Question on 1 Corinthians 7

[Gab]

I was reading 1 Corinthians a little while ago, and I came upon something that I hadn't really thought about much before, and it struck me as kind of odd.  It's pretty much accepted among Christians that every portion of the Bible from cover to cover is divinely inspired, and is thus effectively God speaking, not the writer.  I am curious, then, what everyone's take is on this:

"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband." (1 Corinthians 7:10, emph. added)

"To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her." (1 Corinthians 7:12)

I suppose the question that I really have is this: If Paul was writing 1 Corinthians under divine inspiration, and thus if God was speaking through Paul, then why does the letter specifically state here that one part is from God, and another part was from Paul (and therefore seemingly not from God)?

The whole chapter, in fact, seems oddly personal in nature - it contains such statements as, "I wish that all men were as I am" (personal value judgment), "I have no command from the Lord, but I give a gnomen (opinion; judgment; advice)," and, "I doko (to be of the opinion; to think) that I too have the Spirit of God."  There seems to be marked lack of certainty here, at least at face value - he has no command from God, but merely gives what seems to be personal advice (even though he does later say that he is trustworthy), and he seems to only be of the opinion that he has the Spirit, rather than knowing it as a fact.

Was wondering what others thought about this.

[WhiteWings]

I have no answer for you Gab. But wanted to say it indeed sounds odd. Like it doesn't come directly from the HS.
But I think it's safe to assume that Jesus spoke many more words during His ministry than those written down in the NT. So my thoughts are that Jesus has thaught many more things as are written down.
So perhaps the I=Paul parts are teachings he remembers from Jesus?
Anyway I'm going to Google on the subject.

[Gab]

But I think it's safe to assume that Jesus spoke many more words during His ministry than those written down in the NT. So my thoughts are that Jesus has thaught many more things as are written down.
So perhaps the I=Paul parts are teachings he remembers from Jesus?

I thought about something along those lines, but the Greek says this:

ego lego ouch ho kurios

Which literally means this:

I am-saying not the master/Lord

Which would at least appear to be directly stating, "The following is not said by the Lord."  If we accept that Jesus is Lord, then we would have to accept that this additionally says that it's not said by Jesus, either.  Hence my puzzlement.

Anyway I'm going to Google on the subject.

Let me know if you find anything - I tried that out, but to be honest nothing I found seemed remotely satisfying.

[WhiteWings]

ego lego ouch ho kurios

Which literally means this:

I am-saying not the master/Lord

But what does that really mean?
If Paul writes down literal words from Father/Son/HS then the I=divine
But I assume it never was Pauls intention to add thoughts of himself to the NT. So why did he wrote the I=Paul parts.
Just guesswork but perhaps it are teachings of Jesus. But because they are from years ago Paul feared his wording of the teachings of Jesus would be different than how the HS would have said it. You know with all kind of hidden layers. That's why he used I=Paul. Not because he warned it is manmade teachings but he warned of divine teachings summarized/remembered/interpretated by man.
But that are just my thoughts I can't prove in any way.

[Gab]

But what does that really mean?

Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

If Paul writes down literal words from Father/Son/HS then the I=divine
But I assume it never was Pauls intention to add thoughts of himself to the NT. So why did he wrote the I=Paul parts.
Just guesswork but perhaps it are teachings of Jesus. But because they are from years ago Paul feared his wording of the teachings of Jesus would be different than how the HS would have said it. You know with all kind of hidden layers. That's why he used I=Paul. Not because he warned it is manmade teachings but he warned of divine teachings summarized/remembered/interpretated by man.
But that are just my thoughts I can't prove in any way.

I know what you're saying, but the problem that I run into is located in this statement, which people tend to quote regarding the divinely inspired nature of the Bible:

"All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16)

It seems to me that either this is true or this is false.  If 1 Corinthians 7 is not God-breathed (which presumably, if it were, would imply that God is saying it), then it seems to me that one would have to conclude either that it is not scripture, or that 2 Timothy 3:16 is not true.  I would presume that most anyone would deny both of these assertions.  But, then, what does it mean when Paul explicitly declares that what follows is not God speaking?  That's where I'm having trouble reconciling things.

[WhiteWings]

I know what you're saying, but the problem that I run into is located in this statement, which people tend to quote regarding the divinely inspired nature of the Bible:

"All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16)

It seems to me that either this is true or this is false.  If 1 Corinthians 7 is not God-breathed (which presumably, if it were, would imply that God is saying it), then it seems to me that one would have to conclude either that it is not scripture, or that 2 Timothy 3:16 is not true.  I would presume that most anyone would deny both of these assertions

I would say it's not Scripture. Even Paul himself states it's not scripture. At the first edition of the KJV all books according to 2 Timothy 3:16 were God-breathed. But many books are removed because they were not inspired by God. They never were scripture. But Paul was very honestly pointing out that certain parts are human words. And by that clearly stating it's not scripture. Then of course we can ask ourselfs: Shouldn't that verse be removed from the Bible?
I bet Paul and others had many smart and correct things to say. But such things are not Scripture but commentaries.

