Ephesians 1: 1 Commentary

V. James: Roland G is a solid ‘bible believer’. I read a lot of Roland’s posts. Roland and I disagree on everything but I still learn from him. And I am learning a lot from you as well, V. James.

THE BIBLE, CREEDS AND THE POPE ARE INFALLIBLE
The bible and the church creeds are all accepted as doctrine in 90% of Christendom. A man called ‘Pope’ is the infallable leader of 50% of Christendom.

Constantine’s henchmen created a ‘cannon’ or bible in the 4th century. Other texts were driven out of existence. There were over 50 different Gospels in circulation at the time the New Testament was compiled. Since the persons choosing the canon used only books that were, more or less, harmonious, it is reasonable to conclude that the results would be… harmonious books!

GNOSTIC WRITINGS PRE-DATE GOSPELS
Recent discoveries, like the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts, will never gain any attention amongst ‘bible believers’. According to Wicipedia, the Nag Hammandi discoveries date back to the first century. Gnostic writings preceded the Gospels according to Wicipedia. “80 CE for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas has been proposed.” Cf. Nag Hammadi library on Wicipedia.

The Gnostics did exist. The evidence for that is Paul fought them fiercely throughout the new testament.

WAS EPHESIANS A FORGERY? ONLY 7 AUTHENTIC LETTERS?
A reply to Hans-Peter’s post #3. All Encyclopedias say “Traditionally attributed to Paul, but it is doubted by many modern scholars, because of the extreme differences of tone, vocabulary, and writing style as compared to authentic letters of Paul”.

Using my 1965 Encyclopedia Britannia to research the books of the bible it is true what Hans-Peter is saying.

“Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon,”

The Encyclopedia articles are written by true bible scholars. That is what they do for a living and they are true researchers.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/5/2011 07:37 am

@Roland
It is an effing letter written by Saul OF TARSUS…who named himself Paul.
You can be quite impossible. How obtuse are you? Or, are you trying to raise my ire?

By V. James (wrote 132 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/5/2011 06:12 am

V. James (Post #1) “This verse was written by Saul himself.”

You make many unsubstantiated claims. What proof do you have this verse was written by Saul himself?

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/5/2011 01:16 am

This verse was written by Saul himself.
OF COURSE I deny this verse.
I knew since childhood the bible is not flawless, because it is not entirely the words of the prophets.
Even in the gospels, there is commentary interspersed among Jesus’ quotes. Who needs commentary from John of the gospel?
Moreover, The Qur’an has authenticity over the bible. A discerning person would understand.
This does not diminish my belief in the prophethood of Jesus. It does however diminish my error.

By V. James (wrote 132 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/5/2011 00:32 am

V. James (Post #5): “Paul was no more an apostle of Jesus Christ than Charlie Manson was, . . .” This verse clearly says Paul was an Apostle. Do you deny what is written in this one verse of the Holy Bible?

Note this is only one of 31,102 verses in The Holy Bible.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/4/2011 23:24 pm

Paul was no more an apostle of Jesus Christ than Charlie Manson was, both men sociopaths.
Chapter one verse one is Paul writing the heading on his own letter to the Ephesians, not any words from a prophet of God!!
____________________________________________________________________
1) The apostles had been rightfully suspicious of Saul (Paul) after the loss of their brother Stephen - whom Saul (Paul) stoned to death.
2) Saul’s (Paul’s) words are very frequently diametrically apart from Jesus’ words. Thus, contradiction abounds in the “New Testament”. Did Paul know Jesus? Nope!
3) Saul (Paul) had been notorious for picking quarrels with Peter, whom is the humble vouchsafe of Lord Jesus. How is this Christian?
4) Saul (Paul) led men away from marriage. How is this any will of God?

By V. James (wrote 132 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/4/2011 22:44 pm

Hans Peter:

Go and Prosper for the spirit of the father speaks in thee…

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/19/2011 12:30 pm

“Writing in the Name of God” and pretending to be the Apostle Paul.

Was The Book of Ephesians (and other parts of The Bible) really written by Paul? Consider this:

(source: DiscoveryNews)

FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE’S NEW TESTAMENT?
Nearly half of the New Testament is a forgery, according to a provocative new book which charges that the Apostle Paul authored only a fraction of letters attributed to him, and the Apostle Peter just wrote nothing.

Written by Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical Christian and now agnostic professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the book claims to unveil “one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition:” the use of deception to promote the truth.

“The Bible not only contains untruths of accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies,” Ehrman writes in “Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.”

NEWS: God’s Wife Edited Out of the Bible — Almost

According to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.

“Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon,” said Ehrman.

Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians, he added.

Contradictory views, discrepancies in the language and the choice of words among the books attributed to Paul are all evidence of this forgery, the author asserts..

For example, Ehrman’s analysis of the book of Ephesians shows that the text, filled with long Greek sentences, doesn’t match with Paul’s peculiar Greek writing style, made of short sentences.

Moreover, the content of what the author says “stands at odds with Paul’s own thought, but is in line with the Ephesians,” writes Ehrman.

The biblical scholar, who also challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, disputes the assumption that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else.

NEWS: Was the Last Supper a Day Earlier?

Unlike Paul, Peter, a fisherman raised in rural Palestine, was most certainly illiterate. So was the Apostle John, who could have not written the Gospel bearing his name, said Ehrman.

But why would an author claim to be an Apostle when he wasn’t? The answer is pretty obvious according to the scholar.

In the early centuries of the church, Christians felt under attack from all sides. “They were in conflict with Jews and pagans over the validity of their religion… but the hottest debates were with other Christians, as they argued over the right thing to believe and the rights ways to live,” said Ehrman.

Thus Christians aiming at authorizing views they wanted others to accept, wrote in the name of the Apostles, “fabricating, falsifying, and forging documents,” said Ehrman.

“If your name was Jehoshaphat and no one had any idea who you were, you could not very well sign your own name to the book,” said Ehrman.

“No one would take the Gospel of Jehoshaphat seriously. If you wanted someone to read it, you called yourself Peter. Or Thomas. Or James. In other words, you lied about who you really were,” Ehrman concluded.

According to the scholar, the idea that “writing in the name of another” was a common, accepted practice in antiquity is wrong. Forgery was just as deceitful, inappropriate, and wrong as it is today, he said.

NEWS: Jesus’ Great-Grandmother Identified

As expected, the book has raised a heated debate.

“The book is more provocative than insightful,” writes the Catholic Herald.

Conceding that “some New Testament books probably were not written by the people traditionally assigned as authors,” the Catholic website remarks that Ehrman “barely mentions the concept of oral tradition.”

“So even if a specific letter was not done by Peter or Paul, it could well have been written by someone drawing from the oral tradition passed down by one or the other,” wrote the Catholic website.

By Hans-Peter (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/19/2011 10:05 am

Some churches do not teach that. In the Catholic church only a select few are declared “saints” and a special vote from the Vatican is needed. Wilbur Fields in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:9 says, “Every time a dead man is proclaimed a “saint,” there must be evidence (?) brought forth that he (or she) did at least two miracles.”

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/7/2011 23:34 pm

According to William Barclay these verses (1 thru 14) are actually one sentence in the original Greek text. There are a lot of individual thoughts in this one sentence.

All Christians are “saints”. Paul addresses this letter in v.1-2 to the “saints” in Ephesus. Anyone who follows Christ is a “saint”.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/7/2011 23:33 pm