Snoopy Considers 1 Corinthians

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

I would welcome this view,because quite frankly, too much of the NT is dominated by Paul IMO and I don't see that as healthy.
Even just saying Paul didn't write Hebrews but someone anonymous, opens our minds more to know how Jesus and God were seen by others in early Christianity without having to make it fit with Paul's writings.
It is why scholarship matters. Taking the writings we have been handed as "canon" and pretending they were written as "canon" just doesn't fly when you actually study the history of that time. You can better understand the faith when you know the context of the writings, not just their contents.
 
Lots of the evangelical churches for starters are very focused on sin and calling it out. So there's no lack of that kind of preaching. But not everyone sees that as the right focus for ministry or sees the problems the way that you do. Some ministers see the biggest moral failings as things like residential schools and other manifestations of colonialism and racism, and those often get called out. It's really just another disagreement among Christians about what the Bible is really all about. What are the priorities for the church's mission in the world? That will then decide what gets called out.
Yes Mendalla, it's true that some churches prioritize calling out specific sins, while others focus on systemic issues such as colonialism, racism, and historical injustices. Each approach stems from a desire to align with the teachings of Jesus.

I believe that we Christians in ministry must reflect a holistic understanding of the Good News. Jesus called us to love God and our neighbours, which includes addressing both morality and injustices. We must shine a light on all forms of darkness
 
Apollo's was seen as the spiritual leader and mentor in Corinth, by some of the people, and they excluded the leadership of Paul and Peter.
Apollo's teachings differed from Paul's.
Paul could tell the other apostles where to go to spread God's word, but Apollo's said he would listen to God as to where he should go.
So perhaps some rivalry, even though they were mostly on the same page?
And who was Apollo's? It is thought he wrote Hebrews, not Paul.
Apollos, it seems, really held a big place in the hearts of many Corinthians. His ministry shows that God's work can be accomplished through a variety of methods and perspectives.

The differences that arise when passionate individuals serve the same mission must be seen as complementary strengths. Paul himself addresses this in 1 Corinthians 3:6, "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow." This verse shows that each person has a unique role to play in God's plan, and together, they add to the flourishing of the church.

Regarding the authorship of Hebrews, it remains a subject of much debate. Authorship has been ascribed to Apollos, Paul, Barnabas, Dr. Luke, and others. I myself hold to Priscillan authorship
 
@Jae
How is "handing over to Satan" a call to repentance? I am not getting the connection at all.

It does seem that the handed over ones will benefit spiritually from the destruction of their flesh. (Could someone explain this, please?)

Ths chapter seems to be a directive to boot the evil-doers out of the church.
"Handing over to Satan" refers to putting the individual outside the protective friendship of the church. In biblical terms, the realm outside the church is considered the domain where Satan operates. By removing the person from the church, the intention is to awaken them to the seriousness of their sin and to lead them to repentance.

The "destruction of the flesh" means the breaking down of sinful desires and behaviors. The goal is for the person to recognize their wrongdoing, genuinely repent, and then be reconciled with God and the church.

This directive emphasizes the importance of holiness within the church. Paul is advocating for a temporary separation meant to bring about spiritual renewal
 
Apollos, it seems, really held a big place in the hearts of many Corinthians. His ministry shows that God's work can be accomplished through a variety of methods and perspectives.

The differences that arise when passionate individuals serve the same mission must be seen as complementary strengths. Paul himself addresses this in 1 Corinthians 3:6, "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow." This verse shows that each person has a unique role to play in God's plan, and together, they add to the flourishing of the church.

Regarding the authorship of Hebrews, it remains a subject of much debate. Authorship has been ascribed to Apollos, Paul, Barnabas, Dr. Luke, and others. I myself hold to Priscillan authorship
The epistle of the Hebrews was said to be written by a well educated person and was very eloquent.....basically part of the argument is that it is written at a higher level of Greek than what is normally thought of in Paul's writings.
Apollo's was educated in Alexandria and well acquainted with OT teachings and was familiar with John the Baptists teachings.
Was Priscilla also highly educated to have been able to write Hebrews? I don't know, just asking.
 
interesting Read ---on church discipline --


How should sin in the church be handled?​

The Bible is clear about God’s desire for us to reflect His holiness (1 Peter 1:15), and it is clear about the need for church discipline to deal with sin in the church. Since one of the jobs of the church is to demonstrate the goodness and holiness of God, a church with a member who persists in sin must take steps to address the state of that person’s soul as well as protect the church body from being corrupted by unchallenged sin in its membership.

