church at Thessalonica for their specific needs. The second appearing applied to all churches. Just as Paul wrote to other churches handling their situations and talked about the second coming to them as well. I suppose it would have been a lot easier to have just written one epistle entitled "To all the churches in the first century" and then address the specific concerns to each smaller assembly in a similar fashion that John addressed to the seven first century churches in Asia...but that would have meant that all the churches would have received one answer at one specific monent in time - and no doubt some answers would have been too late to provide any relief. Paul established these churches in different time frames and wrote to them in different time frames...

I'm curious, how do you detemine the difference between their "special" needs and what would apply to all churches? Where does Paul address the 2nd Coming to the church at Rome? Or the Church in Galatia?

Conquest

[Mellontes]

Mell,

I'm a bit confused, is it your position that the 2nd Coming in 70AD only applied to those churches in Thessalonica? Do you think the church in Rome have been beneficiary of the 2nd Coming in 70AD as well?

Conquest

Paul is writing to the church at Thessalonica for their specific needs. The second appearing applied to all churches. Just as Paul wrote to other churches handling their situations and talked about the second coming to them as well. I suppose it would have been a lot easier to have just written one epistle entitled "To all the churches in the first century" and then address the specific concerns to each smaller assembly in a similar fashion that John addressed to the seven first century churches in Asia...but that would have meant that all the churches would have received one answer at one specific monent in time - and no doubt some answers would have been too late to provide any relief. Paul established these churches in different time frames and wrote to them in different time frames...

I'm curious, how do you detemine the difference between their "special" needs and what would apply to all churches? Where does Paul address the 2nd Coming to the church at Rome? Or the Church in Galatia?

Conquest

Fair enough. May I consider events that concern itself with the second coming to be evidence that he wrote about it? I hope you are willing to respect the time element of these verses, especially Romans 16:20 because not many people like this verse and its timing...

Church at Rome:

Romans 8:13 (mello)
Romans 8:18 (mello)
Romans 13:11-12
Romans 16:20

Church at Galatia:

Hmmm, this was tougher...You made me read all of the letter. Too bad, I guess. I probably read more Scripture just doing that than most Christians read in an entire week! I guess I am just going to have to rely upon Peter to give me the answer: 2 Peter 3:15-16 (the "these things" Peter mentioned were pointing back to 2 Peter 3:10 which I am pretty sure is all about the second coming...

Hope that suffices...

[Conquest]

Paul is writing to the church at Thessalonica for their specific needs. The second appearing applied to all churches. Just as Paul wrote to other churches handling their situations and talked about the second coming to them as well. I suppose it would have been a lot easier to have just written one epistle entitled "To all the churches in the first century" and then address the specific concerns to each smaller assembly in a similar fashion that John addressed to the seven first century churches in Asia...but that would have meant that all the churches would have received one answer at one specific monent in time - and no doubt some answers would have been too late to provide any relief. Paul established these churches in different time frames and wrote to them in different time frames...

I'm curious, how do you detemine the difference between their "special" needs and what would apply to all churches? Where does Paul address the 2nd Coming to the church at Rome? Or the Church in Galatia?

Conquest[/quote]

Fair enough. May I consider events that concern itself with the second coming to be evidence that he wrote about it? I hope you are willing to respect the time element of these verses, especially Romans 16:20 because not many people like this verse and its timing...

Church at Rome:

Romans 8:13 (mello)
Romans 8:18 (mello)
Romans 13:11-12
Romans 16:20

Church at Galatia:

Hmmm, this was tougher...You made me read all of the letter. Too bad, I guess. I probably read more Scripture just doing that than most Christians read in an entire week! I guess I am just going to have to rely upon Peter to give me the answer: 2 Peter 3:15-16 (the "these things" Peter mentioned were pointing back to 2 Peter 3:10 which I am pretty sure is all about the second coming...

Hope that suffices...[/quote]

I don't understand how the passages in Romans address the 2nd Coming of Christ, nor how the term, "mello" you place in parenthesis impacts the issue. Nor, do I understand how Peter makes your point, I thought your argument was that the stuff in the letters to the churches in Thessalonica was specifically written to and for them. I really don’t understand what you mean, “I hope you are willing to respect the time element of these verses”, I’m more interested in attempting to understand the basis for your argument, how you determine what is and is not specifically intended for that given church.

