Did Paul explain scripture or add to scripture?

You want to discuss Scripture? Fantastic! Please start by telling us where in Scripture the bolded statement is made.

"for Christ WAS the God who inspired scripture."

Firstly, the question was to Blik, not to you; and secondly, your post isn't Scripture either.

Your attitude totally warrants the Ignore List. Take care. May the Lord change your Heart!

I don't really care to get in between posters, but this is virtue signalling on steroids

just sayin'

Apparently private messaging is only for paid members. E-mail me at ewq1938@hotmail.com if you want the cancer treatment info.

Matthew 5:17 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Psalm 90: 2, 33:11, 119:89 &90, 102:25-27. Isaiah 40:8, 40:28. Acts 17:11, James 1:17, Hebrew 13:8, Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6.

Which means the END of the Old Covenant. Once something is fulfilled, it comes to an end.

Exactly.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


G4137
p????´?
ple¯roo¯
Thayer Definition:
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b) to consummate: a number
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
2c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2c2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
2c3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4134
Citing in TDNT: 6:286, 867

The word means to complete. When something is incomplete then is completed it is done and finished. Something new then can be started and this is what Christ came to do. The old law was completed so a new law (which is a new Covenant) could be introduced.

It wouldn't be proper to introduce a new law if the old one was not completed and only following that law perfectly could fulfill it.

So the old law was fulfilled and completed and could then be replaced by a new law. This makes the first law "old" which Paul said was decaying. He wanted to show how to let go of the old law and make the new law the one for believers to desire.

Peter proclaimed that Paul's letters as being wisdom from God and as scripture:

"Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:15-16

Then we have the following:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."

I'm confident that if Paul's words were not from the Lord, that they would not be included in God's word.

That is one way of interpreting the meaning of fulfilled. Also, once something is fulfilled it is ready for its full use. Christ fulfilled. That means that now salvation is perfected, not ended. The blood of Christ given on the altar resulted in atonement, the saints slept only. When Christ fulfilled what was told of Him giving this blood, then those with faith in Him lived with the Lord in eternity.

It can be compared to filling a gas tank in a car. When it is filled the car can go.

The old covenant was given by God, God does not give what is not good. The law is holy, and it was given in stone. That good and holy covenant was given in a much better way with the new covenant, it was given to our hearts.

That's all very good, but none of those verses answer the question. Once again, where is the Scripture that says "Christ was not authorized to add to Scripture", as you claim?

It is your opinion that the fact that God does not change does not answer your question is your opinion, I can not change your opinion. It is yours. Paul spoke for God, and if God does not change then Paul could not say that God changed something or added something new about God.

Christ is God, how could God authorize Himself to change what God breathed in the first place?

The truth is this: There isn't even a single place in Scripture where it states or implies that "Christ was not authorized to add to Scripture". Your claim is false, and any argument made on the basis of that claim is therefore completely without merit.

Maybe choose your words more carefully next time. Better yet, just quote Scripture directly.

That is playing a silly game with words, not listening to the Lord.

You say you want to discuss Scripture, but you invented an idea and are claiming it is what Scripture says. That is not discussing Scripture. The Bible does not state or imply that “Christ was not authorized to add to Scripture.” On the contrary, His words constitute Scripture!

He did add something new, a revelation peculiar to Paul and every christian ought to know it.

The OT did say that God's salvation would be preached to the ends of the earth, that the time would come for the Gentiles to be brought in. But it never taught that the church, the assembly, would be established among those heathen nations. The Body of Christ.

This was [and still is] both revelationary and revelutionary. The other apostles never could get their heads around this. The OT taught that Jerusalem was to be the centre, the hub, and all the peoples and kings and world leaders were to come to Jerusalem to learn about Christ, or to learn the ways of the God of Jacob.

God showed the apostles again and again that they were to go to the world, every creature, to the Gentiles e.g. the vision of Peter saying that God had cleansed to Gentiles and they should no longer regard the Gentiles as common or unclean.

But they didn't get it.

I am not a mid acts dispy but this is the famous mystery kept hidden but revealed [through Paul] to the apostles and prophets. It is not a different gospel as the mid act dispys claim but it is an entirely different way of how the people of God were to be structured, a different modus operandi, a new way of working. How the church was to operate or function as the Body of Christ.

Each assembly in every town or city it is established was to be as though Christ Himself had taken up residence through the manifestations of the Holy Spirit working in and through the assembly.

Ephesians 3.9.
... to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Only Paul among the apostles taught the rapture because it only affects the church among the nations, only Paul understood that Israel was to be diminished as the nation of God for the gospel age ... until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Can you give me some examples of this?

Amazing thing to study. Praise God for the knowledge you have been given.

I think I see where you're coming from.

I've been thinking for awhile that maybe we've invented a new religion called "Christianity" that has replaced everything in the Old Testament. Rather, Christ came to fulfill the Law and Prophets than to start a new religion. However, it was God Who cancelled the Law, not Paul; at least as far as our being "under" it.

Honestly, I don't personally know anyone who would say Paul or any of the New Testament writers are greater than Christ. It seems more like an intellectual construct or theory to me.

It is not a discussion of scripture to quibble over the word "authorize", or quibbling over the words used to express what is of God into language humans use to express God ideas. So quibble away. It is true that God doesn't authorize God, so you have a good working point for your nailing people over their use of words, and you seem to get great satisfaction for yourself over nailing people. So use me as someone to give you satisfaction for yourself.

I suggest that next time you feel a need to put people down as you find better words for their expression that you are honest so you say you don't think that expresses scripture correctly and you could even suggest a more correct way of stating an idea. Then you would be posting about scripture words instead of using corrections to put people down. Besides, honesty is always the best policy.