Do Christians Worship Paul?

[Penumbra]

Agreed, and all of this is what Christians base it on. They accept Paul's teaching as the Bible.

But that's exactly what I'm getting at.

If Christians believe Paul has authority because Paul says so, then that's clearly a weak basis.

 

[ChristineES]

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 wouldn't call it "worship", but a lot of people seem to hang on to Paul's words more than they do the Gospels- even when Paul says something opposite of what Jesus quoted words are in the Gospels. I ask them about it and they always say "Paul is the written word of God, too", but who knows if Paul's epistles were meant to go into the Bible or not. I do get some pretty strong opposition when I bring that kind of thing up with certain people.

 

[Onkara]

But that's exactly what I'm getting at.

If Christians believe Paul has authority because Paul says so, then that's clearly a weak basis.

Yes, that is along the lines with my argument in that thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tians-why-do-you-hate-gays-4.html#post3135701

The issue is that they accept it, they believe it, that is enough.

To win the line of argument, in my opinion we need to show that:

Paul has no prejudice against homosexuals, but only against desires of the flesh. Jesus and Paul do not condemn any person (including homosexuals, they condemn the act). In my opinion a person can practice homosexuality up until the day they die then repent their "sins" and be on par with any other Christian.

At least that is my impression so far.

 

[Penumbra]

See Matthew 19 and draw your own conclusions.

Jesus was asked if a man is allowed to divorce his wife for any reason.

Jesus quoted Genesis and said God created them male and female, and that no one may separate what God has joined. Then he went on to say divorce basically isn't okay.

Now I don't know about you, but when someone asks me something, I don't respond in the most politically correct manner to answer every possible variance of their question. I just answer their question. So if someone's like, "Is it reasonable for a man to ever hit his wife?", my answer wouldn't be, "It is not virtuous for any partner(s) to hit his/her male or female or androgynous partner(s)." Instead I'd just be like, "No, it's not okay to hit your wife, bro."

Now in the age that Jesus lived in and with the scriptures he read, I think he probably thought homosexuality was wrong. (Whether Jesus has any authority at all would be a different discussion.) But unfortunately for the millions of people that would like him to explicitly describe his hatred of homosexuality and how important it is, he never really felt the need to address it in any stories about him. Instead, whenever people reference NT material against homosexuality, it's mostly Paul's material. Paul was more specific about it.

Many Christians do study from the OT as well. Never been to a Christian church where study from BOTH wasn't encouraged. I think we both agree that you can't blanket label.

Yes but observe how many Christians avoid eating shellfish, avoid wearing mixed fabrics, and think that picking up sticks on the Sabbath is wrong.

Now observe how large the subset of Christians is that think homosexuality is wrong.

The vast majority of Christians don't follow almost any of the rules from the OT except for ones that are echoed later by people like Paul or things Jesus said.

You can disagree wth Paul, but, I don't understand why Paul's message is any more revelatory or ground shaking than Christ's own statement on marriage.

Because Jesus didn't speak directly about homosexuality at all, and any opinions he may or may not have had about it have to be indirectly concluded. Paul was specific.

I can't understand why there's any sort of issue with Christians quoting Paul or Christ, for that matter.

It's a pretty straightforward issue. Lots of them believe Paul has authority and that his writings should constitute aspects of the foundations of the Christian religion. People point out his quotes as the will of God all the time.

The question is why.

 

[Penumbra]

I wouldn't call it "worship", but a lot of people seem to hang on to Paul's words more than they do the Gospels- even when Paul says something opposite of what Jesus quoted words are in the Gospels. I ask them about it and they always say "Paul is the written word of God, too", but who knows if Paul's epistles were meant to go into the Bible or not. I do get some pretty strong opposition when I bring that kind of thing up with certain people.

That is my observation as well, and that's the sort of thing I'm asking about to those that put Paul's writings on that level.

Some people are asking why it's an issue or asking whether Christians do it. Yours is a post by a Christian pointing out that many other Christians do indeed seem to equate Paul's writings with divine authority.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, that is along the lines with my argument in that thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tians-why-do-you-hate-gays-4.html#post3135701

The issue is that they accept it, they believe it, that is enough.

