Is a Christian's salvation dependent on what Paul said?

[dogsgod]

Seems you don't believe the miracles reported in the NT are true.

That's a matter of faith.

No, that's a matter of doubt.

 

[Walkntune]

It's Paul that says Jesus died for our sins. 1 Corinthians 15:3.

To answer the first post, I would say yes, that a Christian's salvation, if there is such a thing, is dependent on Paul.

Actually Jesus confessed this purpose Himself.
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[dogsgod]

Actually Jesus confessed this purpose Himself.
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Good one, Matthew was written later, but yes, I'll have to give you this one.

 

[Charity]

I believe that a Christian's salvation is a direct result of Jesus, His life, death and resurrection. Paul was an apostle who was the earliest and most influential interpreter of Christ's message.

 

[dogsgod]

The way I see it, Paul came first and it was the gospel writers that are dependent on him for Christ's message of salvation.

 

[Charity]

The way I see it, Paul came first and it was the gospel writers that are dependent on him for Christ's message of salvation.

After Paul's conversion on the Damascus Road Paul went to meet Peter and James (the brother of Jesus) So evidently the disciple of Christ was already preaching and teaching the gospel before Paul's conversion......

 

[smokydot]

No, that's a matter of doubt.

Which simply means you don't believe.

 

[smokydot]

The way I see it, Paul came first and it was the gospel writers that are dependent on him for Christ's message of salvation.

That's not the way the NT presents it.

Jn 3:14-15 -- "Jesus said. . .'the Son of Man must be lifted up (on the cross), so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.' "
Jn 3:18 -- "Jesus said. . .'whoever does not believe (in God's Son) stands condemned already.' "
Jn 3:36 -- "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Jn 14:6 -- "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' "

I don't think John was lying when he said these were the words of Jesus.
Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ was first revealed by Jesus.
Paul simply fleshes out the doctrine.

 

[thedope]

That's not the way the NT presents it.

Jn 3:14-15 -- "Jesus said. . .'the Son of Man must be lifted up (on the cross), so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.' "

Actually your addition in parenthesis, as well as the underlined emphasis, presents the new testament according to your interpretation.

​

Jn 3:36 -- "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

There are two parts to this saying; whoever believes and whoever does not obey

Jn 14:6 -- "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' "

Meaning, "practice my sayings"

I don't think John was lying when he said these were the words of Jesus.
Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ was first revealed by Jesus.
Paul simply fleshes out the doctrine.

Paul creates doctrine where non existed.

 

[smokydot]

thedope said (regarding post #28):

Actually your addition in parenthesis,

That would be
Jn 3:14-15 --"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert (on a pole--Nu 21:8-9), so the Son of Man must be lifted up (on a pole--Jn 19:17-18),
that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

The additions in parentheses do not alter the meaning of the text, they simply explain the meaning. If you don't find them helpful, don't use them.

as well as the underlined emphasis, presents the new testament according to your interpretation.

That would be
". . .that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

It's sad that you quarrel with the words of Jesus. Believe is his word, not my "interpretation."
Take it up with him.

There are two parts to this saying; whoever believes and whoever does not obey

This is the verse as it appears in both the Nestle's Greek text and the Textus Receptus Greek text:
Jn 3:36 -- "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for the wrath of God remains on him."

As you can see, your phrase above in bold is not in either text.
So, speaking of personal interpretations, who's interpretation are you using?

Meaning, "practice my sayings"

Not in the light of the NT. The verse is:
Jn 14:6 -- "No one comes to the Father except through me."

Jn 3:15,18,36 --"that whoever believes in him has eternal life. . .whoever believes in him is not condemned. . .whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

In the light of just the verses of Jn given here, and in the overwhelming testimony of the epistles, the way to the Father through Jesus is by faith, and not by law keeping.

Paul creates doctrine where non existed.

It exists in the verses above.
And at least he got it in revelation from Jesus Christ.
That's as authoritative as it gets.

 

[thedope]

thedope said (regarding post #28):


That would be
Jn 3:14-15 --"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert (on a pole--Nu 21:8-9), so the Son of Man must be lifted up (on a pole--Jn 19:17-18),
that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

The additions in parentheses do not alter the meaning of the text, they simply explain the meaning. If you don't find them helpful, don't use them.

Explain meaning is to give meaning to. Apart from interpretation nothing has any meaning.

.It's sad that you quarrel with the words of Jesus. Believe is his word, not my "interpretation."

Sad for whom? I do not quarrel with the words of Jesus.

As you can see, your phrase above in bold is not in either text.
So, speaking of personal interpretations, who's interpretation are you using?

RSV

 

[Reverend Rick]

Paul was an apostle who was the earliest and most influential interpreter of Christ's message.

There are 14 places in the Bible where Paul is mentioned as an apostle. Paul declares himself an apostle 12 of the times and Luke refers to him twice. Neither of the two ever met Jesus. Anyone who ever knew Jesus never referred to Paul as an apostle.

http://yahuah.org/apostle.html

 

[smokydot]

regarding post #31.

Explain meaning is to give meaning to. Apart from interpretation nothing has any meaning.

How convenient. . .that leaves you free to "interpret" contrary to the plain meaning of the words.

You've shed new light on how 2 Pe 3:16 is to be interpreted: "ignorant and unstable people distort the Scriptures to their own destruction."

