Why the heck is Paul in the Bible?

[T-Dawg]

Just a couple minutes ago, I found THIS:

Romans 14:23 -
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

By this logic, posting on RF is a sin, because RF is not "from faith," and thinking is a sin, because thinking is not faith, and just about everything is a sin, because most things do not revolve around faith.

And here's some more I found a while back...

Romans 13:1-4 -
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

I don't really know what to say to this other than... What... the... hell?!?
Not only is this blatantly contradictory to Jesus' "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God" teaching, it also defies common sense. Hitler is the first person to come to mind. Gee, I bet all the people who did the right thing got along with Hitler really well, right? After all, he was an authority, "established by God." Paul sounds like a true neoconservative in this passage.

1 Corinthians 11:4-16
I'm not going to quote the entire passage, but basically it says that women have to cover their hair while praying or prophesying, and men have to keep their heads uncovered. It also states that a man with long hair is a disgrace.
So, uh, why the heck does God care about the state of our hair? From what I know of God, he doesn't.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
"... women should remain silent in the chruches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Once again, what the hell? Not only is this blatant sexism, Paul's also contradicting his stance on gender equality in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 (I think there were a couple other spots too but that's the one I remember).


These are some of the more nasty examples, but you get the point. Why is Paul part of the Bible? It seems pretty obvious that he clearly wasn't inspired by God, and frequently used his "faith" as a tool to gain more support and push his personal idealogy (for example, why the heck does Paul feel the need to boast about his suffering and show off what he's gone through in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33?).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you aware that Paul founded many early Christian churches?

He was writing to communities that he founded, and to people that loved him, having received the Gospel from him. He did have opponents, but his letters were preserved by people who used his letters in Christian worship.

Quite simply - the reason why it's in the Bible is because of its enduring use in Christian worship.

We do have records from the church fathers and archaeology that early churches both appreciated Paul's theology and nevertheless allowed women to have very active roles in the church.

 

[Smoke]

Why is Paul part of the Bible?

Paul is the founder of Christianity. It would be easier to cut Moses, David, or Jesus from the Christian Bible than to cut Paul.

It seems pretty obvious that he clearly wasn't inspired by God, and frequently used his "faith" as a tool to gain more support and push his personal idealogy (for example, why the heck does Paul feel the need to boast about his suffering and show off what he's gone through in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33?).

I don't find him very likable, either.

 

[RomCat]

St. Paul is a saint in Heaven.
His writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
He died a martyr for Christ.

 

[Oberon]

Paul is the founder of Christianity. It would be easier to cut Moses, David, or Jesus from the Christian Bible than to cut Paul.

This is a fairly common idea among laypersons and has exerted pull among experts over the last century, but isn't commonly believed by scholars. We get this idea because of a "bias" from the presence of Paul's letters. Paul's letters are the earliest surviving strata of christian texts, so it is naturally to seem him as an innovator. However, apart from the fact that his letters survived while the preaching of other earliest christians did not, there is no evidence that most of Paul's ideas were from him originally, and certainly little to justify the idea that Paul "founded" christianity. There is plenty of evidence against this idea, however. Paul was not the first to contact gentiles, nor the only one spreading christianity. He didn't start the idea of Jesus being christ, nor the idea that Jesus died for humanity, nor are the traditions of Jesus' teachings preserved through him, and so on.

 

[Smoke]

This is a fairly common idea among laypersons and has exerted pull among experts over the last century, but isn't commonly believed by scholars. We get this idea because of a "bias" from the presence of Paul's letters. Paul's letters are the earliest surviving strata of christian texts, so it is naturally to seem him as an innovator. However, apart from the fact that his letters survived while the preaching of other earliest christians did not, there is no evidence that most of Paul's ideas were from him originally, and certainly little to justify the idea that Paul "founded" christianity. There is plenty of evidence against this idea, however. Paul was not the first to contact gentiles, nor the only one spreading christianity. He didn't start the idea of Jesus being christ, nor the idea that Jesus died for humanity, nor are the traditions of Jesus' teachings preserved through him, and so on.

I didn't say he invented Jesus; I said he founded Christianity. Imagine Christian theology without Paul; it would be entirely different. A few questions:

1. "There is no evidence that most of Paul's ideas were from him originally."

