Is there a right of private interpretation of scripture?

How do you define sponsor? I think that's where we're differing. If someone does something while in the employment of a company or institution I would say their work is sponsored by their employer. Patrons of the arts sponsored struggling artists. Maybe the difference is between encouraging them to write them and requiring them to write them. I would say encouraging too.

 

That was about 2% of society. For example think about what it was like in North America before compulsory education compared to now.

Realize that some of thoser slaves were very well deducated and could own land too. Think about what happened in the dispersion.

You proved my point exactly. It was the educated and aristocracy who could read and write. Why do you think the letters in the NT were read to the congregations? Just imagine all the books and scrolls the peasants owned. Especially the fact that each one was copied by hand.

A good book on the subject of education in Israel is at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0300140118/?tag=baptis04-20

An excellent book on Oral Tradition is at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802843662/?tag=baptis04-20

Pax Romana

 

Philemon 1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.

Because he was able to write.

 

Facebook, emails, ipods, cell phones, computers, and blogging. Think of the time that is taken on those technological "advancements" and what they reward us with. Did you notice the time spent on studying and writing papers versus using technological advancements?

 

Philemon 1:1-2, "Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:"

Philemon 1:19, "I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well)."

From the ISBE

ONESIMUS

1. WITH PAUL IN ROME:
Onesimus was a slave (Philem 1:16) belonging to Philemon who was a wealthy citizen of Colosse, and a prominent member of the church there. Onesimus was still a heathen when he defrauded his master and ran off from Colosse. He found his way to Rome, where evil men tended to flock as to a common center, as Tacitus tells us they did at that period. In Rome he came into contact with Paul, who was then in his own hired house, in military custody.

What brought him into contact with Paul we do not know. It may have been hunger; it may have been the pangs of conscience. He could not forget that his master’s house in Colosse was the place where the Christians met in their weekly assemblies for the worship of Christ. Neither could he forget how Philemon had many a time spoken of Paul, to whom he owed his conversion. Now that Onesimus was in Rome — what a strange coincidence — Paul also was in Rome.

The result of their meeting was that Onesimus was converted to Christ, through the instrumentality of the apostle (“my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds,” Philem 1:10). His services had been very acceptable to Paul, who would gladly have kept Onesimus with him; but as he could not do this without the knowledge and consent of Philemon, he sent Onesimus back to Colosse, to his master there.

2. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO COLOSSE AND TO PHILEMON:
At the same time Paul wrote to the church in Colosse on other matters, and he entrusted the Epistle to the Colossians to the joint care of Tychicus and Onesimus. The apostle recommends Onesimus to the brethren in Colosse, as a “faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you,” and he goes on to say that Tychicus and Onesimus will make known to them all things that have happened to Paul in Rome. Such a commendation would greatly facilitate’ Onesimus’s return to Colosse.

But Paul does more. He furnishes Onesimus with a letter written by himself to Philemon. Returning to a city where it was well known that he had been neither a Christian nor even an honest man, he needed someone to vouch for the reality of the change which had taken place in his life. And Paul does this for him both in the Epistle to the Colossians and in that to Philemon.

With what exquisite delicacy is Onesimus introduced! `Receive him,’ says the apostle, `for he is my own very heart’ (Philem 1:12). “The man whom the Colossians had only known hitherto, if they knew him all, as a worthless runaway slave, is thus commended to them, as no more a slave but a brother, no more dishonest and faithless but trustworthy; no more an object of contempt but of love” (Lightfoot’s Commentary on Col, 235). (1) Onesimus Profitable.

The apostle accordingly begs Philemon to give Onesimus the same reception as he would rejoice to give to himself. The past history of Onesimus had been such as to belie the meaning of his name. He had not been “profitable” — far from it. But already his consistent conduct in Rome and his willing service to Paul there have changed all that; he has been profitable to Paul, and he will be profitable to Philemon too.

 

Some of your posts don't make much sense to me. I am well aware of the purpose of the book of Philemon. I have preached through it many times. The fact remains that Onesimus acted as an amanuensis. While Paul dictated the letter Onesimus wrote it down. Paul had a physical affliction with his eyes and found it difficult to write. The only letter that we know for sure that he wrote himself was Galatians, where he said:

Galatians 4:15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

Galatians 6:11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.

