I'd like to see the references for that. Paul only met Jesus post resurrection. But even though he was an apostle, he was never one of the 12. He was not educated by the other apostles but directly by Jesus through God's spirit making him as qualified for his assignment as they were.....and he was accepted by the other apostles as their spiritual brother. Since they had been anointed with holy spirit, they could not be fooled by a fake apostle.
All of the gospels date way after Paul, and Paul's own writings don't really make extensive mention of the other "apostles." The fact that Paul's writings are the earliest they have, and as you yourself point out they treat Jesus as an entirely spiritual figure... I mean, that kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
What gives you the impression that the RCC was even a Christian institution? I have no interest in the Catholic church or her teachings. Jesus and the apostles warned about an apostasy taking over Christianity like "weeds" and it happened just as it was foretold.....history confirms it.
For not caring about the Roman Catholic Church, you sure do care a lot about the works that they codified as canonical.
So whose word is it? God's word or the Catholic church's? He can use whomever he wishes to carry out his will...even his enemies if he chooses, but the Bible is not a product of any church. God chose its contents.
The Catholic Church just compiled the texts, but the texts themselves were written by people. Some of which might not have even been alive at the same time as earlier writers. I don't think any of the New Testament works claim to be written by God. I imagine that if God wanted to write the New Testament, there would only be one book and it would be consistent and made so explicitly clear that no amount of blind idiot translations could lead to ideological disagreements about what he was actually saying.
The gospels were the eye witness testimonies of the apostles and their leader Jesus Christ. Again, when they were written or by whose hand is irrelevant.....it is God's spirit that inspired their recording and their distribution, even though it took many centuries for these to be released to the public. God judges the timing of all these events. You can believe whatever you wish....it doesn't alter anything.....not the content...not the message...not the outcome. But that will be a wait and see...won't it?
It's not irrelevant. It is the peak of relevance. You can't just hand-wave away man's hand in the creation of these texts and then just take their word that it's inspired by God's spirit. You can make the same assertion about any work, but it's fundamentally meaningless. At the end of the day, it's not God who wrote any of these texts, is it? They aren't his words. Especially not after being translated.
Not disputed at all by those who know what the Bible's message is....no writings by any one apostle can alter any of that. Is God really so weak that he can't control what is in his own book? You think its still here today by some strange co-incidence, given all the attempts made to destroy it and keep it out of the hands of the common people? It has already accomplished what it was sent for.
Arguing for the historical accuracy of the Bible by pointing out that there are a large portion of people who religiously believe it's true doesn't make any sense.
Is God really so weak that he needs other men to speak for him and write and spread his book for him?
I think it's still here today because it was picked up by a successful empire and focused more on conversion and heresy than most other religions. I would also dispute the idea that what's here is actually what early Christians believed and what was taught in the Bible. I don't think it is.
And I believe that hearsay is all you have as well.....so we're even......when it comes to matters of faith, I'll take God's word over any man's.
I don't think you quite get what I was saying here, respectfully. You do not have God's word. You have your church's word about the words of various people who translated and compiled the words of other men, who might have known Jesus who might have been God (or might have spoken to God through a surrogate like Saint Enoch or the Holy Spirit, adding yet another layer of distance). You don't have God's direct words, as far as I'm aware. You haven't received direct revelations or summoned him. So to claim that you're taking "God's word" over man's is nonsensical.
You're already taking several people's words about God. I'm just pointing out that maybe these people don't know what they're talking about, either because things have been lost due to the theological game of telephone or due to intentional treachery. You can only really say to take God's word when.. well, when you talk directly to God, or aspects of God (which would be angels). Until then, it's not that I "believe" all you have is hearsay. What you have literally is hearsay. It's a rumor mill. It's not reliable. It's definitely not historically accurate, which would be quite an oversight from an omniscient God.
Maybe the people who passed along the information were incredibly spiritual and in touch with divinity. Maybe they were guided by the hand of God. That doesn't make those words God's, though. Holy, maybe. Written from a better understanding of God than most people will ever have, possibly. God's direct words, though? Absolutely not.
Again, the only way to have God's word is to talk to him directly. Until then, it really is just hearsay. Maybe you don't know what hearsay is? I'll provide a definition from Oxford.
"things that you have heard from another person but do not (definitely) know to be true"
You've heard other people say that the gospels are reliable, and the gospels themselves make statements about God that you haven't verified by speaking to God. So, yes. All you have is hearsay. That's not my opinion, that's just the definition of what hearsay is.
?) in my analysis here.
