Why Trust Paul?

[Danoh]

You do realize that all of your claims are based on faith that the New Testament is true. That can work for you- but don't expect to convince others with verses from your holy book.

That is on each individual...

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[Truster]

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

 

[Elia]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV.

Have you trusted the Lord believing 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV?

Bs"d

Have you trusted Allah to believe that the Quran is his word and Mohammed is his prophet?


"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, 'Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things.' Will a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?"
Jeremiah 16:19

 

[Epoisses]

Modern Christianity is largely based on the teachings of Paul. The question is: Why do you accept Paul as an authority?

If it is because of verses in the New Testament (which is the answer many will think of), then there is a small problem, as much of the New Testament consists of letters written by...Paul himself.

I assume that there is something more here that I am missing. So please explain.

Chair

Paul preached the gospel which is foolishness to those who trust in law aka they trust in themselves. Save me works of my hands, save me!

 

[Elia]

Paul preached the gospel which is foolishness to those who trust in law aka they trust in themselves. Save me works of my hands, save me!

Bs"d

God is our savior.

God gave us laws and regulations to live by.

God doesn't want us to go through life as lawless pagans.


"But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: FEAR GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."
Ecc 12:12-14, New American Standard Bible

 

[chair]

Paul preached the gospel which is foolishness to those who trust in law aka they trust in themselves. Save me works of my hands, save me!

I honestly don't understand what this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Elia]

Bs"d


God doesn't want us to go through life as lawless pagans.

But that is of course exactly what the Christians are doing.


"But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: FEAR GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."
Ecc 12:12-14, New American Standard Bible

 

[Selaphiel]

Modern Christianity is largely based on the teachings of Paul. The question is: Why do you accept Paul as an authority?

If it is because of verses in the New Testament (which is the answer many will think of), then there is a small problem, as much of the New Testament consists of letters written by...Paul himself.

I assume that there is something more here that I am missing. So please explain.

Chair

What is "modern Christianity" in the singular? I feel there is an unspoken assumption in what you write here, namely that "modern Christianity", whatever that is, follows Paul instead of Christ rather than Paul and Christ. If it is the Christianity of TOL I would have to object. TOL mostly consists of a collection of minor fringe sects that has very little to do with either Catholic, Eastern orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran Christianity.

Paul is central because he provides one of the first theological interpretations of the significance of the life of Christ. Then you can point out, as some here has done, that Paul abolished the law while Christ taught the importance of the law (although in a modified sense, unless one ignores all accounts except one Mathean verse). There is one thing that is fundamentally important when trying to understand Christianity: It is that it is the life of Christ as an event that is important, not just his teachings. Don't get me wrong, they are important, but you will never understand Christianity if you ignore the absolute centrality of cross and resurrection.

The New testament does indeed contain some of Paul's letters, some of which really are pseudo-Pauline. But there are works that are not by Paul himself that approve of him as an apostle: Luke-Acts and 2.Peter (obviously not written by Peter himself, but that is besides the point).

That would be one of the reasons. The second is more important: The New testament contains Pauline epistles, but the New testament itself is canonized by the early church. The church approved of Paul as an apostle, a very important one at that. His interpretation of the Christ event was found to be true and thus foundational of the church. I don't believe Paul is inerrant in the literal sense (there is very little doubt that he believed the end was imminent, and he was also a product of his time in some other statements he made) like the fundamentalists, but I do believe his theological interpretation is very insightful. His analyses of the problem with law are very insightful, in a way that I believe is also revealed in the crucifixion in a more indirect way: That is that even a good law can fall under the power of sin: Politics, law, religion are good things, but even they can be used for evil (that is one of those statements where you can simply put "History" in a footnote and it should be accepted), it were those three things that crucified Christ.

If I trusted Moses only because some old book said he was a prophet, then I would be in the same position as most Christians are.

Why do you trust him? Also, going by what "most of anything" thinks is not a good way to evaluate an actual belief. Most Buddhists are practitioners of superstitious rituals, that does not really say much about the teachings of the Buddha.

 

[patrick jane]

Modern Christianity is largely based on the teachings of Paul. The question is: Why do you accept Paul as an authority?

If it is because of verses in the New Testament (which is the answer many will think of), then there is a small problem, as much of the New Testament consists of letters written by...Paul himself.

I assume that there is something more here that I am missing. So please explain.

Chair

Why trust Moses or David?

 

[chair]

What is "modern Christianity" in the singular? I feel there is an unspoken assumption in what you write here, namely that "modern Christianity", whatever that is, follows Paul instead of Christ rather than Paul and Christ. If it is the Christianity of TOL I would have to object. TOL mostly consists of a collection of minor fringe sects that has very little to do with either Catholic, Eastern orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran Christianity.

I expect that your are right. I get carried away sometimes arguing with people here who do not represent anybody besides themselves. And I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments here. A breath of fresh air.

Paul is central because he provides one of the first theological interpretations of the significance of the life of Christ. Then you can point out, as some here has done, that Paul abolished the law while Christ taught the importance of the law (although in a modified sense, unless one ignores all accounts except one Mathean verse). There is one thing that is fundamentally important when trying to understand Christianity: It is that it is the life of Christ as an event that is important, not just his teachings. Don't get me wrong, they are important, but you will never understand Christianity if you ignore the absolute centrality of cross and resurrection.

The New testament does indeed contain some of Paul's letters, some of which really are pseudo-Pauline. But there are works that are not by Paul himself that approve of him as an apostle: Luke-Acts and 2.Peter (obviously not written by Peter himself, but that is besides the point).

