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

[aieyiamfu]

True, God doesn't change, mans understanding of God changes. The incarnate Son is the closest we've gotten to seeing the Father.

Did Moses not communicate directly with the Father on several occasions?

 

[Colter]

Did Moses not communicate directly with the Father on several occasions?

The story of Moses is a retrospective written long after Moses lived. The captive Hebrews had no written language, Hebrew dates to about 1,000 BC, it's a derivative of the Phoenician alphabet.

Moses, a reformer and matchless leader, was far advanced in spiritual insight and leadership skills. He presented an advanced concept of deity to the slave class yet not so far advanced that his audience wouldn't comprehend. Therefor the Father taught by Moses was one fashioned in the image of man.

The OT as it exists today was produced in Babylon by the Hebrew priest class for a dejected, scattered Israelite audience.

 

[aieyiamfu]

The story of Moses is a retrospective written long after Moses lived. The captive Hebrews had no written language, Hebrew dates to about 1,000 BC, it's a derivative of the Phoenician alphabet.

Moses, a reformer and matchless leader, was far advanced in spiritual insight and leadership skills. He presented an advanced concept of deity to the slave class yet not so far advanced that his audience wouldn't comprehend. Therefor the Father taught by Moses was one fashioned in the image of man.

The OT as it exists today was produced in Babylon by the Hebrew priest class for a dejected, scattered Israelite audience.

So the bible cannot be belive as presented.

 

[Colter]

So the bible cannot be belive as presented.

It works for me, and I assume it has worked for you. Only God is perfect and God is the Living Word of Truth, a snapshot can't reveal Infinity.

 

[Church2u2]

Well Paul did give his own opinion in 1st Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest I, not the Lord ,say: if any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him ,let him not divorce her.) So maybe there were some issues where he felt that he could give his own personal advice.

 

[SteveB28]

Paul was commissioned by God, if we are to believe the Bible. The epistles of Paul were accepted by those to whom they were originally directed and the early church considered them to be divinely inspired, so your friend is correct. As a matter of fact, the Bible books, all of them, have been considered to be divine revelation since before they were brought together officially and called "The Bible."

So you may say, "This could have been a mistake, no?" and that's true, but if so, the entirety of the religion is reduced to folklore. Yet, the Bible, taken as a whole, has stood up to enormous scrutiny from skeptics over the years and proven its reliability again and again, therefore we take it for being valid.

"Folklore" sounds like a good option.

 

[SteveB28]

I don't think it's "circular," although I appreciate your point. I'd put it this way--it all hangs together or it all falls together. Paul claimed a commission from God, he was received by the other church leaders and the people as not being a phony, the early church considered his letters to be inspired, the church councils that compiled the Bible scrutinized all the would-be writings that some people or other thought might be inspired, and they decided to include Paul's epistles. So that forms the basis of the faith, from a documentary POV.

The Bible has stood the test of time, repeatedly rebutting the criticisms concerning non-theological matters contained in it. And the theological ones are beyond proving scientifically. So one can accept the Bible, with Paul, or discount the whole thing as being just another set of sacred writings.

But no other of the world's great religions has anything like it--a record of thousands of years of man's interaction with God. They have inspirational poetry, instructions for daily living, a collection of tales with no historic context, or something of that sort, but nothing like the Bible.

In fact, it can be argued that there is nothing like Christianity. Other religions either have borrowed their basic concepts of God and Man from the Judeo-Christian traditions and writings or else they don't posit the existence of a supreme being at all, being more like ethical systems or philosophies than what we would think of as religions.

One could make the same boasts of the ancient Norse, Greek, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, various aboriginal religions, all which predate Christianity.

And the bible fails many historical tests....

 

[tulipbee]

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?

thats easy. your friend was right. now with this link, you'll have to force yourself that paul's letters in the 66 book bible was breathed by God. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ivan+panin

 

[SteveB28]

thats easy. your friend was right. now with this link, you'll have to force yourself that paul's letters in the 66 book bible was breathed by God. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ivan+panin

Numerology??

Good grief......

 

[tulipbee]

Numerology??

Good grief......

proofs means proofs no matter what you say.

 

[Albion]

One could make the same boasts of the ancient Norse, Greek, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, various aboriginal religions, all which predate Christianity.