What do you mean by "most of his ideas"? Which Pauline ideas, specifically, are derived from other sources? And why does it matter? Even if Paul borrowed from others, it was still Paul who became the relentless and most notable proponent of his views.​

2. "He didn't start the idea of Jesus being christ, nor the idea that Jesus died for humanity..."

I didn't claim that he did, but I find your confident assertion interesting. What writings predating Paul's put forth these ideas?​

3. "... nor are the traditions of Jesus' teachings preserved through him ..."

Nor are Jesus' teachings particularly important to Christian theology. They certainly don't begin to approach the importance of Paul's teachings. How much of the Creed is found in Jesus' teachings? How much of the Catholic catechism, or Luther's catechism, or Pomazansky's Dogmatic Theology or Calvin's Institutes relies on the teachings of Paul, and how much relies on the teachings of Jesus?​

 

[Oberon]

I didn't say he invented Jesus; I said he founded Christianity. Imagine Christian theology without Paul; it would be entirely different.

Christian theology without Paul's letters would PROBABLY be entirely different.

What do you mean by "most of his ideas"? Which Pauline ideas, specifically, are derived from other sources?

We don't know, because Paul is the earliest source we have. However, we know (primarily from Acts and Paul's letters) that Paul was not the authority he appears in his letters. Paul has been given a prominence in the early christian circles more because his letters survive than because of his position. Paul himself shows that numerous christians had more authority than he, and Acts agrees here.

And why does it matter? Even if Paul borrowed from others, it was still Paul who became the relentless and most notable proponent of his views.

Again, we don't know that either. We know there were numerous christian missionaries. We know Paul travelled extensively with Barnabas, who was his superior. We know Paul was not accepted as THE authority even by churches he wrote to. What we DON'T know is how much of Paul's theology is actually Paul's, how much of it was being passed around by other people, and how many other people like Paul there were who were just as relentless in promoting similar views.

We do know that the Johannine community, which is extremely influential in Christian theology, had seperate letters and texts which suggest missionaries and "theologians" on a similar level with and possession a similar role to Paul. Other epistles attest (e.g. Hebrews) attest to similar theologies to Paul which were not from Paul.

Basically, to say that Paul invented christianity is to look at use of his letters in later christian circles as evidence of earlier layers, and to ignore what we know of the christian community structure prior to and after Paul.

 

[Smoke]

However, we know (primarily from Acts and Paul's letters) that Paul was not the authority he appears in his letters.

It's not just that Paul was not the authority in the early Jesus movement, I think we can make a convincing case that he was actually on the margins of it. However, it is the Pauline vision that survived and became Christianity.

We do know that the Johannine community, which is extremely influential in Christian theology, had seperate letters and texts which suggest missionaries and "theologians" on a similar level with and possession a similar role to Paul. Other epistles attest (e.g. Hebrews) attest to similar theologies to Paul which were not from Paul.

Basically, to say that Paul invented christianity is to look at use of his letters in later christian circles as evidence of earlier layers, and to ignore what we know of the christian community structure prior to and after Paul.

Of course there were various communities and various views in the early Jesus movement, but it was Pauline Christianity that triumphed and became not merely normative Christianity but the only Christianity. All Christians today are Pauline Christians, whether we're talking about the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics or the Calvinists or the Jehovah's Witnesses. Even Mormons are Pauline Christians. Even early Unitarians, Universalists, and Quakers were Pauline Christians.

When religious movements move beyond Pauline Christianity, we cease to regard them as Christian at all. A Unitarian-Universalist or a Quaker today may be a Christian, but Unitarian-Universalism and the less dogmatic Quaker meetings are no longer Christian churches.

We can find non-Pauline visions in the early Jesus movement, but Christianity as we have it is a distinctly Pauline creation.

 

[Oberon]

It's not just that Paul was not the authority in the early Jesus movement, I think we can make a convincing case that he was actually on the margins of it.

