Epistles of Paul as the Word of God?

[Dirty Penguin]

Paul was no Apostle of Christ. He is self appointed. He was not entrusted by anyone other than himself. So although morally on point in a lot of what he said his word is not the infallible word of God.

I agree with you here. Just because the "church" included his letters does not mean they need to be excepted as scripture. When you start to study Pauls claims (his vision) you quickly realize something does not add up. His story seems to change. Paul's "ONLY" claim to apostleship is his vision....(his word)....

 

[Katzpur]

Paul was no Apostle of Christ. He is self appointed. He was not entrusted by anyone other than himself. So although morally on point in a lot of what he said his word is not the infallible word of God.

Well, he is referred to in the Bible as an Apostle. If you believe the Bible, it follows that you would believe him to be an Apostle. If you don't believe the Bible, it's a moot point.

 

[astarath]

Correction the letters he wrote himself or his pupil Luke wrote are the only places that refer to him as apostle. Ebionites do not believe the epistles are God's Word but rather historical works to help us better conceptualize the world Christ left behind!

 

[Captain Civic]

Paul was no Apostle of Christ. He is self appointed. He was not entrusted by anyone other than himself. So although morally on point in a lot of what he said his word is not the infallible word of God.

Incorrect. He spoke with the other apostles, who believed and confirmed that he was divinely inspired.

 

[Smoke]

Incorrect. He spoke with the other apostles, who believed and confirmed that he was divinely inspired.

At least, that was his story.

 

[alamxudos]

Please name one of the Apostles that acknowledged Paul as one of them. In a book that Paul didnt write. Good work DreGod and midnight blue. Truth is but one. I do believe in divinely inspired scripture, and the words of the prophets. The bible is a good record. Its just we know how to discern truth from falsehood literal from allegory Essene from Nicean council....etc

 

[UnityNow101]

You can take Paul's epistles only as they truly are...One man's opinion on the message of Jesus. An opinion of a man that did not ever even meet with Jesus and only heard stories of his existence and teachings. It does not mean that he is wrong on all things. Just that you cannot exalt him over any other man that has opinions. Sure, his works made the canonical list. But it doesn't erase from the fact that he never met Jesus and we only have his word which testifies to his own mission.

 

[sojourner]

You can take Paul's epistles only as they truly are...One man's opinion on the message of Jesus. An opinion of a man that did not ever even meet with Jesus and only heard stories of his existence and teachings. It does not mean that he is wrong on all things. Just that you cannot exalt him over any other man that has opinions. Sure, his works made the canonical list. But it doesn't erase from the fact that he never met Jesus and we only have his word which testifies to his own mission.

Is that how we're supposed to take the prophets: Ezekiel, Isaiah, ... Muhammed? "People who didn't ever meet with God and only heard stories of his existence and teachings?" As "One man's opinion on the message of God?" There is a precedent set by the religious group that produced the Bible. It's obvious that the early Church regarded Paul as an apostle. Paul's writings, in fact, predate the gospels by at least 20 years.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, you may be right about the specifics but Paul was certainly not appointed by any one divine. I stopped reading his work a good while ago because of all of the contradictions. He never knew Jesus. Paul may have been an initiate of the order of the Essene but his gospel was not that of such or the prophets, Jesus being one of them. And we all know well not all but any true theologist knows the story of his vision doesnt add up by his own testimony and contradictions.

Ac 22:10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Acts 9:13 But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 for I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake.
Ac 13:2And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

 

[alamxudos]

Muffled I never said it wasnt in the Bible Im telling you only Paul said anything about Paul. Show me someone besides Paul who said it wrote spoke it or even uttered his name besides him. Paul was an initiate who conveneintly separated himself from Barnabas so he could go about propagating his own gospel. Again I ask show me someone or somewhere outside of Paul's own records that authenticate his stories. He was no prophet. God only spoke to prophets concerning the commission of appointing warners and messengers. Paul was no messenger, warner, or prophet. It is truth an falsehood mixed. And it is only placed among the divine records for Romes sake. Peter is the rock that Jesus spoke of.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Muffled I never said it wasnt in the Bible Im telling you only Paul said anything about Paul. Show me someone besides Paul who said it wrote spoke it or even uttered his name besides him. Paul was an initiate who conveneintly separated himself from Barnabas so he could go about propagating his own gospel. Again I ask show me someone or somewhere outside of Paul's own records that authenticate his stories. He was no prophet. God only spoke to prophets concerning the commission of appointing warners and messengers. Paul was no messenger, warner, or prophet. It is truth an falsehood mixed. And it is only placed among the divine records for Romes sake. Peter is the rock that Jesus spoke of.

I was getting ready to chime in until I saw your last line. You said it for me. Peter was the chosen one spoke of. Paul and Luke who were friends went beyond that.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled I never said it wasnt in the Bible Im telling you only Paul said anything about Paul. Show me someone besides Paul who said it wrote spoke it or even uttered his name besides him. Paul was an initiate who conveneintly separated himself from Barnabas so he could go about propagating his own gospel. Again I ask show me someone or somewhere outside of Paul's own records that authenticate his stories. He was no prophet. God only spoke to prophets concerning the commission of appointing warners and messengers. Paul was no messenger, warner, or prophet. It is truth an falsehood mixed. And it is only placed among the divine records for Romes sake. Peter is the rock that Jesus spoke of.

