• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Paul arrogant?

Baladas

Baladas

An Págánach
leibowde84 said:
But, didn't they merely grant him authority because of his claims that the risen Jesus gave them to him. Couldn't I have made the same claims at that time? Remember, he had no evidence to support them.
Click to expand...

When this dawned on me it was a major turning point in my spirituality, and my entire world-view.
I was horrified by what I was capable of ignoring when I didn't allow myself to think critically.

NOTE:
Please don't think that I am implying that anyone who believes Paul's teachings is necessarily suppressing their critical thinking.
This is merely my own experience.
 
Last edited:
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
LASTINGLIGHT said:
"The Kingdom of God is inside you and all around you,
Not in a mansion of wood and stone.
Split a piece of wood and God is there,
Lift a stone and you will find God."
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Evidently Gods "kingdom" is everywhere.
Click to expand...
Still a kingdom, which is a government.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
seekingtruth said:
When this dawned on me it was a major turning point in my spirituality, and my entire world-view.
It's horrifying what we are capable of ignoring when we don't allow ourselves to think critically.

NOTE:
Please don't think that I am implying that anyone who believes Paul's teachings is necessarily suppressing their critical thinking.
This is merely my own experience.
Click to expand...
Assigning modern modes of thinking to ancient circumstances doesn't constitute "thinking critically."
 
Baladas

Baladas

An Págánach
sojourner said:
Assigning modern modes of thinking to ancient circumstances doesn't constitute "thinking critically."
Click to expand...

Luckily I wasn't doing any such thing.

I was suggesting that when I accepted the testimony of a long-dead religious leader as unquestionably true, I was not thinking critically.

EDIT: I can see that I didn't make that clear before. Sorry about that.
I edited my earlier post.
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
The church wrote, edited, and canonized the gospels. Are they true?
Click to expand...
IMO, they have some kernels of truth, as in historicity but overall, no. I don't believe they are anything more than books of wisdom written by men. There may have been one man similar to Jesus who did some of these things, as in lead people through teaching, similar to The Buddha. But just as the Vedas and Upanishads are important documents so to are the gospels. That doesn't make them divine by any stretch.
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
Nakosis said:
Outside Acts and his own letters? No, I suppose that means you can believe whatever you wish about his motivations. If you're more comfortable seeing Paul as an evil dude, there's nothing stopping you.

Somehow, however, he was able to bring his Christianity to Rome. I'd imagine that took a lot of passion and perseverance. A lot of belief in his calling as he saw it. Maybe he wanted notoriety but that doesn't prevent him from also having passion for his faith.

You think he was insincere about his faith. He put a lot of effort into something he was insincere about. That's something people don't usually do. You have to manufacture some ulterior motive. If you go down that road, you can make Paul out to be who ever you want him to be.
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone as 'evil'. I just don't believe he knew or even understood what Christ taught. I think, if he existed, he was a man, just as any other, and the Church fathers used his story to form a church. However, I think you are assuming it was just him that led to the church. What of Peter, who was the one who allegedly the rock of the church, no? Too much stock, IMO, is placed at the feet of Paul, when nothing really points to his having been anything more than a epilogue to the story of Jesus.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
JoStories said:
IMO, they have some kernels of truth, as in historicity but overall, no. I don't believe they are anything more than books of wisdom written by men. There may have been one man similar to Jesus who did some of these things, as in lead people through teaching, similar to The Buddha. But just as the Vedas and Upanishads are important documents so to are the gospels. That doesn't make them divine by any stretch.
Click to expand...
Did I ever say they were divine? We're not talking about divinity here -- we're talking about authority. Paul has authority as an apostle of the church, precisely because the church gives him that authority, just as the church authorizes some texts. Paul isn't "an apostle" by some supernatural cosmology. He's "an apostle" because the church officially "sent him out."
 
Nakosis

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
JoStories said:
I don't see anyone as 'evil'. I just don't believe he knew or even understood what Christ taught.
Click to expand...


Probably not. Paul was never taught by Jesus. Not really sure how much of the gospel stories Paul had access to. The source of his conversion was his vision which may have been the result of a guilty conscious because of his prior persecutions of Christians.

I think, if he existed, he was a man, just as any other, and the Church fathers used his story to form a church. However, I think you are assuming it was just him that led to the church. What of Peter, who was the one who allegedly the rock of the church, no? Too much stock, IMO, is placed at the feet of Paul, when nothing really points to his having been anything more than a epilogue to the story of Jesus.
Click to expand...

They are not sure Peter ever went to Rome. Yes, Peter was supposed to be the foundation. Just as likely that is why they claimed Peter as founder of their Church. Then where is Peter's teaching in all of this? The majority of their belief is founded on the letters of Paul.

I'm not trying to say Paul had any divine authority for his teaching, only that he probably actually believed he did. I suspect he was sincere, wrong but sincere.
 
L

LASTINGLIGHT

Member
leibowde84 said:
Luke did. But, Luke was Paul's assistant or something like that.
Click to expand...
Among Bible historians it is generally believed that the books of Luke-Acts were written by the same author, however there is no evidence that they were written by someone named Luke. The Gospels were not named until late 2nd century. They were originally of unknown authorship and still are. Just because someone decides to name the authors does not make it so. All books of the new testament were written in Greek of unknown authors. There is no historical evidence for the existence of anyone called Saul of Tarsus.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
LASTINGLIGHT said:
Among Bible historians it is generally believed that the books of Luke-Acts were written by the same author, however there is no evidence that they were written by someone named Luke. The Gospels were not named until late 2nd century. They were originally of unknown authorship and still are. Just because someone decides to name the authors does not make it so. All books of the new testament were written in Greek of unknown authors. There is no historical evidence for the existence of anyone called Saul of Tarsus.
Click to expand...
I knew that about Matthew, Mark, and John, but I thought Luke was different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top