### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey. The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews: > **Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) **
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish. How would they know that he had been circumcised? Would Paul and Timothy just announce it? Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

I have this question for a school assignment but it doesn’t specify what journey. Please help!

I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

If there are unmistakable events or experiences that prove "true" salvation, how would we then be able to discern a deceptive event or experience that was administered by Satan? Isn't this why faith is required instead of visible proof? I believe it protects us from the power of Satan, "the god of this world" and master of deception, along with his false "ministers of righteousness". **2 Corinthians 4:3-4** >But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. **2 Corinthians 11:13-15** >For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Please provide actual scripture from our apostle Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon) that states where we will experience an immediate event or experience that would confirm our eternal salvation aside from having faith alone in Jesus Christ and the work that He completed on the cross on our behalf.

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

> Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was **because of a revelation** that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. - **Galatians 2:1-2, NASB** I am wondering ***what*** Paul's revelation was? Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

I found conflicting sources on the internet: 1. The first source said the Letter to the Galatians was written between 52-55 AD. 2. The second source said it was written between 48-49 AD. Just comparing the dates did not interest me. When I see the relationship with the Jerusalem Council, it becomes more interesting. 1. The first source put the Jerusalem council before the writing of the Galatian letter. 2. The second source put the writing of the Galatian letter before the Jerusalem council. (To be honest, I myself prefer the second source for my own reason). But since I'm not an expert, I wonder at the different timing between two source? **Which source is correct ?**

Some scholars say that "Paul" did not write Ephesians , whereas they are confident that he did write Romans. Who are they talking about when they say that? Some quick possibilities could be - The author of Romans - The Paul who Luke speaks of - The early Christian missionary to the gentiles - The Paul who Peter speaks of Now, obviously, if one is defining Paul as the author of Romans, then the deduction that Romans is a genuine letter of Paul becomes trivial. So, my question is "what are the trivial facts about Paul?" or "if scholars had to replace the word 'Paul' with a description then what would that description be?"

In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so: 1. Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9) 2. Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return. 3. The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.) I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense. So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return? I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.

I seem to remember a passage in which a New Testament writer (the Apostle Paul, if I remember correctly) referred positively to boasting of Christ's death. It is a similar idea to the lines "Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, / Save in the death of Christ my God!" from the hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," but I think there was a Biblical passage about this. Does this passage exist, and if so, where is it? I tried searching for "boast" in the King James Version, but the verse I was looking for was not in the search results. (As Andrew Shanks pointed out in a comment, the verse is Galatians 6:14; I did not find it because it uses "glory" rather than "boast" in the KJV).

Romans 7:1-25 >**1** Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? **2** For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. **3** So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. **4** Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. **5** For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. **6** But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. **7** What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. **8** But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. **9** For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. **10** And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. **11** For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. **12** Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. **13** Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. **14** For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. **15** For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. **16** If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. **17** Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. **18** For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. **19** For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. **21** I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. **22** For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: **23** But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. **24** O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? **25** I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. I was reading the text in the King James Bible, and found that the apostle Paul was the servant of sin and as a servant, he was commanded by sin to sin, as such and being the context I can say for certain that the apostle Paul committed at least concupiscence.

## Background Paul is described as a highly educated Pharisee: > I am a Jew born in Tarsus in Cilicia but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today. - *Acts of the Apostles 22:3* More zealous than his peers, and his understanding of Judaism exceeded his peers: > I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. *Epistle to the Galatians 1:14* The story of his persecution of Christians and subsequent conversion experience is well known. ## Premises 1. Paul was a highly trained Jewish scholar 2. Paul was familiar with messianic prophecies 3. Paul knew about *some* of the claims of early Christians about Jesus (messiahship, resurrection, divinity, etc) Therefore Paul could have evaluated the claims of Christians for himself prior to his supernatural experience. ## Question According to Christians why did Paul, who claimed to have a high knowledge of the Hebrew bible, need a supernatural encounter to believe in Jesus? Wouldn't he have been familiar with the myriad of prophecies which only Jesus could have fulfilled?

In an article on "Authorship of Luke-Acts " in Wikipedia, it states the following: > According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – > c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of > the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the > countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic > Pauline letters... The editors of Wikipedia appeal to the following reference for a "critical consensus" for a list of contradictions: > Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998) . The historical Jesus: a > comprehensive guide. Translated by Bowden, John. Fortress Press. ISBN > 9780800631239. What are the strongest arguments contained in that source, translated by John Bowden, and what are the responses by critics (i.e. Christian apologists) holding to a traditional view of the unity of canonical Scripture?