Did you read the previous post? Acts was not written by Paul it was written by Luke. He reported the events of the church. More than likely he was an eyewitness to the Holy Spirit separating Paul and Barnabas for spreading the Gospel since he was a member of the congregation at Antioch. Paul did not separate from Barnabas to establish his own gospel but because they had a falling out over Mark. Paul has a different Gospel from that of Jesus but it is not antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

Peter was not a theologian, he was a man of faith. Paul is qualified to write theological treatises because he studied theolgy and God uses him for that purpose. God uses Peter to encourage the faithful and to authenticate the acts of the Holy Spirit in reaching out to the Gentiles with the Gospel. God uses Barnabas to authenticate the conversion of Paul.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Acts was not written by Paul it was written by Luke. He reported the events of the church.

What church are you talking about? Luke gathered his information from those who said they were eyewitnesses. He said he verified his information. He does not go into any detail as to how he gathered or verified it this information. I wonder if he traced the footsteps of Yeshua and talked with the many thousands of people Yeshua talked to to get this info. I suspect that a lot of his information was borrowed from other disciples.

More than likely he was an eyewitness to the Holy Spirit separating Paul and Barnabas for spreading the Gospel since he was a member of the congregation at Antioch.

Speculate much?......There is no information available to backup your assertion. If so list it.

Paul has a different Gospel from that of Jesus but it is not antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

His gospel is different but to see how different they are just start with Yeshua mentioning that the law would not change.....you know those things like circumcision and obeying the sabbath...you know..some of those things I believe the gentiles didn't adhere to.

Peter was not a theologian, he was a man of faith.

Finally....I can now start quoting from The Apocalypse Of Peter....

Paul is qualified to write theological treatises because he studied theolgy and God uses him for that purpose.

Paul's authority comes from his own mind.

 

[Doktormartini]

Would someone please explain to me why Paul never mentions Jesus as if he was a historical figure?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Would someone please explain to me why Paul never mentions Jesus as if he was a historical figure?

His knowledge of Yeshua was limited at best. From what I know of Paul, unlike the disciples, he never met Yeshua......kinda hard to give and accurate description of someone you've never met.

 

[Smoke]

Would someone please explain to me why Paul never mentions Jesus as if he was a historical figure?

Actually, he does. A number of times. It's just that the historical Jesus wasn't as important to Paul as the cosmic Christ. He doesn't seem to know much or care much about the life of Jesus or his teachings; pretty much the only things he mentions about the historical Jesus are his death (which is important to Paul's theology), the Last Supper (important because it was seen as the institution of the Eucharist), and the fact that James and other unnamed men were Jesus' brothers.

He's more interested in the Christ whom he believed to have appeared to him on the Damascus Road than in the itinerant Galilean teacher and sage. Paul was a mystic who crafted a compelling if rather incoherent theology around a mythical, mystical Christ who came down from heaven, redeemed the world, and ascended back into heaven. The Jewish sage Jesus was all but completely irrelevant to his theology.

 

[Francine]

Would someone please explain to me why Paul never mentions Jesus as if he was a historical figure?

On the contrary, Paul says our risen Lord appeared to 500 people.

1 Cor 15:

[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

[4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

[5] And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

[6] After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

[7] After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

[gnostic]

Look at this in this direction.

Tolkien was inspired to write his novels of by old Germanic and Celtic legends, myths and folklore, because of the elves, dwarves, and his very own creation - the Hobbits, but does that mean the elf, dwarf or halfling wrote his novels?

I don't think inspiration from God means very much, in term of authorship of his words.

Inspiration doesn't imply the writing is historical. It certainly doesn't imply what is written is the "truth".

 

[crystalonyx]

Actually, there probably never was a real "Paul" in history, the "Paul" of the bible is 2 different people entirely, The Paul of "Acts" and the Paul of the Episitles.

"The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times.

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one's direction."

Everything attributed to this schizophrenic Paul was most likely "faked" or written by others.

Check out:

St Paul the Apostle – Up Close and Personal

 

[doppelganger]

Actually, there probably never was a real "Paul" in history, the "Paul" of the bible is 2 different people entirely, The Paul of "Acts" and the Paul of the Episitles.

While I agree the Paul of the Bible has multiple personality disorder, that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual Paul that wrote some of the epistles that bear his name. Given the earliest references to Pauline authorship for several of the epistles far pre-date what can be clearly identified as the rise of the proto-orthodox/anti-heresy approach that eventually swallowed mainstream Christianity, and that "Acts" doesn't appear in any extant reference until the latter half of the 2nd Century CE, I tend to think "Acts" was an attempt to sanitize Paul a little bit for orthodoxy.