Conquest

[Allyn]

I don't understand how the passages in Romans address the 2nd Coming of Christ, nor how the term, "mello" you place in parenthesis impacts the issue. Nor, do I understand how Peter makes your point, I thought your argument was that the stuff in the letters to the churches in Thessalonica was specifically written to and for them. I really don’t understand what you mean, “I hope you are willing to respect the time element of these verses”, I’m more interested in attempting to understand the basis for your argument, how you determine what is and is not specifically intended for that given church.

Conquest

Hi Conquest,

Mello is a very important Greek word in Scripture because it means "about to" . So it really aids in determining the time element for the first century people. I should have used "mello" on my kids more because they knew exactly what I meant when I would say I am about to come over there.

[Conquest]

I don't understand how the passages in Romans address the 2nd Coming of Christ, nor how the term, "mello" you place in parenthesis impacts the issue. Nor, do I understand how Peter makes your point, I thought your argument was that the stuff in the letters to the churches in Thessalonica was specifically written to and for them. I really don’t understand what you mean, “I hope you are willing to respect the time element of these verses”, I’m more interested in attempting to understand the basis for your argument, how you determine what is and is not specifically intended for that given church.

Conquest

Hi Conquest,

Mello is a very important Greek word in Scripture because it means "about to" . So it really aids in determining the time element for the first century people. I should have used "mello" on my kids more because they knew exactly what I meant when I would say I am about to come over there.

Thanks, but I’m not sure how that answers the question I asked. However, what you state is interesting; I wonder why none of the verses cited that I guess contain the word "mello", Ro 8:11 & 13 offer the same meaning you suggest the word means? Neither verse 11 or verse 13 has the phrase, “about to” contained in it. Do you have any thoughts on why that is?

Conquest

[Mellontes]

Hi Conquest,

Mello is a very important Greek word in Scripture because it means "about to" . So it really aids in determining the time element for the first century people. I should have used "mello" on my kids more because they knew exactly what I meant when I would say I am about to come over there.

Thanks, but I’m not sure how that answers the question I asked. However, what you state is interesting; I wonder why none of the verses cited that I guess contain the word "mello", Ro 8:11 & 13 offer the same meaning you suggest the word means? Neither verse 11 or verse 13 has the phrase, “about to” contained in it. Do you have any thoughts on why that is?

Conquest

Conquest, please don't consider me rude in what I am "about to" say. Allyn just told you that ii is an important GREEK word. This is why you won't find it in the ENGLISH text. The futurists who did the translating often left the Greek rendering of "mello" as a very hazy relation to the future, such as "will," "shall," "would," or "should." I believe there are more than 30 uses of "mello" in regards to end-time events...

Matthew 3:7, Matthew 12:32, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:4 (I really that one), Luke 3:7, Luke 13:9, Luke 21:7 (another favorite), Luke 21:36, Acts 17:31, Acts 23:3, Acts 24:15 (another great one), Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 2:17, 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:19, 2 Timothy 4:1 (another doozy), Hebrews 1:14 (all the Hebrews references are really great especially when combined with the understanding of Hebrews 10:25 and 10:37), Hebrews 2:5, Hebrews 6:5, Hebrews 9:11, Hebrews 10:1, Hebrews 10:27, Hebrews 13:14, James 2:12, 1 Peter 5:1, Revelation 1:19 (these are like the Hebrew verses in that the time factor had already been established in Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 and all enclosed in the same the time frame of Revelation 22:6 and 22:10), Revelation 3:2, Revelation 3:16, Revelation 6:11, Revelation 17:8.

Is it any wonder why the difficulty in seeing the nearness of the Lord's Parousia has been enhanced by a biased rendering of these very meaningful words?

I hope you will be willing to do the study, because that is the only way you will ever find out the truth - unless of course you prefer to hire some one to do the studying for you, which is exactly the case in most of Christianity...

Blessings, Mellontes