Jesus gave us an outline to follow when we must confront another professing Christian: “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15–17). So the first step in handling sin in the church is for someone with knowledge of the situation, often the pastor or an elder, to confront that person in love, expressing concern and explaining the spiritual ramifications if the sin continues.

If the sinning member refuses to repent, a second step must be taken. The one who originally confronted the person needs to take along other godly people and visit the sinning member again. The presence of others may serve to induce the sinner to repent; if not, there are witnesses to all that is said and done, preventing any false claims or denials later. This interview needs to include Scripture-based reproof and opportunities for restoration. Verses such as 1 John 3:3–10, 5:18, Luke 14:25–27, Matthew 7:16–23, and Ephesians 5:3 may be helpful at this time.

If, after the second step, the church member still refuses to repent of the sin, Jesus says to “tell it to the church” (Matthew 18:17), an action that would bring even more pressure to bear. If that fails, then the offending member is to be removed from the church and considered an unbeliever (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:9–13). This process shows the seriousness of sin in the church and the need to strive for reconciliation. The steps that Jesus outlines to protect the purity and reputation of the church should not be sidestepped or ignored.

What kinds of sins should a church confront? Since everyone is a sinner, including the pastor and elders, where do we draw the line between the sins everyone commits and those worthy of confrontation? The answer seems to be the lifestyle sins committed by those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and Galatians 5:19–20; see also Titus 3:10–11). These are public, ongoing sinful choices that are differentiated from those sins we commit in our hearts because we live in the flesh. For example, a Christian struggling with impure thoughts or personal jealousies is not defaming the name of Christ as he wrestles with those sins. They are private and unwanted. They are sins for which the person needs repentance, but they are not lifestyle choices. However, a professing Christian who lives in open, unrepentant adultery, sexual immorality, drunkenness, or any of the other sins on Paul’s lists must be confronted.

Sin in the church must be handled properly, that is, in a biblical manner. Church leaders who choose a sinful path are not exempt from discipline: “Those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:20).

Unfortunately, many churches today never practice church discipline, even in glaring instances of impropriety and obvious sin.
The result is that the ministry of the church is undermined and the legitimacy of its message cast in doubt.

If the Bible says that Christians don’t do X, but there are assumed Christians in our church who are doing X, with no consequences, then outsiders are right to wonder whether we take the Bible seriously.


God spoke to Israel words that still echo through the church: “If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and forgive their sins, and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14). Imagine the healing that would take place in the world if all churches would follow the biblical pattern for handling sin in their midst.

I say ------ more leaders like Paul needed in Churches today ---who are no afraid to address sinful actions with the body of Christ ----
 
Apollo's teachings differed from Paul's.
Apollo was teaching Repentance by water Baptism --so he was not up to speed on the New Covenant of Salvation and Baptism by the Holy Spirit ----

Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and schooled him on the new Covenant and then he preached the Good News like Paul and the others -----
So perhaps some rivalry, even though they were mostly on the same page?

There was no rivalry happening -with Apollo and Paul --what happened was that some Church members were picking sides ---saying I am on Apollo's side ---some saying they were on Paul's side ---so the Church themselves were causing a division among themselves when they should have been focused being on the one Spiritual side ---who is Jesus -----not on humans ----

you can read more on Apollo here ----
 
The epistle of the Hebrews was said to be written by a well educated person and was very eloquent.....basically part of the argument is that it is written at a higher level of Greek than what is normally thought of in Paul's writings.
Apollo's was educated in Alexandria and well acquainted with OT teachings and was familiar with John the Baptists teachings.
Was Priscilla also highly educated to have been able to write Hebrews? I don't know, just asking.
You're right, Waterfall, the eloquence and sophistication of the Greek used do suggest that Hebrews was written by someone with a high level of education.

Apollos, educated in Alexandria, had that, as did Dr. Luke, known for his medical and literary skills.

As for Priscilla, it's possible that she did as well. After all, she and her husband Aquila were influential figures in the early church, known for their deep understanding of the Scriptures.