I don't think such a case can be pausibly made. I think quoting professor L. Michael White here might help:

1. Paul was not the "hellenizer" of the Jesus movement. There was already vibrant interaction with both Greek-speaking Jews and non-Jews beofre and apart from Paul...
2. Paul was not the "second founder" of the movement. This idea is based on the false assumption that, prior to Paul, the JEsus movement was still very monolithic and stuck, as it were, in a kind of theological rut... Paul is thus viewed as the one who broke out of this rut...[H]owever, there was considerable diversity in the movement from the beginning, and there were already explorations of its ideas in new social and cultural contexts... More to the point, Paul did not invent the "church" either as terminology or as a form of Christian worship and organization...
3. Paul was not the "first christian." In fact, Paul never uses the term "Christian." Instead, he clearly saw himself as a pious Jew who had been called on by God, through Jesus, to take this message to non-Jews." (White, p. 144-5, From Jesus to Christianity).

Paul was neither on the margins nor at the center. He was a mover and a shaker, but only one of many.

However, it is the Pauline vision that survived and became Christianity.

The "Johannine vision" is apart from Paul and at least as important. Other theological "trends" are also present in our sources apart from Paul. Finally, we don't know if "the Pauline vision" was really his vision, and if so how much. We don't know how many other people were going around saying similar or the same things. We do know that plenty of what became Christian theology exists quite apart from Paul. The patristic fathers quote the gospels first and foremost. Other letters are important, and the Johannine writings are probably more important than Paul.

In the end, all we can say is that Paul was one among many, and we don't know how many others were similar to him in the early days of christianity, but we do not that christian theology developed apart from him and independent of him.

Of course there were various communities and various views in the early Jesus movement, but it was Pauline Christianity that triumphed

One could also say the Matthean Christianity and Johannine christianity triumphed. Johannine christianity has been more influential. And even the communities that Paul visited and taught, or even founded, were diverse and were not dependent upon Paul. The early christian literature outside the NT, which shows a developing christian theology, is not dependent upon Paul.

So to say that Pauline christianity triumphed is only to say that Paul's writings survived and were included in the canon.

We can find non-Pauline visions in the early Jesus movement, but Christianity as we have it is a distinctly Pauline creation.

Completely false. The gospels, which exist apart from Paul, and the other letters, some of which exist apart from paul, are all a part of christianity, and have been. They are not a Pauline creation. Also, the early christian writings outside of the NT are not Pauline creations. Theology was developed apart from Paul, both before and after him, in christian circles. Yes, Paul was and has been very influential in creating the christianity we know. But it is by no means "a distinctly Pauline creation."

 

[Smoke]

Completely false. The gospels, which exist apart from Paul, and the other letters, some of which exist apart from paul, are all a part of christianity, and have been. They are not a Pauline creation. Also, the early christian writings outside of the NT are not Pauline creations. Theology was developed apart from Paul, both before and after him, in christian circles. Yes, Paul was and has been very influential in creating the christianity we know. But it is by no means "a distinctly Pauline creation."

You keep arguing that there were other streams of thought in the early Jesus movement. I don't deny that, and I don't deny that some of those streams of thought contributed to Christianity as we have it. But think about why Peter and Paul are almost universally considered the most important apostles, and think about the contributions of each to Christianity.

When Christians argue amongst themselves and call each other heretics, they are almost always arguing about the proper way to understand Paul. Jesus stands as the central figure in Christianity as a sort of totem, but it is Paul who is the seminal and central thinker in Christian theology.

 

[Oberon]

You keep arguing that there were other streams of thought in the early Jesus movement. I don't deny that, and I don't deny that some of those streams of thought contributed to Christianity as we have it. But think about why Peter and Paul are almost universally considered the most important apostles, and think about the contributions of each to Christian.

Exactly my point. Paul is not considered so important because of his actual authority or influence during his day, but because he wrote letters and most missionaries didn't (likely because they couldn't). Once writings replaced oral traditions and teachings, letters and gospels became representative of the earliest layers of christianity. Paul's letters form a large percentage of these.

But this doesn't mean that Paul's letters represented unique teachings. Part of his teachings are found elsewhere, and what isn't found elsewhere is not necessarily unique to Paul.

You continue to act as if Paul's letters were uniquely Paul's teachings, and therefore the christian theology built upon them was uniquely a Pauline creation. Not only does this ignore the importance of other early writings that were as or MORE important in shaping christian theology apart from Paul, it also ignores everything we know about the early christian community.

