Do Christians Worship Paul?

[Penumbra]

It seems to me that a significant subset of Christians take their Saint Paul's words as God's words.

A lot of times people say something like, "God wills it", and then they quote Paul. Personally, I've always just called him Paul, not God. But he often seems to get called God.

For the life of me I don't see why so many Christians grant Paul any authority on anything. So the question of the thread, aimed primarily towards Christians is: on what basis do you take any writings of Paul to be valid or true in any way? What gives them any more weight to you than just being a person's opinion?

 

[Storm]

It's an inevitable consequence of Bibliolatry. If God wrote the Bible, and Paul's lwritings are in the Bible, Paul must be equal to God.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

If you're going here; why not go all the way? Why take the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John seriously? Why accept that the work that carries their names (and Paul's) really came from the claimed authors? Why equate all of their statements with God's?

 

[oldbadger]

It's an inevitable consequence of Bibliolatry. If God wrote the Bible, and Paul's lwritings are in the Bible, Paul must be equal to God.

This is the Roman Catholic Church's fault, I think. They met and decided which books to include, and destroyed all/any that they did not want. They also killed any that complained too loudly, I have heard....over the years.

Very pro-Paul, that lot.

 

[Penumbra]

If you're going here; why not go all the way? Why take the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John seriously? Why accept that the work that carries their names (and Paul's) really came from the claimed authors? Why equate all of their statements with God's?

To keep the scope of the thread manageable and focused.

I don't view any of the Christian religion as being on any solid ground whatsoever, seeing as how it's based on Gospel accounts written decades after the death of Jesus by unverified writers, and various letters attributed to Paul and other unverified writers. But for this particular thread I'm interested in why anyone would give any credit to any of Paul's writings above any normal person's opinion.

 

[Penumbra]

It's an inevitable consequence of Bibliolatry. If God wrote the Bible, and Paul's lwritings are in the Bible, Paul must be equal to God.

Which is circular, of course.

 

[Penumbra]

This is the Roman Catholic Church's fault, I think. They met and decided which books to include, and destroyed all/any that they did not want. They also killed any that complained too loudly, I have heard....over the years.

Very pro-Paul, that lot.

Yes, they sorted out which Gospels get to be canon and which do not, and included Paul's letters.

Even before that time, Paul had an audience and some people clearly took his authority seriously.

 

[Storm]

Which is circular, of course.

Presuming you meant the description and not the allegation, of course it's circular.

 

[Dingbat]

Presuming you meant the description and not the allegation, of course it's circular.

Indeed, and I think that is the crux of the problem.

 

[Penumbra]

Presuming you meant the description and not the allegation, of course it's circular.

In my observation one of the most commonly given reasons for Christians believing the Bible is from God is that in 2 Timothy 3, it says all scripture is God-breathed.

But:
a) That letter is attributed to Paul, and if it's not Paul then it's unverified authorship.
b) Paul's writings were not scripture, they were letters that are now packaged with scripture and as scripture.

That's what I meant by it being circular. Bible says Bible is from God, and if it's from God it must be true.

 

[Dingbat]

In my observation one of the most commonly given reasons for Christians believing the Bible is from God is that in 2 Timothy 3, it says all scripture is God-breathed.

But:
a) That letter is attributed to Paul, and if it's not Paul then it's unverified authorship.
b) Paul's writings were not scripture, they were letters that are now packaged with scripture and as scripture.

That's what I meant by it being circular. Bible says Bible is from God, and if it's from God it must be true.

What is humorous, at least to me, is most Paul following Christians wouldn't accept new scripture from some random guy on the street who claimed he met Jesus. Yet we have Paul being accepted because? I guess because the Church decided to add him into the Bible which was compiled by men not God last I checked.

 

[Storm]

In my observation one of the most commonly given reasons for Christians believing the Bible is from God is that in 2 Timothy 3, it says all scripture is God-breathed.

But:
a) That letter is attributed to Paul, and if it's not Paul then it's unverified authorship.
b) Paul's writings were not scripture, they were letters that are now packaged with scripture and as scripture.

That's what I meant by it being circular. Bible says Bible is from God, and if it's from God it must be true.

Right. I would point out that not all Christians fall into that trap, and there are differing interpretations of what "God-breathed" actually indicates.

At any rate, ITA that it's circular reasoning. I just wasn't entirely sure who you were indicating in your initial comment.

 

[Sleeppy]

There are instances where you can see Paul speaking with authority, where it is given him, and still other instances where he speaks by his own fleshly authority. We've always had to divide and will, until all these things become self evident, at the end of the age.

 

[Dingbat]

There are instances where you can see Paul speaking with authority, where it is given him, and still other instances where he speaks by his own fleshly authority. We've always had to divide and will, until all these things become self evident, at the end of the age.

Why does this remind me of the Mormon thing that a prophet doesn't always speak as a prophet? It is a nice way to dodge things you don't like being said but it is pretty damn dishonest. Either Paul had authority or he didn't he can't have it both ways.

