How do you know if Paul was speaking gods words and not just his opinion?

[ViaCrucis]

I've been seriously out of touch not learning about the contention surrounding Apostle Paul. What's this now? Three threads questioning his authenticity as an Apostle of Christ?

Contention with Paul isn't anything new, but that's not exactly what this thread is about. Other threads have been largely "Paul wasn't a real apostle" kind of thing; this thread is more about how Christians can ascertain that writers, such as Paul, wrote authentic, divinely inspired material: How can Christians be sure that the Pauline epistles are of divine provenance rather than merely being Paul's personal, fallible, human opinions. Paul's sincerity and position within the early Church doesn't seem to be called into question here (as is done in those other threads you are likely referring to), this has more to do with how Christians engage with the biblical texts themselves. Or at least that is how I've understood the thread.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dave RP]

I've been seriously out of touch not learning about the contention surrounding Apostle Paul. What's this now? Three threads questioning his authenticity as an Apostle of Christ?

Sorry, I started this one, and as a non believer I couldn't understand why his writings could be considered the "word of God". It has been explained to me, but I still am of the opinion that he was stating his personal view to the church of the day, and whilst he believed much of what he said was divinely inspired and so did those receiving it, that still didn't mean that it was. As I said in an earlier post, Joseph Smith passed those tests but you're not all Mormons.

 

[Dave RP]

Contention with Paul isn't anything new, but that's not exactly what this thread is about. Other threads have been largely "Paul wasn't a real apostle" kind of thing; this thread is more about how Christians can ascertain that writers, such as Paul, wrote authentic, divinely inspired material: How can Christians be sure that the Pauline epistles are of divine provenance rather than merely being Paul's personal, fallible, human opinions. Paul's sincerity and position within the early Church doesn't seem to be called into question here (as is done in those other threads you are likely referring to), this has more to do with how Christians engage with the biblical texts themselves. Or at least that is how I've understood the thread.

-CryptoLutheran

You have summarised the intent in starting this thread perfectly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry, I started this one, and as a non believer I couldn't understand why his writings could be considered the "word of God". It has been explained to me, but I still am of the opinion that he was stating his personal view to the church of the day, and whilst he believed much of what he said was divinely inspired and so did those receiving it, that still didn't mean that it was. As I said in an earlier post, Joseph Smith passed those tests but you're not all Mormons.

On some level it really does boil down to a participation in the Church's living confession and tradition as its been passed down over the centuries. We accept the writings of Paul as Canonical Scripture and not the writings of Joseph Smith because the Church has always known Paul's writings and they have been received since antiquity--that is, in essence, how the Canon is defined and accepted: there was no council or formal decision making process with the Canon; the Canon was defined through its reception and common usage throughout the churches in the context of the Christian Liturgy. One will frequently encounter, in the writings of the fathers, statements about what is read, this doesn't have to do with what individuals read but with what was read out loud as part of the readings within organized Christian worship, i.e. the liturgy. Christian worship has historically always been liturgical, as Judaism had been and still is; and much of what constitutes traditional Christian liturgy has antecedent in the Jewish liturgy. One of those liturgical elements was (and remains still) Scripture readings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Contention with Paul isn't anything new, but that's not exactly what this thread is about. Other threads have been largely "Paul wasn't a real apostle" kind of thing; this thread is more about how Christians can ascertain that writers, such as Paul, wrote authentic, divinely inspired material: How can Christians be sure that the Pauline epistles are of divine provenance rather than merely being Paul's personal, fallible, human opinions. Paul's sincerity and position within the early Church doesn't seem to be called into question here (as is done in those other threads you are likely referring to), this has more to do with how Christians engage with the biblical texts themselves. Or at least that is how I've understood the thread.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you. Reading the first post again I can see your observations there.
It's a very valid question in that regard.

With your experience in the readings of the Bible would you agree?

Sorry, I started this one, and as a non believer I couldn't understand why his writings could be considered the "word of God". It has been explained to me, but I still am of the opinion that he was stating his personal view to the church of the day, and whilst he believed much of what he said was divinely inspired and so did those receiving it, that still didn't mean that it was. As I said in an earlier post, Joseph Smith passed those tests but you're not all Mormons.