"Apollos went to the Jewish meeting place and he taught the people there. He was not afraid to speak God's message to them. Priscilla and Aquila heard what Apollos was teaching the people. So they said to him, ‘Please come with us to our home.’ Then they explained to Apollos the whole of God's message about Jesus. Then he could understand better." - Acts 18:26 (EASY)
 
You're right, Waterfall, the eloquence and sophistication of the Greek used do suggest that Hebrews was written by someone with a high level of education.

Apollos, educated in Alexandria, had that, as did Dr. Luke, known for his medical and literary skills.

As for Priscilla, it's possible that she did as well. After all, she and her husband Aquila were influential figures in the early church, known for their deep understanding of the Scriptures.

"Apollos went to the Jewish meeting place and he taught the people there. He was not afraid to speak God's message to them. Priscilla and Aquila heard what Apollos was teaching the people. So they said to him, ‘Please come with us to our home.’ Then they explained to Apollos the whole of God's message about Jesus. Then he could understand better." - Acts 18:26 (EASY)
Seems there are many possibilities. Many scholars lean towards Apollo's but that doesn't mean it's so necessarily.
 
Seems there are many possibilities. Many scholars lean towards Apollo's but that doesn't mean it's so necessarily.
As I understand it, the majority view is currently Pauline authorship. However, yes, there are several other possibilities
 
Seems there are many possibilities. Many scholars lean towards Apollo's but that doesn't mean it's so necessarily.
Ditto for the meaning of "passing them over to Satan". The NET notes state that 1 Corinthians 5:5 is one of the most difficult passages in the NT.
There are many possibilities.
 
Apollo was teaching Repentance by water Baptism --so he was not up to speed on the New Covenant of Salvation and Baptism by the Holy Spirit ----

Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and schooled him on the new Covenant and then he preached the Good News like Paul and the others -----


There was no rivalry happening -with Apollo and Paul --what happened was that some Church members were picking sides ---saying I am on Apollo's side ---some saying they were on Paul's side ---so the Church themselves were causing a division among themselves when they should have been focused being on the one Spiritual side ---who is Jesus -----not on humans ----

you can read more on Apollo here ----
Well we are reading an account of the situation from Paul's point of view aren't we? If one goes just from what is said about this situation in Paul's view, are we getting the whole picture? Of course that could be said about many books.
You know I don't always agree with Paul myself, but the bible is set up to have him in as the main character that spread Christianity.
Even Hebrews was inserted into the Bible and teaching that Paul was the author, because some didn't want the author's name attached to it but felt it was too good of a message not to be included...... so for years that's what was taught, so all would agree to include it.
 
interesting Read ---on church discipline --


How should sin in the church be handled?​

The Bible is clear about God’s desire for us to reflect His holiness (1 Peter 1:15), and it is clear about the need for church discipline to deal with sin in the church. Since one of the jobs of the church is to demonstrate the goodness and holiness of God, a church with a member who persists in sin must take steps to address the state of that person’s soul as well as protect the church body from being corrupted by unchallenged sin in its membership.

Jesus gave us an outline to follow when we must confront another professing Christian: “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15–17). So the first step in handling sin in the church is for someone with knowledge of the situation, often the pastor or an elder, to confront that person in love, expressing concern and explaining the spiritual ramifications if the sin continues.

If the sinning member refuses to repent, a second step must be taken. The one who originally confronted the person needs to take along other godly people and visit the sinning member again. The presence of others may serve to induce the sinner to repent; if not, there are witnesses to all that is said and done, preventing any false claims or denials later. This interview needs to include Scripture-based reproof and opportunities for restoration. Verses such as 1 John 3:3–10, 5:18, Luke 14:25–27, Matthew 7:16–23, and Ephesians 5:3 may be helpful at this time.

If, after the second step, the church member still refuses to repent of the sin, Jesus says to “tell it to the church” (Matthew 18:17), an action that would bring even more pressure to bear. If that fails, then the offending member is to be removed from the church and considered an unbeliever (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:9–13). This process shows the seriousness of sin in the church and the need to strive for reconciliation. The steps that Jesus outlines to protect the purity and reputation of the church should not be sidestepped or ignored.

What kinds of sins should a church confront? Since everyone is a sinner, including the pastor and elders, where do we draw the line between the sins everyone commits and those worthy of confrontation? The answer seems to be the lifestyle sins committed by those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and Galatians 5:19–20; see also Titus 3:10–11). These are public, ongoing sinful choices that are differentiated from those sins we commit in our hearts because we live in the flesh. For example, a Christian struggling with impure thoughts or personal jealousies is not defaming the name of Christ as he wrestles with those sins. They are private and unwanted. They are sins for which the person needs repentance, but they are not lifestyle choices. However, a professing Christian who lives in open, unrepentant adultery, sexual immorality, drunkenness, or any of the other sins on Paul’s lists must be confronted.