On the basis of nothing other than that his letters survived, you propose that his teachings and theology was unique. Why? Why suppose that a man who was certainly influential, but less so than some, was so unique among all the other missionaries whose teachings have not survived? It is far more likely, given that his letters were copied and transmitted, despite other missionaries and members of the sect being of equal or greater authority, that his letters DID NOT represent such a deviation from what was being taught. Otherwise, why would so many communities keep them and transmit them, when so many others of equal or greater authority were teaching in opposition to Paul?

Jesus stands as the central figure in Christianity as a sort of totem

This I don't entirely agree with, but there is certainly some truth to it. Jesus' teachings don't contain the theology of Paul or John or other epistles.

but it is Paul who is the seminal and central thinker in Christian theology.

Not really. Paul was too Jewish to result in the Christian theology we have without plenty of help not only from other NT authors but from the early christian fathers.

As I have said, the Johannine corpus, which exists apart from Paul, is MORE influential that Paul (I would argue). And, as for arguing who is the heretic, the trinity debate and Christ' pre-existence all use the Johannine corpus.

 

[idea]

Just a couple minutes ago, I found THIS:

Romans 14:23 -
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

By this logic, posting on RF is a sin, because RF is not "from faith," and thinking is a sin, because thinking is not faith, and just about everything is a sin, because most things do not revolve around faith.

"sin" is a word that has been greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leterally translated from the ancient Greek in which the New tEstament was written, to sin means to miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target, so to sin means to miss the point of human existence. It means to live unskillfully, blindly, and thus to suffer and cause suffering. - Eckhart Tolle "A New Earth"

And here's some more I found a while back...

Romans 13:1-4 -
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

I don't really know what to say to this other than... What... the... hell?!?
Not only is this blatantly contradictory to Jesus' "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God" teaching, it also defies common sense. Hitler is the first person to come to mind. Gee, I bet all the people who did the right thing got along with Hitler really well, right? After all, he was an authority, "established by God." Paul sounds like a true neoconservative in this passage.

so... you think there should be no consequences for murdering, raping, being selfish, stealing, lieing... you think God should have no authority figures on Earth? That you know better than anyone else what is right/wrong - that you are the smartest most loving person on the earth and there is no one else that you could possibly learn anything from? Good luck with that one. Let us all know how things turn out for ya

1 Corinthians 11:4-16
I'm not going to quote the entire passage, but basically it says that women have to cover their hair while praying or prophesying, and men have to keep their heads uncovered. It also states that a man with long hair is a disgrace.
So, uh, why the heck does God care about the state of our hair? From what I know of God, he doesn't.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is aeven all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 11:4 - 11)

I could talk about what this represents, but I don't know that there is anyone here who is really interested in it.

Why is Paul part of the Bible? It

Paul gives all of the "Sauls" in the world hope that change is possible, that no matter what horrible things you might have done in your past, you can change, and become a servant of God.

PAUL. See also Pauline Epistles
An Apostle in the New Testament. Paul's Hebrew name was Saul, and he went by this name until the beginning of his mission to the Gentiles. He had previously persecuted the Church but was converted to its truth after seeing a vision of Jesus Christ. Paul went on three major missionary journeys and wrote many letters to the Saints. Fourteen of these letters form a part of the New Testament today. He was finally taken as a prisoner to Rome and was killed, probably in the spring of A.D. 65.
Consented to the stoning of Stephen, Acts 7:57—8:1. Persecuted the Saints, Acts 8:3. Was traveling to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him, Acts 9:1–9. Was baptized by Ananias, Acts 9:10–18. After retiring into Arabia, returned to Damascus to preach, Acts 9:19–25 (Gal. 1:17). Three years after his conversion, went back to Jerusalem, Acts 9:26–30 (Gal. 1:18–19). Went on three missionary journeys, preaching the gospel and organizing branches of the Church in various parts of the Roman Empire, Acts 13:1—14:26; 15:36—18:22; 18:23—21:15. When he returned to Jerusalem after his third mission, was arrested and sent to Caesarea, Acts 21:7—23:35. Remained a prisoner in Caesarea for two years, Acts 24:1—26:32. Was sent to Rome for trial and suffered shipwreck on the way, Acts 27:1—28:11.
(Guide to the Scriptures | P Paul.:Entry)

 

[Oberon]

Leterally [sic] translated from the ancient Greek in which the New tEstament was written, to sin means to miss the mark,

That is only one of the meanings of hamartano. Even in Homer, hundreds of years prior to the NT, the verb could mean "to commit wrong, sin."