Thank you. I appreciate your explanation as well.
God Bless.

 

[ananda]

I had a chat with a Christian friend and was quoted from Paul's letters to someone (I'm sorry I forgot which particular letter), and I said I can understand why you believe that what Jesus said was from God, but Paul was just a bloke stating an opinion, wasn't he?

My Christian friend said that as it was in the Bible it was the word of God, but I thought that as Paul wrote after Jesus had died and his letters were only selected for use in the Bible by human beings it can't possibly be the word of God.

So if anyone can help with the justification for Pauls letters etc being the word of God I'd be grateful, one person said that Paul had himself stated he was speaking God's words, but lots of people have said that. Is there something we are missing?

None of us can personally know if Paul, Jesus, Abraham, Mohammed, Bahaullah, etc. were speaking "god's truth", since none of us can personally verify their existence or their acts.

At this point, you might be ask me why I trust the Buddha. His existence or acts do not ultimately matter, as early Buddhism is not based on the true historicity of the Buddha. It is instead based on those teachings attributed to his name, which we can (and are called to) verify in the here and now. Even if the Buddha never existed, it's not him but "his" teachings which ultimately count.

On the other hand, the true existence and acts of Paul, Muhammad, Abraham, Jesus, Bahaullah, etc. do count, because the religions built upon them depend on the truth regarding their historical personalities.

For example, Paul might have said "faith alone is necessary for salvation". I can't verify that message for myself. I have to have blind faith that 1. Paul actually existed, and 2. that he actually said that, in order to believe, also on blind faith, that "faith alone is necessary for salvation". Similar arguments goes for Abraham, or Jesus, Muhammed, etc.

Buddha also might have said "life is filled with suffering, and right mindfulness and concentration leads to cessation of suffering". I *can* verify that message for myself, as I understand suffering personally, and through personal practice of mindfulness and concentration, I know for myself that it leads to a reduction in suffering. I do not need to have faith that 1. the Buddha actually existed as a man/ghost/god/monkey/etc., and 2. that the Buddha actually taught that.

 

[timewerx]

I had a chat with a Christian friend and was quoted from Paul's letters to someone (I'm sorry I forgot which particular letter), and I said I can understand why you believe that what Jesus said was from God, but Paul was just a bloke stating an opinion, wasn't he?

My Christian friend said that as it was in the Bible it was the word of God, but I thought that as Paul wrote after Jesus had died and his letters were only selected for use in the Bible by human beings it can't possibly be the word of God.

So if anyone can help with the justification for Pauls letters etc being the word of God I'd be grateful, one person said that Paul had himself stated he was speaking God's words, but lots of people have said that. Is there something we are missing?

You are probably correct in your opinion.

I used to believe in Paul's teachings but in recent years, I've been scrutinizing the Bible, discussing about it, and I have yet to find a rational argument that Paul's letters deserved to be in the Bible. My personal conclusion on the matter is that it was carelessly included in the Bible. Those who put the Bible Canon did not bothered to carefully study the teachings that's supposed to be included. It showed a lack of thought, or even possibly an evil agenda. The contradictions are far too many that it becomes really absurd to defend them all.

It's even ironic that there are verses which Jesus warned against certain types of people we are not to believe and Paul fit one of those!

 

[tulipbee]

ivan panin or theomatics scientifically proves that Pauls letters in the 66 book bible was breathed by God as if God wrote the Bible.

 

[SteveB28]

ivan panin or theomatics scientifically proves that Pauls letters in the 66 book bible was breathed by God as if God wrote the Bible.

Yes, of course it does............

 

[tulipbee]

Yes, of course it does............

do you believe ivan panin works proves the bible was breathed by God?

 

[SteveB28]

do you believe ivan panin works proves the bible was breathed by God?

No

 

[tulipbee]

No

of course

 

[juvenissun]

I had a chat with a Christian friend and was quoted from Paul's letters to someone (I'm sorry I forgot which particular letter), and I said I can understand why you believe that what Jesus said was from God, but Paul was just a bloke stating an opinion, wasn't he?

