arnoldo

False. Paul was writing concerning the division in the Corinthian believers regarding those who stated they were baptized by different apostles and would claim "I am of Paul," "I am of Cephas," "I am of Apollos," ect. Due to this controversy Paul rhetorically stated he wasn't set apart (apostello) to baptize and was greatful he only baptized a few at the Corinthian assembly. .

The following link has some more info on this matter for those interested: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ba/ba_07.htm

aa5874

Look at 1 Corinthians 1.17
The words of the writer are right there. Don't you see them?


Perhaps Apollos and others were baptizing in their names, but the writer Paul was specifically sent to preach, not baptize, by revelation from the resurrected dead.

rizdek

Perhaps, like christians, we are making too much of specific wording. Consider letters you have written. Very often they reflect a very specific context of a discourse between you and one or a few others. You probably didn't write them with the intention that they get compiled into some sort of canon and published as a bible hundreds or thousands of years later.

These were LETTERS Paul was writing. Some people treat them as if he knew he was writing for posterity and all time. That's way it is comical to me when christians focus so much attention on a few verses, a sentence or even a phrase and spend hours massaging it and elaborating on its deep subtle meaning. I've heard preachers brag they can preach for weeks on end from one verse. Talk about overkill.

Sure Paul ends up writing what appears to be contradictions in context of other NT texts, and even his own, probably because he was writing to different people about different things. I doubt he kept copies of all his letters with him so he could revisit phrases and thoughts from previous letters to ensure he never contradicted them in later letters. What's more, it is likely as he traveled about he got new "inspiration" thoughts and ideas that would alter his message.

Julio

Yes. Which means Paul was never “verbally” or “plenary” inspired, as rabid fundamentalists want to force us to believe.
Lucky that we have a NORMAL brain to resist the “fundamentals”, are we not!
Religion is inoffensive pastime between meals if nobody gets hurt!

bacht

Because fundamentalist theology (Jewish, Christian, Islamic whatever) is about worshipping a book. It's a form of idolatry: just as stone and metal statues are the works of men's hands, so too are books.

Julio

Exactly right!
The Bible is an inexistent Holy Book, for it doesn’t have any back up to protect its “original” text.
The so-called “Autographs” could not be preserved to support the original script, and thus God LOST his credentials and went morally bankrupt!
What we buy in the market is a VERSION of this or that “original text” put together by some United Bible Society or Trinitarian of London, and that’s that!
A great DECEPTION and dishonesty.

Solo

No, he is not. Paul evidently suffered from some speech defect (pressured speech ?) which made him ineffective as a preacher:

2 Cr 10:10 "For his letters," they say, "are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (NKJV)

Jiri

aa5874

Now, you make stuff up.

"Contemptible speech" is not a "speech defect".

show_no_mercy

Depending on what translation you use, "contemptible" isn't there:

Paul was apparently "paulus" while in person, but bold in his letters.

Julio

“His letters” is a minefield of “textual science” controversy. We ought to be careful to attribute all Paul’s epistles to Paul.