 

[Penumbra]

There are instances where you can see Paul speaking with authority, where it is given him,

By 'you', who do you mean? Who sees that?

In what instances is he speaking with authority, what is that authority based on, and what reasoning indicates that any of it is true?

and still other instances where he speaks by his own fleshly authority. We've always had to divide and will, until all these things become self evident, at the end of the age.

What arguments are used to indicate where he is speaking on true authority?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I think it's related though to the point of causality.

What we have here is the idea that God will talk to people in a particular cultural setting through a particular medium or group thereof.

But he'll only do it a little, and only to those chosen people who are then charged with delivering it, orally and in writing, to other people.

The onus is on everyone else to trust, with nothing but the word of the claimant and converts. No wonder such a terrible price is exacted on those who fail to believe - everlasting torment.

But who then determines who's really conveying the word of God and who isn't? It's either a compiler/conveyer themselves or ecclesiastic authorities, and here we have Paul as a compiler, and a conveyer, with those who followed directly in his disciplic lineage - which merged back over Peter's - relying on Paul's testimony in large part to determine their list of who's got it and who hasn't.

Of course, to them, Paul who gave them everything, has most definitely got it.

If we subject this to scrutiny, we also have to examine this tendency all the way back, as it's hardly restricted to Paul. We might well ask: "Do Christians Worship Luke?" "Do Abrahamics worship Moses?" and so on - fundamentally the questions refer to the same mechanics at work.

 

[dawny0826]

It seems to me that a significant subset of Christians take their Saint Paul's words as God's words.

A lot of times people say something like, "God wills it", and then they quote Paul. Personally, I've always just called him Paul, not God. But he often seems to get called God.

For the life of me I don't see why so many Christians grant Paul any authority on anything. So the question of the thread, aimed primarily towards Christians is: on what basis do you take any writings of Paul to be valid or true in any way? What gives them any more weight to you than just being a person's opinion?

I'm not sure that Christians give Paul authority. I think some genuinely like Paul and relate to him. My mother in example, refers to Paul's "thorn" often and it's been a source of inspiration for her throughout her life.

She'd never give Paul any glory as she believes that Paul was inspired by God and served God. She's learned a lot through Paul, as others might relate more to Job.

I personaly refer more to the red in my bible and rarely refer to Paul. I think it's preference. The bible is a collection of works and I don't think it unreasonable that some people would prefer the works or stories of some characters over others.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it's related though to the point of causality.

What we have here is the idea that God will talk to people in a particular cultural setting through a particular medium or group thereof.

But he'll only do it a little, and only to those chosen people who are then charged with delivering it, orally and in writing, to other people.

The onus is on everyone else to trust, with nothing but the word of the claimant and converts. No wonder such a terrible price is exacted on those who fail to believe - everlasting torment.

But who then determines who's really conveying the word of God and who isn't? It's either a compiler/conveyer themselves or ecclesiastic authorities, and here we have Paul as a compiler, and a conveyer, with those who followed directly in his disciplic lineage - which merged back over Peter's - relying on Paul's testimony in large part to determine their list of who's got it and who hasn't.

Of course, to them, Paul who gave them everything, has most definitely got it.

If we subject this to scrutiny, we also have to examine this tendency all the way back, as it's hardly restricted to Paul. We might well ask: "Do Christians Worship Luke?" "Do Abrahamics worship Moses?" and so on - fundamentally the questions refer to the same mechanics at work.

I think these are good points, and the repeated occurrence of people around the world claiming to have some transcendental knowledge and gaining followers is the same general trend Paul worked with. The question is always the same- what makes their claims believable?

But still I'd like to focus on Paul here. I don't think most Christians are going to come in this thread and say, "I'm just following a trend of believing in people that claim transcendental authority, and happened to select the one most relevant in my culture." Instead, I'd like to hear their thoughts on specifically why they'd ever view Paul as anything more than a man offering his opinion.

I'm not sure that Christians give Paul authority.

Well I'm participating in another thread where a member here wants to discriminate legal marriage based on sexual orientation entirely for religious reasons, and uses quotes from Paul as "God's will" for it.

This is not a one-time occurrence, and I see it all the time. People use Paul's authority for all sorts of religious doctrine.

I think some genuinely like Paul and relate to him. My mother in example, refers to Paul's "thorn" often and it's been a source of inspiration for her throughout her life.

She'd never give Paul any glory as she believes that Paul was inspired by God and served God. She's learned a lot through Paul, as others might relate more to Job.

I personaly refer more to the red in my bible and rarely refer to Paul. I think it's preference. The bible is a collection of works and I don't think it unreasonable that some people would prefer the works or stories of some characters over others.

I don't think all Christians equate Paul's words with God's words. Just quite a number of them.

 

[Onkara]

My impression is that Paul had authority through the Holy Spirit. I also think Jesus asked the apostles to go forward and spread the word?

 

[Penumbra]

My impression is that Paul had authority through the Holy Spirit.

According to whom? Verified how?

I also think Jesus asked the apostles to go forward and spread the word?

Paul wasn't one of the apostles Jesus picked in the stories.