For the purpose of this question, assume a liberal Protestant perspective which does *not* consider homosexuality to be inherently sinful. 1 Corinthians 6:9: > Ἢ (Or) οὐκ (not) οἴδατε (do you know) ὅτι (that) ἄδικοι (the unrighteous) θεοῦ (of God) βασιλείαν (kingdom) οὐ (not) κληρονομήσουσιν (will inherit)? Μὴ (Do not) πλανᾶσθε (be deceived): οὔτε (neither) πόρνοι (the sexually immoral) οὔτε (nor) εἰδωλολάτραι (idolaters) οὔτε (nor) μοιχοὶ (adulterers) οὔτε (nor) μαλακοὶ (effeminate/passive partners in sexual immorality) οὔτε (nor) **ἀρσενοκοῖται** (???). > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor **men who have sex with men**. (NIV) 1 Timothy 1:10: > πόρνοις (for the sexually immoral), **ἀρσενοκοίταις** (???), ἀνδραποδισταῖς (for slave traders), ψεύσταις (for liars), ἐπιόρκοις (for perjurers), καὶ (and) εἴ (if) τι (anything) ἕτερον (else) τῇ (to the) ὑγιαινούσῃ (sound) διδασκαλίᾳ (teaching) ἀντίκειται (is opposed). > For the sexually immoral, for **those practicing homosexuality**, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. (NIV) --- "ἀρσενοκοίτης" can literally be translated as "male-bedders", i.e. people practicing male homosexuality. However, it would be the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) to assume this meaning based on no other evidence. My question is: For liberal Protestants who do not consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin according to God, how is the word "ἀρσενοκοίτης" understood and/or translated into English? Please provide a reference to either the teachings of a mainstream church or a widely accepted apologist. --- I will accept answers from: * The perspective of people who do not view Paul as being the word of God and/or who disregard Paul's writing for any other reason. * The perspsective of people who accept Paul as being the divinely inspired word of God but who do not interpret these passages as saying that homosexuality is always a sin. I will not accept answers from the perspsective of people who believe homosexuality is inherently sinful -- that is not the purpose of this question. I am specifically **not** asking whether, for example, gay sex outside of marriage is a sin, or whether adultery is a sin -- that is out of scope for this question. I *will* accept answers along the lines of "ἀρσενοκοίτης means homosexuality but in the specific context of ...".

1 Cor 7:8 (ESV): > "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am" 1 Cor 7:32-34 (ESV): > "... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband." 1 Cor 7:38 (ESV): > "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better" **Here is the antinatalist implication of these verses.** If we follow Paul's advice and stay single and childless, then humanity would go extinct (because nobody will replenish the population). But the doctrine that argues for human extinction (antinatalism) is widely regarded by Christians to be a false one. The implication that the "ideal" scenario is the one where humans die out is an incredibly repugnant one. So my question is, **how can Christians interpret 1 Corinthians 7 to avoid all of these 3 implications below?** 1. it is better for humanity to go extinct 2. it is better to be single 3. it is better to be childless **Edit**: My question is different from [the proposed duplicate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74782/would-god-allow-all-of-humanity-to-be-celibate) , because the duplicate asks a general philosophical question, while my post asks a specific question about the interpretation specific Bible verses by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 and 1 Corinthians 7:38).

St Paul, while referring to the need for a women to cover her head during worship says in 1 Cor 11:7 (NSRVCE): > For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. But then, we read in Gen 1: 27: > So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. One can hardly interpret the terms ‘humankind’ and ‘them’ as comprising only Adam and his male progeny . In fact they comprise both Adam, Eve and their progeny of both sexes. But then, why does St Paul give a different type of interpretation of Gen 1: 27, putting a limit to the concept of creation in God's image? Is he only referring to the physical appearance of man and woman for the purpose of supporting his teaching that woman should cover her head during worship ? In fact, he goes on to state in Verses 14 & 15: > Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. **My question therefore is**: According to Catholic scholars, is St Paul referring to physical appearance of man and woman when he tells of creation in God's image, in 1 Cor 11: 7?

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10 ([NKJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A10&version=NKJV)) : > Now to the married I command, **yet not I but the Lord**: A wife is not to depart from her husband In [verse 12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A12&version=NKJV) Paul writes: > But to the rest **I, not the Lord**, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. How do Evangelicals explain this in line with scripture inspired by God?

I am pondering this question and would like other people's help/thoughts. James, the brother of Jesus, author of the Epistle of James and leader of the early Jerusalem church, writes in the book of James, "Faith without works is dead." He clearly sees that faith leads a person to action. Yet, in Acts 21, Paul comes to Jerusalem and James tells Paul to perform the Jewish ritual of purification so that other Jews do not wrongly judge Paul as being anti-law. Paul does what James asks, but the plan does not go well. Paul is nearly killed and is imprisoned. Here is my question - why did James not support Paul when he was arrested? Where is James' faith in action supporting and caring for Paul?