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

[Reverend Rick]

What if he lied about his experience on the road to Damascus?

 

[Gloone]

What if he lied about his experience on the road to Damascus?

Jesus is the only one that matters to a christian. The other prophets are just Jesus followers that basically helped spread his message. So if he lied it doesn't really matter. Because Jesus said you are not suppose to.

 

[no-body]

Jesus is the only one that matters to a christian. The other prophets are just Jesus followers that basically helped spread his message. So if he lied it doesn't really matter. Because Jesus said you are not suppose to.

But he invokes Jesus name so he is sort of a Jesus by proxy. Historical evidence suggest Paul probably never met Jesus and even if he did all of the rules he sets out don't have Jesus direct blessing. The 4 synoptic gospel writers can at least back each other up.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The 4 synoptic gospel writers can at least back each other up.

Really?

Matthew was an Apostle

Mark was not. We are not sure Mark even wrote this.

Luke was not, He never even met Jesus

John was an Apostle

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Matthew was an Apostle

Which Matthew? It was a common name and there's no evidence, that I know of, that points to a disciple named Matthew being the author of the scroll attributed to him.

Mark was not. We are not sure Mark even wrote this.

I have heard that scholars believe Matthew and Luke drew most of their information from the scroll attributed to Mark.

John was an Apostle

Which one? Again, that was a common name and John paints a more god/man picture of the biblical Yeshua coupled with information not found in the other gospels. I have often heard that the write of the scroll attributed to John and that of Revelation are two completely different authors given their writing styles. To some degree we don't have definitive evidence as to who wrote those gospels. To me it is possible that a man named Luke, who was a friend of Saul/Paul, wrote the scroll of Luke as well as Acts.

 

[dogsgod]

What if he lied about his experience on the road to Damascus?

Paul did claim to have revelations, visions of a risen Christ along with other apostles 1Corinthians 15:3-8, but Paul didn't write of his so called experience on the road to Damascus, that probably never happened. Acts doesn't appear to be reliable history. A man doesn't become blinded by a bright light and then is able to see again because someone sent by Jesus places hands upon him. Acts 9:17.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Jude writes with authority. He may have been Jesus's brother.

James and John (John -Phillip) where Jesus's brothers and they have first hand writings.

Simon Peter and Matthew was a disciple, and was there too.

Mark was most likely Luke's doctor friend.

Luke was Paul's first hand man.

Here is the thing, Paul, Mark, and Luke where not disciples and most likely never met Jesus.

 

[no-body]

Really?

Matthew was an Apostle

Mark was not. We are not sure Mark even wrote this.

Luke was not, He never even met Jesus

John was an Apostle

Well yeah historically it's all sketchy but just going on faith and scripture alone Paul stands out. His Jesus and the Jesus of Revelation sound very different from the one who lived.

 

[Smoke]

I'm not a follower of Jesus, but I think if one wants to be a follower of Jesus it makes sense to pay more attention to Jesus than to Paul. I kind of like Brother Ed Jones' approach:

I frankly and forcefully acknowledge that the words of Jesus are the only valid basis for all spiritual Truth, that they are in themselves perfectly consistent with accurate history and with true science, and that they are simple and straightforward, requiring little interpretation. ...

Therefore, when he [Paul] erred in doctrine (and we have already seen that he did err), we conclude that his doctrine, which was received through paranormal experiences (based on his own assertions) invalidates his revelations. This conclusion assumes, of course, that his claims as to the source of his doctrines are true, which is doubtful in view of our evaluation of Paul’s veracity. The character traits we discussed above make it far more likely that Paul received his knowledge of Jesus and the Jesus tradition through contacts with those who were disciples of Jesus before him. Then he devised his account of revelations received from the heavenly Christ in order to establish independence from and superiority to the Jerusalem apostles and others of the original disciples of Jesus.​

Between 2003 and 2007, Brother Ed wrote a series of 34 articles exposing what he called "Christian False Doctrines" -- for instance, The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

 

[dogsgod]

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.

 

[Reverend Rick]

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.

If you think about it, it is one thing to believe in a God, an all creator if you will.

It is another thing to believe what a man says who most likely never met Jesus.

If we seperate the wheat from the chaft and boil this thing down, should we really be eating pork and shell fish?

Should we be Praying to God or Jesus?

If you remove everything Paul, Luke and Mark says, is it even the same religion?

 

[dogsgod]

If you think about it, it is one thing to believe in a God, an all creator if you will.

It is another thing to believe what a man says who most likely never met Jesus.

