Is Paul arrogant?

[sojourner]

I'm not talking about textual accuracy so much as validity. Why do you believe the claims that Paul makes in the Bible? There have been many other so-called "speakers for God/Jesus" that I assume you don't pay any credence, but you do with Paul. What makes him so believable?

I don't believe the claims, themselves, so much as I believe that Paul is sincere and authoritative in making those claims. I believe Paul's sincerity and authority because the church has given him that authority.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

I don't believe the claims, themselves, so much as I believe that Paul is sincere and authoritative in making those claims. I believe Paul's sincerity and authority because the church has given him that authority.

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god...."Against Marcion," cir. 212AD

Tertullian - Early Church Apologist. My how the church changed their mind!

 

[Lyndon]

I don't believe the claims, themselves, so much as I believe that Paul is sincere and authoritative in making those claims. I believe Paul's sincerity and authority because the church has given him that authority.

His sincerity as a mass murderer of Christians before his "conversion" is unquestioned in my mind, my take on Paul is he had one of those "if you can't kill em all, join em, and beat them from the inside. He was an evil mind, and we suffer the effects of his evil influence to this day.

 

[sojourner]

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... [L]et the apostle, belong to your other god...."Against Marcion," cir. 212AD

Tertullian - Early Church Apologist. My how the church changed their mind!

I suspect that the answer was -- and continues to be -- that, obviously the Jerusalem apostles accepted him as part of the "club."

 

[sojourner]

His sincerity as a mass murderer of Christians before his "conversion" is unquestioned in my mind, my take on Paul is he had one of those "if you can't kill em all, join em, and beat them from the inside. He was an evil mind, and we suffer the effects of his evil influence to this day.

Wow. I... just... ... wow.

Have you read Paul -- or just given him a cursory nod and now pronounce your learned findings?

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

I suspect that the answer was -- and continues to be -- that, obviously the Jerusalem apostles accepted him as part of the "club."

None of the real apostles ever refers to Paul as an apostle.

 

[sojourner]

None of the real apostles ever refers to Paul as an apostle.

That's because the "real" apostles only appear in the gospel stories, which took place before Paul's conversion. They would have no reason to refer to Paul. BUT... Paul is included in that circle in the Council of Jerusalem, referred to in Luke-Acts.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

That's because the "real" apostles only appear in the gospel stories, which took place before Paul's conversion. They would have no reason to refer to Paul. BUT... Paul is included in that circle in the Council of Jerusalem, referred to in Luke-Acts.

John, James, Jude, and Peter all "wrote" independently from the Gospels, and none mention Paul. The only people who refer to Paul as an apostle was mainly Paul himself, the author of acts, and by Barnabas in acts. Nowhere else. There is no evidence that Luke was the author of Luke-Acts. It was not called the Gospel of Luke until the second century and has been revised constantly until nearly the third century. Pauls versions of his conversion are different from each other.

 

[sojourner]

John, James, Jude, and Peter all "wrote" independently from the Gospels, and none mention Paul. The only people who refer to Paul as an apostle was mainly Paul himself, the author of acts, and by Barnabas in acts. Nowhere else. There is no evidence that Luke was the author of Luke-Acts. It was not called the Gospel of Luke until the second century and has been revised constantly until nearly the third century. Pauls versions of his conversion are different from each other.

Yes, yes. I understand that. I've studied Paul and the gospels for years in grad school.
Paul's version does differ from Luke's. Nonetheless, what we have written and extra-biblical Tradition are the compelling factors for his apostleship.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't believe the claims, themselves, so much as I believe that Paul is sincere and authoritative in making those claims. I believe Paul's sincerity and authority because the church has given him that authority.

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.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Only his changed outlook. Remember that many people didn't witness Jesus calling the original apostles, either. Apparently eywitnessing isn't the important factor in establishing authority in this regard.

 

[Lyndon]

And being a mass murderer doesn't disqualify your writing from being included in the Bible!!

 

[leibowde84]

Only his changed outlook. Remember that many people didn't witness Jesus calling the original apostles, either. Apparently eywitnessing isn't the important factor in establishing authority in this regard.

I think it is much more reassonable to just point to people back then having a far more primitive understanding of our reality, and, as a result, were far more quick to accept claims that today we would find utterly ridiculous.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't see Paul as arrogant, just certain of his leadership. If you're going to lead, you got to provide the folks with a sense of certainty. You accept the role of leadership and whether right or wrong, you got to lead.

It's not like Paul had the gospels in hand to reference. He was relying on whatever his "spiritual intuition" said.

His was capable of being mistaken like anyone, that doesn't make him evil.

 

[Lyndon]

No, its being a mass murderer that makes him evil.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

I don't see Paul as arrogant, just certain of his leadership. If you're going to lead, you got to provide the folks with a sense of certainty. You accept the role of leadership and whether right or wrong, you got to lead.

It's not like Paul had the gospels in hand to reference. He was relying on whatever his "spiritual intuition" said.

His was capable of being mistaken like anyone, that doesn't make him evil.

He didn't lead his own people very well (the jews), they rejected him.

 

[Lyndon]

He was telling people to eat pork, after all, another one of his "visions".

 

[Nakosis]

He didn't lead his own people very well (the jews), they rejected him.

He kind of rejected them didn't he. The Pharisee? He was an enforcer for them, but had a change of consciousness on the Road to Damascus.

 

[sojourner]

And being a mass murderer doesn't disqualify your writing from being included in the Bible!!

If sin were a disqualifier, There would be no biblical writings.

Remember: the canon wasn't settled until almost 400 years following Paul. By then his reputation as a reformed man of God was well established.

 

[sojourner]

I think it is much more reassonable to just point to people back then having a far more primitive understanding of our reality, and, as a result, were far more quick to accept claims that today we would find utterly ridiculous.

Perhaps.