Epistles of Paul as the Word of God?

[Francine]

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

On the contrary, Paul acknowledged the leadership of Peter (Cephas), James, and John, and said that they accepted him and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles and sent them thither.

Gal.2:[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[logician]

On the contrary, Paul acknowledged the leadership of Peter (Cephas), James, and John, and said that they accepted him and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles and sent them thither.

Gal.2:[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Naturally.

 

[Doktormartini]

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.

3: What scriptures? The Gospels were written after Paul's writings.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

3: What scriptures? The Gospels were written after Paul's writings.

Got me curios now.....:drool:

 

[doppelganger]

Got me curios now.....:drool:

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

 

[Popeyesays]

3: What scriptures? The Gospels were written after Paul's writings.

The Gospels were oral at the time of Paul. We have no idea how close the written Gospels are to the oral originals. paul would not have been a witness to the events of the Gospels in any event. He was not in Palestine until after the crucifiction of Jesus.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

On the contrary, Paul acknowledged the leadership of Peter (Cephas), James, and John, and said that they accepted him and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles and sent them thither.

Gal.2:[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Even so Paul was edgy. He was a religious zealot (not a member of the group called the Zealots) railing against the early church and then promoting it just as zealously after his conversion.

 

[Muffled]

The Gospels were oral at the time of Paul. We have no idea how close the written Gospels are to the oral originals. paul would not have been a witness to the events of the Gospels in any event. He was not in Palestine until after the crucifiction of Jesus.

Regards,
Scott

I doubt you could be sure that Paul wasn't in Jerusalem. He studied many years under Gamaliel who appears to have been a resident of Jerusalem because he was there giving advice to the council in Jerusalem when Peter was brought before the council. It doesn't say but he might have been a member of the council.

 

[Popeyesays]

Saul was from Tarsus (Asia Minor, modern Turkey), He spoke Greek preferentially and probably used the Septaguint more frequently than the Masoretic text.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

I see...

Well, I see Isaiah 53 as describing Israel and not Yeshua....but that's just me...

I read Psalm 22 but don't see what you see. Can you point me to a specific verse or is all of 22 what you mean? If all is what you mean then I will go back and read it again.

 

[doppelganger]

I see...

Well, I see Isaiah 53 as describing Israel and not Yeshua....but that's just me...

It's a mystery hidden in the Scriptures to be revealed as the Gospel for those upon whom God's grace shines. (e.g. Eph. 3:1-13)

Paul's gospel revealed in "scriptures" can be taken at least two ways. Either Paul is saying that the sacrifice of Christ is in fulfilment of scriptures like Isa 53 if read as prophecies (which is what many Christians consider Isa 53 despite its reference to "Israel" as you note). Or else, Paul's understanding of Christ is not gleaned from a recent historical appearance of Jesus at all, but is a mystery revealed to him within the details and text of the Hebrew scriptures themselves. I.e. Paul isn't necessarily talking about what today we would consider a "historical" person.

I read Psalm 22 but don't see what you see. Can you point me to a specific verse or is all of 22 what you mean? If all is what you mean then I will go back and read it again.

The passion account in the "Gospels" track Psalm 22 as to their details almost precisely. Paul may have seen this in the "scriptures" before it had been historicized into the gospel stories.

I'd add that Jonah 1:17, Hosea 6:2 and II Kings 20:5 could also be "scriptures" where Paul could find the revelation of his Gospel.

 

[Muffled]

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.

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

Yeah! Sometimes I get carried away. I did some research this morning and could find no evidence that Luke had been with Paul previous to Rome. In my Bible's introduction to Luke it tries to make something of the fact that the narrative switches to "we" when Paul gets called to go to Macedonia, however that may simply mean that Luke is providing a more direct statement from Paul. The "We" is discontinued after Paul leaves Phillipi. I was probably mixed up thinking that Luke was Silas who was sent to Antioch by the church in Jerusalem and travelled with Paul on his missionary journeys.

 

[astarath]

Yeah! Sometimes I get carried away. I did some research this morning and could find no evidence that Luke had been with Paul previous to Rome. In my Bible's introduction to Luke it tries to make something of the fact that the narrative switches to "we" when Paul gets called to go to Macedonia, however that may simply mean that Luke is providing a more direct statement from Paul. The "We" is discontinued after Paul leaves Phillipi. I was probably mixed up thinking that Luke was Silas who was sent to Antioch by the church in Jerusalem and travelled with Paul on his missionary journeys.

You wouldnt be the first person confused by accounts of Paul

Jesus Wept