 

[T-Dawg]

so... you think there should be no consequences for murdering, raping, being selfish, stealing, lieing... you think God should have no authority figures on Earth? That you know better than anyone else what is right/wrong - that you are the smartest most loving person on the earth and there is no one else that you could possibly learn anything from? Good luck with that one. Let us all know how things turn out for ya

You completely (intentionally?) missed the point. Paul said that ALL authority figures were representatives of God and to rebel against them was sin. Even if they were evil, anti-Christian scumbags who oppressed and tortured God's people, it would be a sin to rebel against them because God set them up, according to Paul. In all honesty, I think this passage might be just Paul appealing to the Roman authorities. Paul seemed to like Rome a lot.

 

[THEXRATEDXTIAN]

Paul is my great Uncle. He also formed the Mafia. I'm running his tent business and were going into Winnebago's next year. What's with all the anti Uncle Paulie Stuff in here people?

 

[THEXRATEDXTIAN]

His name is not Pauline That's a girls name. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. Uncle Paulie is the Man. He wrote the New Testament and he got his bones killing Christians which you guys would love to do so whats the issue???? Seriously

 

[Blackmarch]

Just a couple minutes ago, I found THIS:

calm down.

A couple things to remember..
1. theres no such thing as a perfect translation.
2. a lot of the new testament after the gospels is fragmentory and you don't have the full context because they are letters that are responding to multiple concerns and questions of which weren't included in the bible for whatever reason.

Romans 14:23 -
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

By this logic, posting on RF is a sin, because RF is not "from faith," and thinking is a sin, because thinking is not faith, and just about everything is a sin, because most things do not revolve around faith.

everything does revolve around faith, faith is intimitely linked to what you do or don't do. faith is not the same as belief, altho belief is a significant part of faith.

luckily for us we have Christ.

And here's some more I found a while back...

Romans 13:1-4 -
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

I don't really know what to say to this other than... What... the... hell?!?
Not only is this blatantly contradictory to Jesus' "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God" teaching, it also defies common sense. Hitler is the first person to come to mind. Gee, I bet all the people who did the right thing got along with Hitler really well, right? After all, he was an authority, "established by God." Paul sounds like a true neoconservative in this passage.

how was what paul said contradictory to "render unto caesar"? he's saying abide the laws the authorities have set (ie render unto Caesar). he further explains that if you do this then do what is right then you will be delivered. But if you break the law then you stand guilty of that crime.

I've heard some really interesting stories from devout believers who were on the nazi side in WWII. It was amazing how true what paul said came to pass.

1 Corinthians 11:4-16
I'm not going to quote the entire passage, but basically it says that women have to cover their hair while praying or prophesying, and men have to keep their heads uncovered. It also states that a man with long hair is a disgrace.
So, uh, why the heck does God care about the state of our hair? From what I know of God, he doesn't.

he probably doesn't care about how we hold our hair directly.. but he does care about our attitude. and quite likely at that time doing the opposite of what paul says was probably seen as rebellious or anarchistic behavior.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
"... women should remain silent in the chruches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Once again, what the hell? Not only is this blatant sexism, Paul's also contradicting his stance on gender equality in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 (I think there were a couple other spots too but that's the one I remember).

1. God is discriminatory for his own reasons and does things in his own time. however in this case he is specifically talking about church leadership and priesthood, and revelation for instituting policies of the church of which women were not given that authority, and until God gives a revelation to do otherwise.

These are some of the more nasty examples, but you get the point. Why is Paul part of the Bible? It seems pretty obvious that he clearly wasn't inspired by God, and frequently used his "faith" as a tool to gain more support and push his personal idealogy (for example, why the heck does Paul feel the need to boast about his suffering and show off what he's gone through in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33?).

because paul had one of the stronger conversions as well as important insights to teachings. as well as inspiration and revelation.