That would be one of the reasons. The second is more important: The New testament contains Pauline epistles, but the New testament itself is canonized by the early church. The church approved of Paul as an apostle, a very important one at that. His interpretation of the Christ event was found to be true and thus foundational of the church. I don't believe Paul is inerrant in the literal sense (there is very little doubt that he believed the end was imminent, and he was also a product of his time in some other statements he made) like the fundamentalists, but I do believe his theological interpretation is very insightful. His analyses of the problem with law are very insightful, in a way that I believe is also revealed in the crucifixion in a more indirect way: That is that even a good law can fall under the power of sin: Politics, law, religion are good things, but even they can be used for evil (that is one of those statements where you can simply put "History" in a footnote and it should be accepted), it were those three things that crucified Christ.

Why do you trust him? Also, going by what "most of anything" thinks is not a good way to evaluate an actual belief. Most Buddhists are practitioners of superstitious rituals, that does not really say much about the teachings of the Buddha.

You speak of the "His interpretation of the Christ event was found to be true and thus foundational of the church." Perhaps this is similar to why I consider the Torah to be authoritative. Because of our tradition. The oral tradition is what gives authority to the written text.

 

[beameup]

You do realize that all of your claims are based on faith that the New Testament is true. That can work for you- but don't expect to convince others with verses from your holy book.

There was no "New Testament" until the 4th century. How do you suppose Abraham "got by"? How about the Jewish believers in the 1st century? Or the Jew & Gentile believers in Yeshua Messiah in the 2nd century?

 

[beameup]

God doesn't want us to go through life as lawless pagans
But that is of course exactly what the Christians are doing.

Haven't you ever heard of the NoHide Laws?
Didn't Abraham follow the Code of Hammurabi?

Behold, as for the proud one,
His soul is not right within him;
But the righteous will live by his faith. Habakkuk 2:4

 

[Selaphiel]

I expect that your are right. I get carried away sometimes arguing with people here who do not represent anybody besides themselves.

I only recognize it because I'm so often guilty of it myself.

And I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments here. A breath of fresh air.

Thank you.

You speak of the "His interpretation of the Christ event was found to be true and thus foundational of the church." Perhaps this is similar to why I consider the Torah to be authoritative. Because of our tradition. The oral tradition is what gives authority to the written text.

That is about it. Engaging with those texts, that canon is part of what defines the Christian community. That is not all the church is of course, it is mixture of people of different times, cultures, class and so forth engaging with a certain canon, guided by creeds and liturgies as well as contemporary theological thought and reflection. Engaging with Paul is part of that because he was deemed central by the earliest church. I prefer to liken the relationshiip between the church and the scriptures as that of Jacob and the angel. That is why I use the word "engage with" rather than read or receive. Only when we wrestle with those texts and traditions in our contexts (as well as being open to engagements from other contexts) are we a living church.

 

[chair]

...

That is about it. Engaging with those texts, that canon is part of what defines the Christian community...

This is what some here on TOL do not understand. They are Bible-only oriented, and it leads them into circular thinking, that the Bible is true because somebody in the Bible said so.

Community and tradition are the keys in Judaism. And the tradition is a live one, not frozen 3,000 years ago like some here would like it to be.

 

[patrick jane]

1 Corinthians 11:1 KJV -

 

[chair]

There was no "New Testament" until the 4th century. How do you suppose Abraham "got by"? How about the Jewish believers in the 1st century? Or the Jew & Gentile believers in Yeshua Messiah in the 2nd century?

You are still making no sense at all to me. I must have missed the part where Abraham was a Christian.

 

[beameup]

You are still making no sense at all to me. I must have missed the part where Abraham was a Christian.

I perceive that your knowledge/understanding of the scriptures (old & new) is very shallow overall.

Those who live 100% in the "flesh" are just not able to comprehend and/or respond to the spiritual and ethereal.

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel ["facing God"]: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. -- Genesis 32:24-30

 

[chair]

I perceive that your knowledge/understanding of the scriptures (old & new) is very shallow overall.

Those who live 100% in the "flesh" are just not able to comprehend and/or respond to the spiritual and ethereal.

If it makes you happy to think this, go ahead. It is very convenient to dismiss all who disagree with you as ignorant or shallow. Saves the bother of actually having to think about things.

Have a nice day.

 

[Stripe]

If it is because of verses in the New Testament (which is the answer many will think of), then there is a small problem, as much of the New Testament consists of letters written by...Paul himself.

This is a daft argument. You accept Einstein's relativity theory — even without having read any of the papers that claimed to establish it. Einstein wrote all of those.

We accept ideas because we have tested them against our experience, knowledge and beliefs.

You're sold out to the irrational notion that the source of an idea is a contributing factor to its veracity. This is called argumentum ad hominem and is a Darwinist favorite.

Seriously, they couldn't escape it if they tried. Everything boils down to: "I don't like him, therefore what he says is nonsense."

 

[chair]

This is a daft argument. You accept Einstein's relativity theory — even without having read any of the papers that claimed to establish it. Einstein wrote all of those.

We accept ideas because we have tested them against our experience, knowledge and beliefs.

You're sold out to the irrational notion that the source of an idea is a contributing factor to its veracity. This is called argumentum ad hominem and is a Darwinist favorite.

Seriously, they couldn't escape it if they tried. Everything boils down to: "I don't like him, therefore what he says is nonsense."

No, I haven't sold out to any such thing. Calling me an "evolutionist" is this context is irrelevant.

Stripe- in matters of faith and religion, testing against "experience, knowledge" won't work. You cannot explain to me rationally why I should believe the same things that you do. You are welcome to try, but start another thread for that, and don't expect me to stick around if you devolve to your usual tricks.

"Beliefs " is another ball game altogether, and that is where community and tradition come in.