My Christian friend said that as it was in the Bible it was the word of God, but I thought that as Paul wrote after Jesus had died and his letters were only selected for use in the Bible by human beings it can't possibly be the word of God.

So if anyone can help with the justification for Pauls letters etc being the word of God I'd be grateful, one person said that Paul had himself stated he was speaking God's words, but lots of people have said that. Is there something we are missing?

You may try to change what Paul said. Then you will find the resulted Christian theology shows problem.
That is how we know.
Want to try? It is a good challenge.

 

[juvenissun]

Since you've mentioned Exodus story, the entire story rests on the plausibility of the logistics necessary to support the numbers described. It's hardly trivial when you actually attempt to cast this story in any kind of observable reality. For example, consider how long it would take for 2 million people and animals to drink and gather water from a single source flowing from a rock in a wilderness. We are talking about the population of Chicago with all of their pets flocking around a single source of water. And that's just a single example of what I'm talking about.

Consider the strange food called the Manna. The rest "problems" are really minor concerns in comparison.
Do you think all Jewish people are stupid to believe that?

 

[Colter]

The Roman world heard about Jesus through Paul, so naturally they put him on a pedestal, converting his simple letters of correspondence into the word of God. Much of the NT writing was done well after Paul's post-cross Gospel about Jesus was overwritten on the original pre-cross gospel of Jesus.

 

[devolved]

Consider the strange food called the Manna. The rest "problems" are really minor concerns in comparison.
Do you think all Jewish people are stupid to believe that?

Most of the Jewish people today believe in these stories the same way US culture believes in Santa. It's a traditional myth.

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx

 

[juvenissun]

Most of the Jewish people today believe in these stories the same way US culture believes in Santa. It's a traditional myth.

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx

Not today, how did they believe the story of Manna 2000 years ago? Were they simply fooling themselves if they felt the Exodus is impossible.

Use archaeology to deny the Exodus is the same as to use science to deny miracles. No miracle, no Jesus. That would be the end of the religion.

 

[South Bound]

I had a chat with a Christian friend and was quoted from Paul's letters to someone (I'm sorry I forgot which particular letter), and I said I can understand why you believe that what Jesus said was from God, but Paul was just a bloke stating an opinion, wasn't he?

My Christian friend said that as it was in the Bible it was the word of God, but I thought that as Paul wrote after Jesus had died and his letters were only selected for use in the Bible by human beings it can't possibly be the word of God.

So if anyone can help with the justification for Pauls letters etc being the word of God I'd be grateful, one person said that Paul had himself stated he was speaking God's words, but lots of people have said that. Is there something we are missing?

Two reasons:

First because Paul's letters are cited as scripture elsewhere in scripture

Second because Paul's writings are consistent with the rest of scripture

 

[devolved]

Not today, how did they believe the story of Manna 2000 years ago? Were they simply fooling themselves if they felt the Exodus is impossible.

Are you asking as to why people 2000 years ago believed in myths? Again, it was a mode of cultural morality of the day. Virtually every culture exaggerated its own importance and there were plenty of God-chosen nations that self ascribed such status via their own myths.

Use archaeology to deny the Exodus is the same as to use science to deny miracles. No miracle, no Jesus. That would be the end of the religion.

Not really. Miracles are in people's imagination. And as long as imagination exists ... there will be plenty of room for religion.

No one can stop you from imagining a reality a certain way and think it's "the truth". Science is about reliable evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you asking as to why people 2000 years ago believed in myths? Again, it was a mode of cultural morality of the day. Virtually every culture exaggerated its own importance and there were plenty of God-chosen nations that self ascribed such status via their own myths.



Not really. Miracles are in people's imagination. And as long as imagination exists ... there will be plenty of room for religion.

No one can stop you from imagining a reality a certain way and think it's "the truth". Science is about reliable evidence.

Try to tell modern Jewish people that the Exodus is only an imagination which the faith of their ancestors anchored upon for thousands of years. Even I were a Jew, I won't believe you.