Zoom, don't you mean deutero-Paul? Sacred Tradition is also compelling insofar as the sacrament of marriage informs us that a marriage is an act before God of two individuals.
Certainly he can be baptized. I would be hesitant on allowing him ordained ministry. Certainly, he would be included in the priesthood of believers. This is much more compelling than homosexual discussions about authority of Scripture to me since polygamy likely looks very much like it did in the 1st century.
Thunder, I don't buy into late-dating and pseudo-authors. There's enough textual and traditional evidence to support Pauline authorship to satisfy me. The only reason why anyone would want to doubt Pauline authorship is because they want to cast doubt upon its canonicity (because we all know if it isn't canonical, then the authority quotient goes way down). No thank you, I don't like to mix academics and politics.
I am...
A traveling nomad who ponders the Good only while laying in a hammock.
A bard, or poet, who wants us to re-imagine what we see in the world so that we can learn to tell our stories in a different way.
someone who purposefully does not make sense nor take himself too seriously
7 comments:
i say they should just jump in the water at the same time someone else gets baptized.. you might sneak in, but i think it works. &:~)
baptized by association- i like it gavin!!!
sure, but he can't be an elder or a deacon per Paul's instructions to Timmy-boy
Let's see . . . sure! That's so foreign to me and our western culture. I can see it being good/of God, though.
Zoom, don't you mean deutero-Paul? Sacred Tradition is also compelling insofar as the sacrament of marriage informs us that a marriage is an act before God of two individuals.
Certainly he can be baptized. I would be hesitant on allowing him ordained ministry. Certainly, he would be included in the priesthood of believers. This is much more compelling than homosexual discussions about authority of Scripture to me since polygamy likely looks very much like it did in the 1st century.
Things that make you go hmmmm...
Thunder,
I don't buy into late-dating and pseudo-authors. There's enough textual and traditional evidence to support Pauline authorship to satisfy me. The only reason why anyone would want to doubt Pauline authorship is because they want to cast doubt upon its canonicity (because we all know if it isn't canonical, then the authority quotient goes way down). No thank you, I don't like to mix academics and politics.
It's still in the canon. I just want to better understand the reason for its writing.
Post a Comment