The "large letter" refers to the large letters that he used, because of the problem with his eyesight that he refers to in 4:15. Otherwise he used a scribe, an amanuensis such as Onesimus.

I did not prove your point; rather you proved mine.
Who was able to read. Onesimus was a slave; not part of any aristocracy.
Who could read: slaves, fishermen, tax collectors, Judas (a thief), etc. They lived in a literate society, no doubt just as literate (if not more so) than ours. How many of our society can speak four to five languages??

 

The text does not prove that. The add on is simply a commentary that would not be typical of any letter of that day. The typical form of a letter of that day is show throughout the letter but the end of verse 25 in the TR does not fit that at all. I cannot think of one letter written like that anywhere in the NT.

What evidence do you have of this, other than conjecture?

Talk about building a whole theology around an opinion of which there is no definite proof It is not the reason why Paul wrote with his own hand. If you were to study the history of that time and what was going on, you would know that there was a reason why Paul did that and that was to communicate that the letter was authentic and coming from him and not someone else.

If I were to use your argument to determine whether or not a population contained the same traits a sample, then I would have to determine what a representative sample would be. The conclusion you came to would make about as much sense as to take a sample from a wealthy or educated population and say that it represents the entire population. It makes as much sense as it would to say that because the writers of the NT could read and write therefore everyone could read and write. Whether Onesimus could read or write does nothing to prove whether society as a whole could read or write. Just because 0 to 10% of the societies could read and write with an average of about 2% could read and write does nothing to prove that everyone can read and write.

The add on to verse 25 does not fit with any letter in the NT or any letter written during that time period. I am unable to think of even one. Furthermore it does not make any sense nor does it fit in with the beginning of the letter. None of the earlier manuscripts contain that bit of added information. However later manuscripts contain many different versions of that add on. If one were to consider just the typical form of a letter in thatg day it does not fit in with that. If one considers the letters in the NT it does not fit nor does it fit in with Paul's writings.

 

The same translation I always use--the KJV. Perhaps you should get one.

Gill

 

Then you don't read well, or just don't bother reading the KJV.
Here are all of the epistles of Paul. Some of them do not have the names of the amanuensis, but silence does not mean that Paul didn't have one.

Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. <<Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.>>

1 Corinthians 16:24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen. <<The first epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus and Timotheus.>>

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. <<The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.>>

Galatians 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. <<To the Galatians written from Rome.>>

Ephesians 6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. <<To the Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.>>

Philippians 4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. <<To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.>>

Colossians 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen. <<Written from Rome to Colossians by Tychicus and Onesimus.>>

1 Thessalonians 5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. <<The first epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Athens.>>

2 Thessalonians 3:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. <<The second epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Athens.>>

1 Timothy 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. <<The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.>>

2 Timothy 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. <<The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.>>

Titus 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen. <<It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.>>

Philemon 1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. <<Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.>>


That ought to be enough evidence to convince you.

[/quote]
It is not conjecture. I quoted you two verses out of Galatians. Also 2Cor.12 speaks of Paul's thorn in the flesh, which we believe to be a physical infirmity, as he indicates. It was no doubt an infirmity in his eyes, an eye-problem that he gives more detail in the epistle to the Galatians.
The Galatians say that the were willing to give their own eyes to him if it were possible. What sacrifice! Why? Because of the terrible affliction that Paul had with his own eyes. The largeness of the letters that Paul used. Why? Because he could not see very well. He had to use large print. This is the only letter where direct evidence is given that he wrote his own letter.

The authenticity is not only in the subscription, but also in the letter itself. He identifies himself in the salutation of every letter he writes.

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
--There are further marks in the epistle that identify it from being from Paul. It was personal. He writes about things that could only be from Paul.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. I never implied that the writers could not read. Quote me where I said that. The culture was such that they had servants to do their bidding. It is still that way in eastern nations today. Labor is cheap. In fact you do a service to the Christian community in a "non-Christian" nation (like an Islamic nation) to hire a "Christian" as a servant (if you have the means), and give him a place of employment so that he can provide for his family. The fact that the servant is in the category of a "slave" has no bearing on whether he is literate or not.

I disagree with your textual criticism. It is obviously found in the TR, and in the KJV, and I have no reason to doubt their scholarship and trust in yours.