Sad for whom? I do not quarrel with the words of Jesus.

2 Pe 3:16 just becomes clearer and clearer here. . .when to underline the word "believe" in Jesus' words is, according to you, "presenting the NT according to my interpretation."
Jn 3:15 -- ". . .that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

Is that all you've got! . .Jesus' word "believe" is my interpretation?
That is a pathetic response.

In order to show that Paul had no basis for preaching that salvation was by faith in Jesus Christ, to show that it was "doctrine that did not exist,"
you just maintain that, when one emphasizes the word believe to show Paul's basis from Jesus' words,
one "is presenting the NT according to their interpretation," in lieu of Jesus' meaning.

You really shed light on Peter's meaning of the word "ignorant" above.

RSV

 

[Muffled]

The way I see it, Paul came first and it was the gospel writers that are dependent on him for Christ's message of salvation.

I am sure this is pure speculation. Considering Paul's huge ego it would be inconcevibale that anyone could write anything based on his writing without giving him the credit. There is no mention of Paul or Saul in the gospels.

 

[smokydot]

I am sure this is pure speculation. Considering Paul's huge ego it would be inconcevibale that anyone could write anything based on his writing without giving him the credit. There is no mention of Paul or Saul in the gospels.

You mistake for ego Paul's proof of his authority to the Judaizers who said that only apostles had authority, that Paul was not an apostle, and that he had no authority to preach that salvation was by faith and not by law keeping.

 

[Charity]

There are 14 places in the Bible where Paul is mentioned as an apostle. Paul declares himself an apostle 12 of the times and Luke refers to him twice. Neither of the two ever met Jesus. Anyone who ever knew Jesus never referred to Paul as an apostle.

Paul an apostle? Consider his claims and lack of others' witness.

The word "apostle" is sometimes used in the NT in a general sense of "messenger"
The word apostle has a wider meaning in the letters of the Apostle Paul. It included people like himself who were not included in the 12. Paul based his apostleship, however, on the direct call of the exalted Lord, who appeared to him on the Damascus Road and on the Lord's blessing of his ministry in winning converts and establishing churches.
Jesus himself was called "the apostle" of our confession in Heb. 3:1

 

[outhouse]

lets get to the core so you guys know what your talking about.

based possibly on a stolen religion theres this dead jesus cat, people start telling storys about him for a good 10 years before these storys get written down in eschatological material and son of man material, maybe 10-15 ish years after the cat is smoked, written down by a unknown author known as Q, theres a thomas tale attached to this that pops up 25 ish years later. 5 years ish pass since Qs original work and Q's work gets a little more work done known as late strada codified Q. NOW the earliest work of unknown author called mark start showing up on the scene a good 37 years after historical jesus was smoked. later on luke copies a little Q and a little mark. Mat copies a little Q which later turns out in a augmented mark in the second century. Throw in a little sercet mark and carporcration mark and WE FINALY GET canonical mark in which the NT is based

Historicaly speaking you have very little to work from or work with.

Calling the NT a myth is not a stretch by any means. you had oral trasmission for a decade ish before anything was written down, the tales were told and told again by many people. OF the MANY only 1 or 2 wrote anything down so your dealing with someones interpitation that you base your whole beliefs from.

Thats fact brothers

 

[smokydot]

lets get to the core so you guys know what your talking about.
based possibly on a stolen religion theres this dead jesus cat, people start telling storys about him for a good 10 years before these storys get written down in eschatological material and son of man material, maybe 10-15 ish years after the cat is smoked, written down by a unknown author known as Q, theres a thomas tale attached to this that pops up 25 ish years later. 5 years ish pass since Qs original work and Q's work gets a little more work done known as late strada codified Q. NOW the earliest work of unknown author called mark start showing up on the scene a good 37 years after historical jesus was smoked. later on luke copies a little Q and a little mark. Mat copies a little Q which later turns out in a augmented mark in the second century. Throw in a little sercet mark and carporcration mark and WE FINALY GET canonical mark in which the NT is based
Historicaly speaking you have very little to work from or work with.
Calling the NT a myth is not a stretch by any means. you had oral trasmission for a decade ish before anything was written down, the tales were told and told again by many people. OF the MANY only 1 or 2 wrote anything down so your dealing with someones interpitation that you base your whole beliefs from.
Thats fact brothers

This is also fact:
Jesus empowered the apostles to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).
That is how we know that God did not leave us a doubtful Word of God.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus empowered the apostles to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15, Lk 24:48-49).
That is how we know that God did not leave us a doubtful Word of God.

please tell us another joke

first god empowered jesus according to your bible "since he is the son of god"

well that same god says

the earth is 6000 years old
the earth is flat
the sun revolves around the earth
the earth was created in 6 days
the great flood
the tower of babal

please go sell BS somewhere else, people like you pick and choose which scripture they want to believe and which they dont . your statement doesnt fly, the bible was written by man for man

 

[smokydot]

please tell us another joke

first god empowered jesus according to your bible "since he is the son of god"

well that same god says

the earth is 6000 years old
the earth is flat
the sun revolves around the earth
the earth was created in 6 days
the great flood
the tower of babal

please go sell BS somewhere else, people like you pick and choose which scripture they want to believe and which they dont . your statement doesnt fly, the bible was written by man for man

This people believes them all, except for the one that has been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt--the Galileo controversy, and which is the standard required for this people.