Mods: I hope I'm not overstepping the boundries of the "Don't criticize Scripture" rule.

[WhiteWings]

Anyway I'm going to Google on the subject.

Let me know if you find anything - I tried that out, but to be honest nothing I found seemed remotely satisfying.

Let's see what mr. Google says:

Are the writings of the Apostle Paul inspired (see 1 Corinthians 7:12)?
the Lord has not directly spoken, as he did on divorce; hence, Paul speaks by inspiration.
We see then, that in no way was Paul going outside of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he wrote those words. He is merely going beyond the scope of the teaching Jesus providedShabir uses Paul's statement in the Bible to show that Paul claimed that he was not inspired. Paul made no such admission. If one does read Paul's writings in their intended context one will discover Paul's actual meaning:


"Now about virgins; I have no command from the Lord, but I give judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think it is good for you to remain as you are." 1 Corinthians 7:25-26
In light of 7:26, Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25 are not a denial of inspiration. Rather, they constitute an acknowledgment that the Lord, while on earth, has given no commands to the disciples in regards to these particular issues. Therefore, Paul gave "judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."The problem with the SAB's analysis is that it completely misunderstands Paul's references to "the Lord's" commands. When Paul distinguishes his own teaching from that of the Lord, he is not distinguishing teaching that is divinely inspired from that which is not, but teaching that merely repeats the teaching of the earthly Jesus from that which doesn't.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm

[WhiteWings]

Who wrote the Bible - Greeky Gab will like this one  We are now dealing with a case in which our Lord did not comment. Paul is writing this to the Corinthians and it carries the authority of an inspired apostle. For us, the writing is just as valid and authoritative as if Jesus Himself had spoken it. One warning we must be careful to observe. In such passages where one person speaks a commandment of God, that commandment must be compatible with all other writings on the same subject. The concept of authority demands that no one verse will disqualify another verse, but support that other verse.

As an example, we have many passages that describe the fact that we are saved by faith. There are many religious groups that take these passages and say that we are saved by faith only. However by doing so, they are ignoring other passages which deal with works and other things which are also necessary for our salvation. The Authority of the Writings of Paul
The Apostle Paul himself claims divine inspiration for his writings. The Gospel which Paul preached was not of human origin, but it was received directly from the Lord. He says, "For I would have you know that the gospel which was preached by me, is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).
I think that's a important verse! It aligns very well with the SABs from my previous post.
Plus from the same article:
Some say that the instructions of 1 Corinthians 7 are merely Paul's private opinions, and are not a part of the authoritative Word of God. After all, Paul says, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord…" (verse 12). And concerning the unmarried, "I have no command of the Lord, but I give my judgment…" (verse 25).

But keep in mind that the contrast here is not between inspired teaching which God gave, and uninspired ideas which Paul was presenting, as some have wrongly supposed. In verses 10-11, Paul is repeating in essence something already taught by Jesus (recorded in Matthew 19:3-5),I hope the above is of some use to you Gab. Gotta go now because I'm tempted by the food demon 

[Raggedy Anne]

Gab,

Perhaps with all of us, if we sat down to write a spiritual letter, some of what we write would be our own thoughts, and some would be from the mind of Christ.   That's the way I see the problem with the odd epistles. 

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written down in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. NASB 

Jesus Christ, The Word of God- He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. Rev 19-13

The Word of God is like a light
That shines serenely thro' the night;
Its rays will light my weary way
To the realms of a fair, unending day.

The Word of God is strong and sure,
Forevermore it shall endure,
When oceans cease to kiss the shore,
When suns shall set to rise no more;
'Mid crash of worlds it shall remain
Unshaken midst the starry rain,
Upon its firm foundation strong,
I will plant my feet thro' the ages long.

The Word of God is like a sword
That pierces hearts, thus saith the Lord;
And like a hammer, weighty, strong,
That can break up the rocks of sin and wrong.

The Word of God is like the bread
On which the hosts of old were fed;
From Heav'n it came to fill our need,
Hungry hearts it will satisfy indeed.

The Word of God is like a fire,
It kindles in our hearts desire
To see its Author face to face
And to know all the fullness of His grace.
_____________________________________
Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketseq/880776049/