Do Paul's epistles contain any "meat", or just the "milk"?

[Joseph Antley]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread...

To my non-LDS Christian friends: can you give me an example of what you think might qualify as the "meat" that Paul wouldn't tell the Corinthians from elsewhere in Paul's epistles or the New Testament?

[BCSpace]

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

Well, the Corinthians appear to have had the temple ordinances so I would say that all LDS doctrines, teachings, and practices today are milk.

[Mudcat]

Hi Joseph,

I suppose I have been about as busy as I could be and haven't had the chance to go back through Paul's epistles, to provide any substantive thought.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread...

To my non-LDS Christian friends: can you give me an example of what you think might qualify as the "meat" that Paul wouldn't tell the Corinthians from elsewhere in Paul's epistles or the New Testament?

I think it might be worth trying to determine what is the actual difference between milk and meat.

From my perspective, both contain similar properties, like protein and fat. Both help us grow. The key difference between the two in context being milk is only digestible suitable for the infant. Meat on the other hand is digestible only by someone that is past infancy.

Milk is also the primary source of calcium for an infant. This calcium will eventually be processed into bone growth, and more importantly for the analogies sake... growth of teeth. We can't ingest meat without teeth. I though it was worth noting this distinction for this reason.

One, to gain the ability to digest doctrinal meat we must first develop that capability to do so. Milk is liquid and digests readily. It provides the essential elements we need as we mature, to chew on more complex issues and break them up into more digestible components.

Peter seems to recognize that both components reside in Paul's letters

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So I think the answer lies in what teachings of Paul were of sufficient complexity that they needed to be spiritually "chewed" on to become digestible.

The author of Hebrews seems to gives us some further insight on the topic.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskillfull in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Those that are inexperienced of ignorant in the Gospel use milk.

The obvious contrast being those that have experience and knowledge of the Gospel, those with the spiritual maturity to discern truth are the meat eaters.

By defining meat, milk will also be inadvertently defined.

The author of Hebrews goes on in the next few verses and seems to define what milk is.

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Underline mine. If these elements are foundational principles, then I think they should be tabled as non-potential candidates for meat.

Hopefully I will get a chance soon to look at this better.

Any thoughts?

Mudcat

[soren]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread...

To my non-LDS Christian friends: can you give me an example of what you think might qualify as the "meat" that Paul wouldn't tell the Corinthians from elsewhere in Paul's epistles or the New Testament?

Principally it refers to the doctrine of the Eucharist, which is the central topic of the Letter to Hebrews, although implicitly, hidden in plain sight behind behind hints and by-words.