If Paul was an authority, then why couldn't any other person be?

[radhead]

Christians say that the Bible was "authoritative" on God's message to people because these people supposedly met Jesus. Or more specifically, they met one of the apostles who met Jesus.

But if Paul who only saw Jesus in a vision was considered an authority, doesn't that mean that all believers are authorities also?

Why give special preference to the words and thoughts of Paul? Why aren't other popular writings considered to scripture?

Why not give equal preference to modern writers, such as popular authors like the authors of "Jesus Calling", "Conversations With God", and similar books?

 

[radhead]

70 people read this and no one has any thoughts? To that I would say, what is the basis of your own faith in Paul then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians say that the Bible was "authoritative" on God's message to people because these people supposedly met Jesus. Or more specifically, they met one of the apostles who met Jesus.

But if Paul who only saw Jesus in a vision was considered an authority, doesn't that mean that all believers are authorities also?

Why give special preference to the words and thoughts of Paul? Why aren't other popular writings considered to scripture?

Why not give equal preference to modern writers, such as popular authors like the authors of "Jesus Calling", "Conversations With God", and similar books?

...the answer is that the term "Apostle," considered contextually, is a designation by Christ referring to a person whom Jesus specifically 'sends' to deliver a message, and with HIS authority. Along with the 12, Paul was such an individual (and in some capacity, this may have applied to a few others individuals in the same generation to which the 12 and Paul belonged).

Writers (some Christians) today like to pretend they have the same authority as the early Apostles, but even though we later Christians do have privilege in the Holy Spirit to share the Gospel message, we don't have the same empowerment or level of authority that the Apostles were given. Otherwise, we could all just write Scripture....and tell others to abide by whatever peculiar ideas WE think the Holy Spirit is leading us to spout.

 

[radhead]

...the answer is that the term "Apostle," considered contextually, is a designation by Christ referring to a person whom Jesus specifically 'sends' to deliver a message, and with HIS authority. Along with the 12, Paul was such an individual (and in some capacity, this may have applied to a few others individuals in the same generation to which the 12 and Paul belonged).

Writers (some Christians) today like to pretend they have the same authority as the early Apostles, but even though we later Christians do have privilege in the Holy Spirit to share the Gospel message, we don't have the same empowerment or level of authority that the Apostles were given. Otherwise, we could all just write Scripture....and tell others to abide by whatever peculiar ideas WE think the Holy Spirit is leading us to spout.

But his authority came from his own claims. Anyone can do that. And they, as in the books I mentioned in my OP. Some of which are bestsellers in the Christian market like "Jesus Calling".

 

[radhead]

Another example that Evangelicals love to point to are the visions of Jesus Christ which are converting people today, particularly as experienced by former Muslims, etc. They are no different than Paul's vision (which I believe is just as valid as anyone else's). Paul received a private vision which led him to share with others. Anyone can do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But his authority came from his own claims. Anyone can do that. And they, as in the books I mentioned in my OP. Some of which are bestsellers in the Christian market like "Jesus Calling".

How do you know that his authority came from his own claims? If you're going that route then, you might as well as dispense with the other apostles too, and even dispense with Jesus Himself.............................I hate to say this because I'm sure your an intelligent guy, but your present position is not coherent.

 

[radhead]

How do you know that his authority came from his own claims? If you're going that route then, you might as well as dispense with the other apostles as well, and even dispense with Jesus Himself.............................I hate to say this because I'm sure your an intelligent guy, but your present position is not coherent.

You should read the Bible critically, prayerfully, and with an open mind. You shouldn't just accept everything in the compilation because some church fathers in the ancient past put it together. Don't you realize that you yourself are the final authority on what you believe in your heart to be a message from God?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You should read the Bible critically, prayerfully, and with an open mind. You shouldn't just accept everything in the compilation because some church fathers in the ancient past put it together. Don't you realize that you yourself are the final authority on what you believe in your heart to be a message from God?

No, I didn't realize that. That's news to me, Rad!

 

[zephcom]

Christians say that the Bible was "authoritative" on God's message to people because these people supposedly met Jesus. Or more specifically, they met one of the apostles who met Jesus.

But if Paul who only saw Jesus in a vision was considered an authority, doesn't that mean that all believers are authorities also?

Why give special preference to the words and thoughts of Paul? Why aren't other popular writings considered to scripture?

Why not give equal preference to modern writers, such as popular authors like the authors of "Jesus Calling", "Conversations With God", and similar books?

In the beginning, there was no Bible. The Jews had their scriptures and the Christians had just verbal teachings. Preachers went from town to town forming groups of people who desired to learn more about Jesus.

As years turned into decades began to become apparent that individuals were not going to be able to carry all the load of those who wanted to hear more about Jesus. Preachers like Paul began sending letters to the groups which he has started. Those groups shared the letters with other groups. Often someone would hand copy a letter and send it off to yet other groups.

These writings began to have some authority simply because they existed and people were learning from them. As the decades became centuries and the groups became larger and more organized, various leaders of the groups designated letters and documents they wanted their congregations to consider official.

Gradually, more and more of these leaders began to use the same documents and those documents gained even more authority because so many congregations were using them. In the Fourth Century, when the Roman Emperor Constantine offered Christianity the official title of State Religion if they could settle on one doctrine for all Christians to follow, he also ordered fifty copies of the official religious documents which all Christians in the Roman Empire would use in the religion.

That pretty much settled the dispute over which writings were divine and which weren't. Many, many of the unlucky documents were destroyed throughout the Roman Empire by the Church itself so that there would not be anything but the official story of Jesus. Some of the other documents we have today came to us only because someone hid them in caves to avoid the destruction the church ordered. Christians from the Fourth Century to the Twentieth Century lived their entire lives without knowing those documents existed.