If we seperate the wheat from the chaft and boil this thing down, should we really be eating pork and shell fish?

Should we be Praying to God or Jesus?

If you remove everything Paul, Luke and Mark says, is it even the same religion?

I'm not one to ask about what any one should be doing because I'm not religious, but we don't have anything written by Jesus or anything by anyone that met Jesus. What we do have are epistles and we have stories written by unknown authors many years after the fact if in fact there are any facts.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Probably most of what we know about Jesus and his teachings comes to us secondhand and written down by people who never met him.

Paul clearly wrote/dictated more stuff than any one else.

It does not matter what we think about it. It is the situation we have inherited.
What Paul wrote was at least with the added knowledge he got from the other gospel writers, as their work was already going the rounds.

We simply have to make our own minds up about what we have on the table today.
Some is consistent with the popular image of Jesus and some is not.

Those that have the real problem, are those that believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and try to live their lives by following all its inconsistencies.

 

[smokydot]

What if he lied about his experience on the road to Damascus?

You have to decide if you think Paul was lying, mistaken, giving his own interpretation or telling the truth.

And that's a matter of faith.

 

[smokydot]

Which Matthew? It was a common name and there's no evidence, that I know of, that points to a disciple named Matthew being the author of the scroll attributed to him.
I have heard that scholars believe Matthew and Luke drew most of their information from the scroll attributed to Mark.
Which one? Again, that was a common name and John paints a more god/man picture of the biblical Yeshua coupled with information not found in the other gospels. I have often heard that the write of the scroll attributed to John and that of Revelation are two completely different authors given their writing styles. To some degree we don't have definitive evidence as to who wrote those gospels. To me it is possible that a man named Luke, who was a friend of Saul/Paul, wrote the scroll of Luke as well as Acts.

And that's why belief that the Bible is true is a matter of faith.

 

[smokydot]

Paul did claim to have revelations, visions of a risen Christ along with other apostles 1Corinthians 15:3-8, but Paul didn't write of his so called experience on the road to Damascus, that probably never happened. Acts doesn't appear to be reliable history. A man doesn't become blinded by a bright light and then is able to see again because someone sent by Jesus places hands upon him. Acts 9:17.

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

That's a matter of faith.

 

[smokydot]

Jude writes with authority. He may have been Jesus's brother.
James and John (John -Phillip) where Jesus's brothers and they have first hand writings.
Simon Peter and Matthew was a disciple, and was there too.
Mark was most likely Luke's doctor friend.
Luke was Paul's first hand man.
Here is the thing, Paul, Mark, and Luke where not disciples and most likely never met Jesus.

Here's the thing. . .Paul says he received his doctrine by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

[smokydot]

Well yeah historically it's all sketchy but just going on faith and scripture alone Paul stands out. His Jesus and the Jesus of Revelation sound very different from the one who lived.

That's all it takes. . .they don't "sound the same"?

 

[smokydot]

I'm not a follower of Jesus, but I think if one wants to be a follower of Jesus it makes sense to pay more attention to Jesus than to Paul. I kind of like Brother Ed Jones' approach:

I frankly and forcefully acknowledge that the words of Jesus are the only valid basis for all spiritual Truth, that they are in themselves perfectly consistent with accurate history and with true science, and that they are simple and straightforward, requiring little interpretation. ...

Therefore, when he [Paul] erred in doctrine (and we have already seen that he did err), we conclude that his doctrine, which was received through paranormal experiences (based on his own assertions) invalidates his revelations. This conclusion assumes, of course, that his claims as to the source of his doctrines are true, which is doubtful in view of our evaluation of Paul’s veracity. The character traits we discussed above make it far more likely that Paul received his knowledge of Jesus and the Jesus tradition through contacts with those who were disciples of Jesus before him. Then he devised his account of revelations received from the heavenly Christ in order to establish independence from and superiority to the Jerusalem apostles and others of the original disciples of Jesus.
​

Between 2003 and 2007, Brother Ed wrote a series of 34 articles exposing what he called "Christian False Doctrines" -- for instance, The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Brother Ed simply does not believe the Word of God written.

 

[smokydot]

If you think about it, it is one thing to believe in a God, an all creator if you will.
It is another thing to believe what a man says who most likely never met Jesus.
If we seperate the wheat from the chaft and boil this thing down, should we really be eating pork and shell fish?
Should we be Praying to God or Jesus?
If you remove everything Paul, Luke and Mark says, is it even the same religion?

I'll up you on that.

If you remove the NT, is it even the same religion?