“Why didn’t Paul write letters to the Zulus or Mongolians?” Because Paul wasn’t Google Maps. He traveled as a Roman citizen on Roman roads. His letters went to churches in the Mediterranean basin—Corinth, Rome, Philippi—where he could physically go. That’s not exclusion, that’s geography.
And Christianity reached Africa immediately:
• Acts 8:27–39 — Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch, bringing the gospel into Africa.
• By the 2nd–3rd centuries, Africa produced giants like Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo who shaped Christian theology.
• The Zulu nation itself didn’t even exist until 1,700 years after Paul.
Asking why Paul didn’t write to the Zulus is like asking why he didn’t write to George Washington—it’s an anachronism, not an argument.
The Founding Fathers Analogy
Equating the U.S. Constitution with the Bible is false and dangerous:
• The Constitution was written by fallible men in 1787. The Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), written over 1,500 years by 40+ inspired authors.
• The “posterity” of the Founders was a legal phrase, not a covenantal one. Scripture says in Christ, “You are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people” (Eph. 2:19). God’s “posterity” is belief, not bloodline.
• Jesus Himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36). The Kingdom of God is not America, not Rome, not any earthly nation.
The Constitution is IMHO an inspired by God document a way to create a government most likely to allow true pursuit of God without interference. That is not the same as the word of God. The Constitution is vital and the most important document written by man to date. It is men mostly men of God struggling to create an ideal larger than them. It is not a Holy Scripture capable of filling the same place in human history or hearts as the Holy Bible. In both your comparisons you seek to undermine both suggesting that neither are valid because they were not universal enough and therefore false and must be rejected. Current corruption of society at its root preaches universalism as the standard for all things. All things must be for all people or be rejected even that which is detestable. Your argument seems to agree with that tenet. I disagree.
I almost forgot to reply to your “points”
“Why didn’t Paul write letters to the Zulus or Mongolians?” Because Paul wasn’t Google Maps. He traveled as a Roman citizen on Roman roads. His letters went to churches in the Mediterranean basin—Corinth, Rome, Philippi—where he could physically go. That’s not exclusion, that’s geography.
And Christianity reached Africa immediately: • Acts 8:27–39 — Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch, bringing the gospel into Africa. • By the 2nd–3rd centuries, Africa produced giants like Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo who shaped Christian theology. • The Zulu nation itself didn’t even exist until 1,700 years after Paul.
Asking why Paul didn’t write to the Zulus is like asking why he didn’t write to George Washington—it’s an anachronism, not an argument.
The Founding Fathers Analogy
Equating the U.S. Constitution with the Bible is false and dangerous: • The Constitution was written by fallible men in 1787. The Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), written over 1,500 years by 40+ inspired authors. • The “posterity” of the Founders was a legal phrase, not a covenantal one. Scripture says in Christ, “You are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people” (Eph. 2:19). God’s “posterity” is belief, not bloodline. • Jesus Himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36). The Kingdom of God is not America, not Rome, not any earthly nation.
The Constitution is IMHO an inspired by God document a way to create a government most likely to allow true pursuit of God without interference. That is not the same as the word of God. The Constitution is vital and the most important document written by man to date. It is men mostly men of God struggling to create an ideal larger than them. It is not a Holy Scripture capable of filling the same place in human history or hearts as the Holy Bible. In both your comparisons you seek to undermine both suggesting that neither are valid because they were not universal enough and therefore false and must be rejected. Current corruption of society at its root preaches universalism as the standard for all things. All things must be for all people or be rejected even that which is detestable. Your argument seems to agree with that tenet. I disagree.