Sin in the church must be handled properly, that is, in a biblical manner. Church leaders who choose a sinful path are not exempt from discipline: “Those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:20).

Unfortunately, many churches today never practice church discipline, even in glaring instances of impropriety and obvious sin.
The result is that the ministry of the church is undermined and the legitimacy of its message cast in doubt.

If the Bible says that Christians don’t do X, but there are assumed Christians in our church who are doing X, with no consequences, then outsiders are right to wonder whether we take the Bible seriously.


God spoke to Israel words that still echo through the church: “If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and forgive their sins, and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14). Imagine the healing that would take place in the world if all churches would follow the biblical pattern for handling sin in their midst.

I say ------ more leaders like Paul needed in Churches today ---who are no afraid to address sinful actions with the body of Christ ----
Yes unsafe, handling sin in the church is a vital matter. Jesus' clear guidelines stress the need to address sin with love. The goal is to bring about healing.

We must approach the situation with prayer, seeking God's wisdom. When confronting a fellow believer, it's essential to do so with compassion, expressing our concern for their spiritual well-being.

It's crucial to remember that we're all sinners in need of God's grace. As we address sin, we must also extend the same grace that we've received
 
In tomorrow's reading, Paul will be lacing into the Corinthians again. Sexual sins seem to really push his buttons. Among other things.
Paul's aim was to guide the Corinthians towards a life that reflects the love of Christ. His fervent words are a reminder of the power of God's grace.

Addressing sin within the church is about coming alongside our brothers and sisters with compassion, helping them to experience that grace
 
As I understand it, the majority view is currently Pauline authorship. However, yes, there are several other possibilities
It's hard to get a majority when many favour different possibilities eg. Apollo's, Barnabas, Prescilla, and more.
Paul writing Colossians and Thessalonians 2 is also in question...
Even the Catholic Church was undecided at the Council of Trent but did agree that Hebrews belonged in the canon without committing who the author was.
Paul himself also warned others that some letters were sent that claimed him as the author, which is why he signed all of his letters
I suppose Hebrews would make a good study someday.
 
In what Church today do you see Ministers calling out immoral acts in the Church like Paul is doing in this Chapter

Well, in my particular congregation, I'd say that "immoral acts" are sort of a shortage. I hang out with a LOT of 80-90 year old women, with the odd man and a smattering of younger people, all of whom appear to be pretty well behaved. It just isn't a hotbed of immorality. ;-) What our minister focuses on are the needs of the congregation - for love, for friendship, for grace, for companionship, for hope.
 
Well, in my particular congregation, I'd say that "immoral acts" are sort of a shortage. I hang out with a LOT of 80-90 year old women, with the odd man and a smattering of younger people, all of whom appear to be pretty well behaved. It just isn't a hotbed of immorality. ;-) What our minister focuses on are the needs of the congregation - for love, for friendship, for grace, for companionship, for hope.
To be fair, immoral acts involves more than just sex, or I hope that morality goes beyond rubbing body parts together. 80-90 year olds can lie, cheat, steal, and exploit just like anyone else. :giggle:

But this Christian obsession with legalistic morality really just opens the door to more immorality. Perhaps treating each other with love and grace will be more likely to lead to moral behaviour than smacking people on the bum. Too often, the people doing the smacking are getting turned on by it. So I would say that your minister is doing it right.
 
And if you are referring to the larger Church when it comes to discipline, I don't see the point in the minister of a small United Church congregation castigating the RCC for its egregiously awful behaviour, I think it's largely none of our business.

Perhaps treating each other with love and grace will be more likely to lead to moral behaviour than smacking people on the bum.

I have to say that I am a much better person for hanging out in this congregation; they are an eternal source of kindness and grace and encouragement. They make me want to be more like them.
 
And if you are referring to the larger Church when it comes to discipline, I don't see the point in the minister of a small United Church congregation castigating the RCC for its egregiously awful behaviour, I think it's largely none of our business.
Quite the opposite if you read carefully. If you start smacking them for their bum smacking, you're into that legalistic, moralistic thing that I am suggesting isn't the best way to go.
 
Back
Top