Why Trust Paul?

[Stripe]

I haven't sold out to any such thing.

The evidence shows otherwise. You held up who Paul is as the sole reason to dismiss what he said.

In matters of faith and religion, testing against "experience, knowledge" won't work.

I guess you'd know. We don't hold up Paul's account as solely "faith and religion." His is also an account of history.

You cannot explain to me rationally why I should believe the same things that you do.

1. You never asked for that.
2. I wasn't trying to.
3. Of course I could.

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

I'm interested in reality: Are Paul's accounts historically accurate?

"Community and tradition" had no part of OP. You launched an assault on "modern" Christianity by bringing an ad hominem attack against the man who wrote most of Christianity's founding documents. When called on your nonsense, you retreat to the position that we should hold scripture in the same vapid manner that you do.

Sorry, rational discussions don't work by you issuing nonsense challenges and then morphing them into something else when called on it.

You don't disregard Einstein's work, even though he wrote it all, but you think you are justified in rejecting Paul's work, which is validated not only by his contemporaries, but also by the scripture you claim as your own.

OP is dead in the water; it's got nowhere to go but backward and you've got the car in reverse and your foot to the floor.

 

[Tambora]

The evidence shows otherwise. You held up who Paul is as the sole reason to dismiss what he said.

I guess you'd know. We don't hold up Paul's account as solely "faith and religion." His is also an account of history.

1. You never asked for that.
2. I wasn't trying to.
3. Of course I could.

I'm interested in reality: Are Paul's accounts historically accurate?

"Community and tradition" had no part of OP. You launched an assault on "modern" Christianity by bringing an ad hominem attack against the man who wrote most of Christianity's founding documents. When called on your nonsense, you retreat to the position that we should hold scripture in the same vapid manner that you do.

Sorry, rational discussions don't work by you issuing nonsense challenges and then morphing them into something else when called on it.

You don't disregard Einstein's work, even though he wrote it all, but you think you are justified in rejecting Paul's work, which is validated not only by his contemporaries, but also by the scripture you claim as your own.

OP is dead in the water; it's got nowhere to go but backward and you've got the car in reverse and your foot to the floor.

BOOM shakalaka!!!

 

[steko]

BOOM shakalaka!!!

I love everyday people!

 

[Tambora]

I love everyday people!

People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.

 

[steko]

People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.

There she was justa' walkin' down th' street
singin' doo-wa-ditty-ditty-dum-ditty-doo.

 

[Stripe]

:banana:

 

[chair]

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

Here is the OP again. Let's try to get this back on track. I am trying to get to the basis of your faith. This is not an attack on you or Paul. Just think about why you accept him.

 

[Tambora]

There she was justa' walkin' down th' street
singin' doo-wa-ditty-ditty-dum-ditty-doo.

That was after she was comin' 'round the mountain ridin' six white horses.

 

[Stripe]

Just think about why you accept him.

Reading is your second language, isn't it? This has been answered numerous times.

And you don't escape your irrational position by trying to move the subject elsewhere. You accept Einstein's work; why can Paul's work not be considered for its historical value, especially as it is corroborated by his contemporaries and history from before him?

 

[User Name]

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.

If you don't trust Moses only because some old book said he was a prophet, then why do you trust Moses? List your reasons.

 

[beameup]

Here is the OP again. Let's try to get this back on track. I am trying to get to the basis of your faith. This is not an attack on you or Paul. Just think about why you accept him.

It's not about "tribalism", it's about "spirituality".
Taking "spiritual" God-breathed by ruach 'Elohim documents
and reading them with "fleshly"-"carnal"-"tribal" mind yields nothing.
Abraham pleased God because he "believed God" and "trusted God" by FAITH
Nothing has changed.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit [ruach 'Elohim] the things of the Spirit [ruach 'Elohim]. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. - Romans 8:5-7

 

[chair]

If you don't trust Moses only because some old book said he was a prophet, then why do you trust Moses? List your reasons.

I've already explained. Because of our tradition. Oral tradition. Without that, even Jesus would not have trusted Moses.

 

[Danoh]

Bs"d

Maybe because he went straight against the teachings of your "messiah"?


"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

Per various passages like the following, it appears that way to you...

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

While, per various passages like the following, it does not appear that way to me...

Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Acts 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 9:27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 9:28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

And that is just one example of others that could be cited.

 

[Stripe]

:banana:

 

[MennoSota]

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.

Does this mean the Bible is only of value if the community and traditions give it value? If the community and tradition give value to beliefs that go contrary to what God says, then the community and traditions are correct and God's word is false? Is that an accurate summary?
If someone changed a tradition or added a tradition so that it no longer pointed toward YHWH, would you reject YHWH and hold to the "live" tradition of the community?

 

[oatmeal]

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

Because it is God's word he wrote down

Both Luke and Peter attest to Paul's ministry as reliable.

For that matter why trust Matthew or Mark of Luke or John? or Moses or David?

 

[chair]

Does this mean the Bible is only of value if the community and traditions give it value? If the community and tradition give value to beliefs that go contrary to what God says, then the community and traditions are correct and God's word is false? Is that an accurate summary?
If someone changed a tradition or added a tradition so that it no longer pointed toward YHWH, would you reject YHWH and hold to the "live" tradition of the community?

The Hebrew Bible is of value because of our tradition that it is. Without a Jewish community, it would be just another dead book of ancient writings. It is highly unlikely that we will develop a new tradition that is completely at odds with what we've done for many centuries.

 

[chair]

Because it is God's word he wrote down...

How do you know that?
Think.

 

[MennoSota]

The Hebrew Bible is of value because of our tradition that it is. Without a Jewish community, it would be just another dead book of ancient writings. It is highly unlikely that we will develop a new tradition that is completely at odds with what we've done for many centuries.

So the vast number of Jewish atheists can influence the community and the traditions going forward?
Also, which tradition is the correct tradition? Is it the secular Jewish tradition, the conservative Jewish tradition, the orthodox Jewish tradition, the hassidic Jewish tradition, the Jews for Jesus Jewish tradition, the ultra-orthodox Jewish tradition? Which one? Which community?
At what point do you admit that your underlying argument is purely relativism. Your argument is that there is no absolute truth. Humans make it up as they go and change it at their own convenience.
Now, compare your argument of relativism with the God of the Bible...then get back to me.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Beameup:

So we should trust Paul because Peter said so?

Are you presupposing that St. Paul is contrary to the rest of the Bible?

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using Tapatalk