• 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?

leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
LASTINGLIGHT said:
It is not any different. There are epistles in the bible historically proven not to be written by those claiming to be the author. Yet the church continues to claim that they were.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that too. I just thought that I had read somewhere that Luke was the most likely to have been authored by the man for which it was named.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
leibowde84 said:
So, then it's not too hard to achieve the status of "apostle" then, right? Anyone could, potentially, make the claim.
Click to expand...
Anyone could make the claim, but that doesn't mean that the claim has the backing of the church. You see, it's more about relationship than it is about "hearing a call."
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
sojourner said:
Anyone could make the claim, but that doesn't mean that the claim has the backing of the church. You see, it's more about relationship than it is about "hearing a call."
Click to expand...
OK. But, why would you think that adherence or acceptance of the church proves legitimacy, accuracy, or truthfulness? Or do you think that these are not important?
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
LASTINGLIGHT said:
Is Acts all you have for you answers? A book of fiction written by an unknown author. You cannot use the Bible to defend the Bible. It has no historical accuracy.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the bible has any great degree of historical accuracy. Yet... you seem to use it to make a claim for being a "Jesusist" whatever that is. If Acts is fiction, the gospels are also fiction and carry no more historical weight for the existence of Jesus as Acts does for the ratification of Paul as an apostle.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
leibowde84 said:
OK. But, why would you think that adherence or acceptance of the church proves legitimacy, accuracy, or truthfulness? Or do you think that these are not important?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it does prove legitimacy or accuracy or truthfulness. It merely carries the authority of the church for those for whom such authority is important.
 
L

LASTINGLIGHT

Member
sojourner said:
Nothing in the bible has any great degree of historical accuracy. Yet... you seem to use it to make a claim for being a "Jesusist" whatever that is. If Acts is fiction, the gospels are also fiction and carry no more historical weight for the existence of Jesus as Acts does for the ratification of Paul as an apostle.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
L

LASTINGLIGHT

Member
sojourner said:
Read your bible and you'll find out.
Click to expand...
Christians believe the messiah, that is, the one foretold in the Hebrew Text who has come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jews emphatically do not believe that Jesus is the messiah. If his own people did not believe he was the Messiah, also his hometown people of Nazareth, why should anyone else. He was definably not the Messiah of the Hebrews. And yet he claimed to be sent to be sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (Gentiles need not apply)

But he answered and said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Jesus
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
Nakosis said:

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.



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.
Click to expand...
I see how you are viewing this. Sorry I misunderstood.
 
J

JoStories

Well-Known Member
sojourner said:
Read in Acts about the Council of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Maybe you misunderstood my question. I was asking for outside corroboration of this, not from the Bible. The Bible doesn't prove anything really since no one knows who really wrote any of the books. Do you have outside sources for this?
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
LASTINGLIGHT said:
Christians believe the messiah, that is, the one foretold in the Hebrew Text who has come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jews emphatically do not believe that Jesus is the messiah. If his own people did not believe he was the Messiah, also his hometown people of Nazareth, why should anyone else. He was definably not the Messiah of the Hebrews. And yet he claimed to be sent to be sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (Gentiles need not apply)

But he answered and said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Jesus
Click to expand...
Hmmm... He is also quoted as saying that he had "other sheep which are not of this fold..."

Obviously, his own people did believe him to be such, or the bible wouldn't make that claim.
 
L

LASTINGLIGHT

Member
sojourner said:
Hmmm... He is also quoted as saying that he had "other sheep which are not of this fold..."

Obviously, his own people did believe him to be such, or the bible wouldn't make that claim.
Click to expand...
The Hebrews rejected him. But you are right, his own people, Hellenized Jews did accept him. Other sheep? Just another place in the NT where it contradicts itself. I don't use John because it came much later than the synoptics, is totally different, and as you have just shown, it often contradicts the others.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
LASTINGLIGHT said:
The Hebrews rejected him.
Click to expand...
His disciples -- who were Hebrews. Did not reject him.
LASTINGLIGHT said:
his own people, Hellenized Jews did accept him.
Click to expand...
Hellenized? Jesus was Galilean. Galileans were decidedly not hellenized.
LASTINGLIGHT said:
I don't use John because it came much later than the synoptics, is totally different, and as you have just shown, it often contradicts the others.
Click to expand...
That's your problem. the rest of Xy doesn't have such a problem with it.
LASTINGLIGHT said:
One wild guess is as good as another. See?
Click to expand...
Wild guess? Not following you here.
LASTINGLIGHT said:
"Nothing in the bible has any great degree of historical accuracy."

I agree.
Click to expand...
Then your arguments are not valid. You can't use one passage in the bible as irrefutable evidence that nothing in the bible is irrefutable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top