To win the line of argument, in my opinion we need to show that:

Paul has no prejudice against homosexuals, but only against desires of the flesh. Jesus and Paul do not condemn any person (including homosexuals, they condemn the act). In my opinion a person can practice homosexuality up until the day they die then repent their "sins" and be on par with any other Christian.

At least that is my impression so far.

To reference the part highlighted in red in particular, Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality anywhere, as far as I know. 'They' is therefore not the most accurate of words there.

He didn't discuss the issue. Any references are assumed rather than direct. Paul on the other hand referenced it.

 

[idav]

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?

Politics gave Paul and the canon the authority it remained with to this day. There was contention between the apostles and doubt all of them accepted Pauls claims. That doesn't seem god inspired to me. It would be one thing if Paul at least lined up to the character of Jesus.

 

[Onkara]

To reference the part highlighted in red in particular, Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality anywhere, as far as I know. 'They' is therefore not the most accurate of words there.

He didn't discuss the issue. Any references are assumed rather than direct. Paul on the other hand referenced it.

Exactly. The problem is Christianity is based on the Bible, not on the words of Christ alone. It is up to a Christian to make a choice on what to accept or reject (we cannot play the Bible off against itself and expect to win over a Christian, in my opinion).

 

[Awoon]

I've never had this explained to me... Who took over for Paul in persecuting the churches he sent letters to? Did his previous bosses in Jerusalem just give up, or could the whole of Paul's life be a made up story?

 

[Katzpur]

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.

It's not dishonest in the slightest. The fact that someone has been chosen by God to be His spokesman doesn't mean that the individual suddenly becomes infallable. Prophets are human; humans make mistakes. They have their own opinions and those opinions may be flawed. The important thing is that they generally do (and always should) make it evident when they're speaking on behalf of God that that's the case.

 

[dawny0826]

Jesus was asked if a man is allowed to divorce his wife for any reason.

Jesus quoted Genesis and said God created them male and female, and that no one may separate what God has joined. Then he went on to say divorce basically isn't okay.

Now I don't know about you, but when someone asks me something, I don't respond in the most politically correct manner to answer every possible variance of their question. I just answer their question. So if someone's like, "Is it reasonable for a man to ever hit his wife?", my answer wouldn't be, "It is not virtuous for any partner(s) to hit his/her male or female or androgynous partner(s)." Instead I'd just be like, "No, it's not okay to hit your wife, bro."

Now in the age that Jesus lived in and with the scriptures he read, I think he probably thought homosexuality was wrong. (Whether Jesus has any authority at all would be a different discussion.) But unfortunately for the millions of people that would like him to explicitly describe his hatred of homosexuality and how important it is, he never really felt the need to address it in any stories about him. Instead, whenever people reference NT material against homosexuality, it's mostly Paul's material. Paul was more specific about it.

Yes but observe how many Christians avoid eating shellfish, avoid wearing mixed fabrics, and think that picking up sticks on the Sabbath is wrong.

Now observe how large the subset of Christians is that think homosexuality is wrong.

The vast majority of Christians don't follow almost any of the rules from the OT except for ones that are echoed later by people like Paul or things Jesus said.

Because Jesus didn't speak directly about homosexuality at all, and any opinions he may or may not have had about it have to be indirectly concluded. Paul was specific.

It's a pretty straightforward issue. Lots of them believe Paul has authority and that his writings should constitute aspects of the foundations of the Christian religion. People point out his quotes as the will of God all the time.

The question is why.

I didn't claim that Jesus addressed homosexuality. Jesus addressed marriage. He stated that a man leaves his family and joins his wife. They become one. He described the acceptable instances for the separation of such a union (divorce).

You've just posted that you find it feasible that Christ likely didn't agree with homosexuality. Why is it odd that others draw the same conclusion? Be it from Paul or otherwise.

 

[Me Myself]

Exactly. The problem is Christianity is based on the Bible, not on the words of Christ alone.

it is based on the bible because it claims that Jesus agreed with the OT and that Paul was chosen by Jesus. In reality, the true center is Christ.