And the bible fails many historical tests....

I disagree.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

thats easy. your friend was right. now with this link, you'll have to force yourself that paul's letters in the 66 book bible was breathed by God. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ivan+panin

There's zero "proof" that finding patterns in the Bible corresponds to those patterns being intentionally put there. By man or a god. Finding patterns in large amounts of text only proves that humans have an innate ability to find patterns. Math actually shows that there's nothing inherently "miraculous" about it. Ivan's techniques can find coherent patterns in ANY large text.

It's just probabilistic illusion.

 

[tulipbee]

There's zero "proof" that finding patterns in the Bible corresponds to those patterns being intentionally put there. By man or a god. Finding patterns in large amounts of text only proves that humans have an innate ability to find patterns. Math actually shows that there's nothing inherently "miraculous" about it. Ivan's techniques can find coherent patterns in ANY large text.

It's just probabilistic illusion.

i know 1 + 1 = 2 is true. theres more

 

[HitchSlap]

thats easy. your friend was right. now with this link, you'll have to force yourself that paul's letters in the 66 book bible was breathed by God

Which books did Paul write?

 

[tulipbee]

Which books did Paul write?

i used to know that. what would you say if i listed them here?

 

[jayem]

From the historical record. All the books of the NT were in general and widespread use among the churches, being considered authoritative, long before the councils that get talked about here gathered them into the "canon."

That's the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy. Also known as the appeal to tradition. Just because something was widely accepted in the past does not mean it is valid. Have you ever heard of Galen of Pergamon? He was a Greek-born physician of the 2nd century AD. He practiced in Rome, and is regarded as the most prominent and influential medical expert of his day. He was a firm believer in Humourism. That's the theory that the human body is composed of 4 humours: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Health occurs when these 4 are all in a proper balance. Disease results when there is an imbalance--either an excess or deficiency of one or more humours. This was considered state-of-the-art for at least 1300 years. And even into the early 19th century, physicians were still practicing blood-letting in the belief that some diseases were caused by too much blood in the body. Of course it was total nonsense, and humourism was completely rejected after science-based physiology and cellular pathology appeared in the mid-1800s.

What was though to be authoritative for well over a millenium, can still be dead wrong.

 

[Albion]

That's the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

Uh no. It is the verdict of history.

Either they were used by the churches in that time period and considered to be authoritative or they were not.

 

[com7fy8]

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)

I'd like to know what your friend said that Paul said. If you tell me this, I possibly can know which letter has this and we can discuss it.

As for the inspiration Paul may or may not have had, he himself believed it to be divinely inspired, but so did Joseph Smith (to name but one) when he founded the Mormons having received divine inspiration from an angel.

There is some question about if Joseph Smith really believed everything he has presented, because ones claim that the plates he used were fake and he knew they were fake. I Joseph knew they were fake, may be he did write on them what he believed, or there were a number of things which he put in them, but which he did not believe. I suppose, he could have made the fake plates, in order to try to promote what he believed.

But it has been reported that he had been a con artists. Even so, I know others could make things up about him. Even if he was a fake, still others could add on things which are not true. But I have glanced at some of his writings, I think, and they do not come close to being substantial and helpful like Paul's writings have been, for me.

In our Christian culture churches, we do have people who might believe something, and they will say "God told me this", in order to get others to accept it. They might really believe it is so but did not really hear from God. Others are totally making things up in order to influence others and get status for hearing from God.

But we understand that Paul's letters are what he himself wrote or dictated . . . by God's inspiration. My impression is that what Paul has written is not what genes would in evolution mutate to make a human capable of imagining without God's input

I personally keep finding that what Paul has written matches with Jesus and how Jesus walked and loved and things Jesus said. And Paul's writings have helped me to get with God, and my experience with God is a match with what Paul has written. So, I am not only going by someone else's say-so. However there is one catch > God keeps bringing me to a better meaning, of any scripture, than whatever I might already understand . . . His love meaning, which is not only intellectual explanation, but how I become in His love.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

i know 1 + 1 = 2 is true. theres more

That didn't address anything I said at all. And it was as vague as can be. If you have evidence of your position, please present it.

 

[tulipbee]

That didn't address anything I said at all. And it was as vague as can be. If you have evidence of your position, please present it.

the proofs presents themselves.