 

I realize that they are not inspired. Neither is the dictionary at the front of my study Bible, or the concordance at the back, but I still use them. I don't discount "helps" simply because they are not inspired. They were put there for a reason. I trust that the 54 men who translated the KJV 400 years ago had good reason for inserting them. I doubt very much that they would be wrong. If you have reason to challenge their veracity be my guest. I did not claim inspiration for them. But they are a source of valid information.

 

I know that Paul often had an amanuensis. I know that the text was added on later and not in the text. How would account for the fact that those words were not in any of the earlier texts? Commentary? Do you think the verse numbering system is inspired too? It would help if you read a little about manuscripts and about the form of a letter during that time. I most certainly would not build an entire theology around a text that was added on later.

I have no doubt that nobody really knows. It is simply speculation to infer something that is not stated. [/quote] I think it is a physical infirmity that temporarily slowed him down or disabled him for a time. There are all kinds of opinions on what people think it may have been. I do not think it was his eyes because how would someone be able to work but yet be disabled for a time just because of his eyes? I tend to think it had more to do with his stoning—an affliction from Satan. In Acts 14:19 Paul was stoned and left for dead. This happened in Lystra (Acts 14:8), which was one of the main cities of the region of Galatia. Paul was either dead or so close to death that his persecutors thought he was dead. At that time he would have had cuts and bruises all over his body as he preached to the people to whom he was writing this letter.

Paul never says that his thorn in the flesh was his eyes. He also point out that the problem he had in Galatia was not permanent. Some think the problem is referring to some of the physical results of a stoning he received while in Galatia. In Acts 14:19 Paul was stoned and left for dead. This happened in Lystra (Acts 14:8), which was one of the main cities of the region of Galatia. Very likely he had cuts and bruises all over his body as he preached to these very people to whom he was writing this letter.

If the issue was permanent then how would he have been able to move on?

Many a parent has said that they would rather have been sick or something happen to themselves rather than their child. This demonstrates a great love and concern.

And in every letter an amanuensis wrote for him. There is no evidence he wrote the entire letter. Letters were written by hand. If someone else wrote a letter I dictated most likely the letters (a, b, s, d, etc.) I write would be larger too. If my wife wrote a letter for me and I added onto it the letters I write would be larger too.


Gal. 6:11 is not a conclusion to Paul’s adversity or the preceding paragraph but rather the start of the paragraph and its following thoughts.

I have always agreed with that.

I agree

On what basis do you doubt that the phrase at the end of Gal. found in the TR was not found in any earlier manuscripts? Do you really think that those who did not find that phrase in any of the earlier manuscripts lied to deceive the church and lead a hoax?

 

As I said in a previous response, inspiration is not the case here. As verse numbering is not in the earlier manuscripts neither are the subscripts, and that really doesn't matter does it? It is historical information put in there for our learning. Thank God that the Masoretes put in the vowel pointing in the Hebrew Text. Some things added later on are not bad.
As far as theology is concerned I am not speaking about theology, are you?
I am addressing history and culture: were the slaves at that time able to read? Did they live in a literate society? What has that got to do with your theology? Do you base your salvation on whether or not the slaves of that time were illiterate?

You are entitled to your opinion. I gave you Scripture. I believe the Scripture is quite clear on the matter that Paul had eye trouble; the Galatians were willing to sacrifice their own eyes (if possible) so that he could see better; he wrote this letter with his own hand, as he states, and therefore the letters themselves are large--as he states. The evidence is overwhelming.

He doesn't say that it wasn't permanent.

That too is all speculation. And that has no basis. At least what I have given you has a basis in Scripture.

He had a serious eye disease. I never said he was blind. People have all kind of infirmities. This was Paul's. He prayed three times that it might be removed. God's answer was the same each time: "My grace is sufficient for you."

So your position is that Paul is being so allegorical that he is actually lying. I didn't know that Paul taught one to lie.

You are not making sense here. Are you suggesting, that in a language written in "script" or cursive, your wife would write one letter and then you would attach the next, and then she the next and so on. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The amanuensis wrote the whole letter and had no reason not to. But in Galatians, Paul wrote it, as he said he did. Facts are facts. Why are you trying to deny them.

Words still have meaning. Here is what Scofield says:

1. It is not a MSS issue.
2. What makes you think that older manuscripts are better manuscripts?
3. Perhaps those older MSS were indeed intended to deceive the church and written as a hoax. How do you know? You weren't there. Take that issue up in the versions forum. It is a Critical Text vs. Majority Text issue, and I can see that we are on opposite sides of the fence. But this is not the forum for that discussion.