I believe in Jesus, not the bible. I certainly feel a Christian, but maybe I am not a Biblian or something

I didn't claim that Jesus addressed homosexuality. Jesus addressed marriage. He stated that a man leaves his family and joins his wife. They become one. He described the acceptable instances for the separation of such a union (divorce).

You've just posted that you find it feasible that Christ likely didn't agree with homosexuality. Why is it odd that others draw the same conclusion? Be it from Paul or otherwise.

Because they don´t. They don´t draw it as "feasible" the draw it as "certain". There is a very huge difference there.

 

[Penumbra]

I didn't claim that Jesus addressed homosexuality. Jesus addressed marriage. He stated that a man leaves his family and joins his wife. They become one. He described the acceptable instances for the separation of such a union (divorce).

You said he defined marriage. In this example he just answered the guy's question about divorce. He didn't state that marriage can only ever be a certain way.

You've just posted that you find it feasible that Christ likely didn't agree with homosexuality. Why is it odd that others draw the same conclusion?

I never said I find it odd that people assume Jesus might be against homosexuality. But that's all they can really do; make inferences or assume. They have accounts written down from oral traditions decades after the death of Jesus by unverified authors about what Jesus said in his lifetime as though that would be any solid basis to build a belief structure on. And from that shaky structure he doesn't even specifically address homosexuality.

What I said was that most quotes given by Christians about what 'God' thinks about homosexuality are quotes from Paul. When Christians make their arguments against homosexuality, the majority of their material is either OT stuff (even though they disregard most of the stuff in there), and Paul's stuff. Any Jesus stuff is only inferred. But an argument based on inferences is generally not very convincing or useful to preach about.

Be it from Paul or otherwise.

Paul is more direct than Jesus. Paul writes against homosexuality; Jesus never bothered to talk about it.

And along the original lines- why should Paul's opinion matter more than any other preacher's opinion?

 

[Vultar]

Paul's authority came from turning a faultering religion into a money maker. Plain and simple...

 

[Onkara]

it is based on the bible because it claims that Jesus agreed with the OT and that Paul was chosen by Jesus. In reality, the true center is Christ.

I believe in Jesus, not the bible. I certainly feel a Christian, but maybe I am not a Biblian or something

Hi Me Myself
I must agree with you. Jesus brings me love and joy, but I struggle accepting Acts and onwards.

 

[oldbadger]

Paul's authority came from turning a faultering religion into a money maker. Plain and simple...

Yes. I reckon that he (and unknown others) figured out a whole new way of controlling thousands and thousands of people. He probably realised how he could use basic christianity as he traveled towards Damascus, or soon after.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi Me Myself
I must agree with you. Jesus brings me love and joy, but I struggle accepting Acts and onwards.

I always thought it was just me......... But I always 'felt' that G John was wrong as well. In more modern translations there were places where the whole character of the writing totally altered. I never trusted G John either.

 

[oldbadger]

Paul is more direct than Jesus. Paul writes against homosexuality; Jesus never bothered to talk about it.

Jesus never bothered...... you got it! Jesus was not bothered. If he had had any serious issues over homosexuality he would have shouted against it, just as he shouted against hypocrites, for instance.

Now Paul shouted it out. Most men in those times were married by 20 years. A wise old rabbi once said to me, 'If a man is not in an open relationship by 40yrs, then something is wrong somewhere.' That's today! But in those days it might have been 25yrs? What's the word for people who 'rail' against the thing they love but need to hide?

And before anybody points out that Jesus was 30+ years, he was in an open relationship, because there is a written record of it in the Gospels of Philip and Mary + more evidence still!

 

[Reverend Rick]

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 believe in God, I follow the teaching of Jesus and follow what is said by people who actually knew Jesus and spent time with him.

I believe Saul is a liar and hyjacked the teachings of Jesus.

I don't try to justify that 1+1+1=1. I think the trinity is a bunch of bull ****.

All that said, I do find a few of Pauls words inspiring.