 

To completely trust what a commentator wrote earlier is like trusting him as God. If you study textual criticism there are things that were writtien inthat were wrong and were additions ot the text. They were added with the intention of helping to explain the text. Some of what they wrote was opinion and not so good and some was excellent.

I am addressing theology. Theology such as Paul's affliction and who wrote the book of Philemon. My theology does not allow me to state as fact what I do not know with certainty. I cannot state that Pual had an affliction with his eys and the more I think about his travels and what happened to him it makes even less sense.

Some slaves were very well educated and others were not. That is the reason why I suggested you consider the dispersion.

I write big compared to almost anyone but I can see very well. My eyesight has been better than normal for many years. When I consider the fact that Paul was stoned, beaten, etc. it would make much sense that he was afflicted by Satan. When I also consider that his affliction was not permanent and temporary it makes sense ot me to not think of eye problems as temporary but permanent. What would the people of Galatia have done to help an eye problem. But if he were stoned and beat up then it would be easy to see that. Your argument is much the same type of argument used during a time it was promoted that John having camel knees. If you read many older books during that same time and then reads books during other time periods you will not read the same thing.

My judgment is that if the affliction had to do more with a physical affliction that with time would be healed. I do not see poor eyes as that way. However scholars do disagree some.

Eyes would be permanent right?

Because he wrote in large letters does not mean anyone had an eye affliction. I see people with glasses who write so small that I can hardly read their writing and others who write quite large who do not have a problem. If Paul had an amanuensis then it would makes sense that Paul wrote with different sized letters. I am not willing to place my life on the line for anything I think because I do not for one second believe there is enough evidence for anything.

If oyu knew what allegorical meant then I do not believe you could make that statement from what I wrote. I would question if you actually know what allegorical is.[/quote] How many times have you seen a mom or dad use a figure of speech when they were frustrated with a child. Such as: I am going to kill you.

My parents came from Minnesota and South Dakota. They use many figures of speech and idiomatic expressions in their daily talk. If you were not familair with those you would not understand what they mean. To take them literally would mean something entirely different.

I see no evidence that Paul wrote entire letters. I do see plenty of evidence his effort to authenticate the letter. My point is that he used that point to ensure its authenticity. However nobody is willing to stake their life on that issue.

I trust that God created. I was not there though. There is loads of evidence for that though. There is loads of evidence that the comments at the end of Philemon were not in the original text. That is the issue.

I find it laughable that you give Scofield any credibility on this issue. I would not trust anything Scofield wrote any further than I could throw him. Almost nobody believes the majority text method any more. It makes about as much sense in believeing that as saying that GM is the best car because there are more of them produced. Where does that put Rolls Royce?

Do you really believe in the gap theory that Scofield promoted? The first time I heard that from a Christian I wondered what the guy had been smoking and what cult he was in.

 

No matter who I quote your mind is made up. Previously I quoted the eminent scholar John Gill. But you paid no attention to him either. :sleep:

 

When scholars to numerous to quote who are more educated than me and have been studying those issues for years have not come to any definite conclusion and I find no credible evidence otherwise I must leave scripture as it stands and not read into it. I determined many years ago that I would refuse to read into a text and use it as a prooftext for a pet theology and lie about something I do not have any definite proof about. So yes my mind is made up in that way.

in what post did you quote Gill? Gill was how many years ago? How much has been discovered since he lived? With him being removed from the text by at about 1800 years and now we are removed from it by about 1950 years how does that make Gill any different especially the fact that now we have computers and discoveries to compare texts and see how words were used in other texts during that time period. It wasn't too many years ago that Koine Greek was called holy Ghost Greek. Shall we believe it is really holy Ghost Greek and only existed in the Christian community at the time because a group of people not too long ago believed that and perpetuated such ignorance.

 

Obviously you not read the books I suggested in answer to your former questions. To give you some more information it might help to read the small book, "Letters in Primitive Christianity" by William G. Doty

What you wrote about the ending in Philemon 25 could you show me just one example of a letter written during the time of NT outside of the TR compilation that ends that way? I am only asking for one.

 

Go to the versions forum and ask that question. I am not the least bit interested in looking outside the TR, for I don't believe that God preserved His Word outside of the TR, therefore why should I look there?
End of this part of discussion. Take it to the Versions forum.