As happens a lot with very long term stories and organizations, the legend continued to grow. Documents which were never intended for anything except instructions from an absent preacher to his congregation became source documents, then became official documents, were compiled into a single book and given acceptance by the institution as authoritative, became scripture and now are accepted as having been inspired by God Almighty Himself as His Word.

It happens so slowly that no one lives long enough to see the change occur. After two thousand years though, we end up with Paul's letters to his congregations being the very words of God Almighty. And everyone thinks it was always that way.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How do you know that his authority came from his own claims? If you're going that route then, you might as well as dispense with the other apostles as well, and even dispense with Jesus Himself.............................I hate to say this because I'm sure your an intelligent guy, but your present position is not coherent.

Anyway, Paul had corroboration from Ananias, a person he was coming to persecute, to which Jesus sent him. So to the other Apostles, Ananias essentially 'vouched' for him with his own command from God to go to Paul.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anyway, Paul had corroboration from Ananias, a person he was coming to persecute, to which Jesus sent him. So to the other Apostles, Ananias essentially 'vouched' for him with his own command from God to go to Paul.

...I agree, but I think Rad will say that the book of Acts is simply more Pauline propaganda.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

Christians say that the Bible was "authoritative" on God's message to people because these people supposedly met Jesus. Or more specifically, they met one of the apostles who met Jesus.

But if Paul who only saw Jesus in a vision was considered an authority, doesn't that mean that all believers are authorities also?

Why give special preference to the words and thoughts of Paul? Why aren't other popular writings considered to scripture?

Why not give equal preference to modern writers, such as popular authors like the authors of "Jesus Calling", "Conversations With God", and similar books?

There are two points of affirmation of the authenticity of Paul's writings as Scripture:

1. God's divine providence. Unless you do not believe that God is competent in providentially directing the development and constitution of His revelation to mankind without some lowly pretender circumventing God's sovereignty, then we can be certain the inclusion of Paul's letters are divinely instituted.

2. Jesus declared of Peter that he would be the rock on which Christ would build His church. Therefore, Christ trusted and assigned Peter the role of being foundational to the tradition of truth about the Gospel and the Word of God as a whole. Having been providentially selected, Peter then confirms the apostleship of Paul as an author of genuine Scripture when he declares:

"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

 

[radhead]

ThirstySeven, it sounds like you believe "might makes right". The Christians are the most powerful in the last two thousand years, therefore they are right and God is with them.

To me that's like saying the Nazi's were right. No difference.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

ThirstySeven, it sounds like you believe "might makes right". The Christians are the most powerful in the last two thousand years, therefore they are right and God is with them.

To me that's like saying the Nazi's were right. No difference.

That is not connected to my points at all. Go back and read it again, carefully. If this is an in-house question, it is not debatable. If you doubt the authenticity of Scripture as a whole as divine revelation, then your question is pointless as you begin by presupposing their is no basis for designating Scripture, and we would need to address some preceding issues.

 

[radhead]

The Bible contains truth only if it is read and understood correctly. And I don't think that Christians have ever understood the Bible in the last 2000 years. So whenever I hear a Christian appealing to an ancient book as a High Authority, I feel like there is no reasoning with them.

How does one write a book trying to say that the Holy Spirit is living inside of each man and is the final authority. To place the writings of man above the Holy Spirit is to truly commit blasphemy.

 

[zephcom]

That is not connected to my points at all. Go back and read it again, carefully. If this is an in-house question, it is not debatable. If you doubt the authenticity of Scripture as a whole as divine revelation, then your question is pointless as you begin by presupposing their is no basis for designating Scripture, and we would need to address some preceding issues.

You make an interesting point. After decades of discussion with Christians and asking as gently as I know how to see the verification data which establishes the Bible as God's Word, I have never had a Christian bring that data to me.

Christians seem to be willing to accept that as fact without a shred of evidence that it is, indeed, fact. This disregards all scholarly studies of the Bible and the historical record of the Bible.

This devotion to a physical book as representing God Almighty Himself is beginning to resemble a cult.

cult | Definition of cult in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So let's feel free to address some preceding issues. What is the data which clearly points to the Bible as 'God's Word'? And while I'm good with people who want to grab a lengthy list of Bible scriptures as evidence, let me point out that 'self verification' is nearly worthless as evidence.

Let me illustrate what I mean. "Everything I've written in this post has been inspired by God Almighty and everyone should consider it Divinely Inspired."

My guess is that no one will believe that sentence. And there should be no reason why someone would believe any sentence in the Bible which purports to claim Divine Inspiration for themselves.

 

[radhead]

That "self verification" found within the Bible, in many instances, perhaps a majority, was intended as humor and irony to begin with.

 

[cloudyday2]

Anybody can be an authority by simply creating Pauline pseudepigrapha

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anybody can be an authority by simply creating Pauline pseudepigrapha

Actually, one would have to forge something in the name of Paul within a time frame quite close to the actual life of Paul and during or just after the period in which he wrote his "authentic" material. If the person comes too late to do so, people will start to realize that "hey, this letter that is supposedly from Paul was written WAAAAAAAAAY later. Throw it out....!"

So, while it is possible that a number of people living at or just after Paul could have forged something in his name, the fact that not many people at all were fully literate like Paul, and the fact that creating written documents wasn't cheap (...they couldn't just go to Walmart and pull a ream or two of new, blank paper off the shelf), and the fact that at the core of Christianity has been this concept called truth, and the fact that another concept--that of 'authority'--has been considered highly relevant, then I don't think we can really expect to see all that many people from the past in a shifty social space where they could just churn out pseudepigrapha in Paul's name.

We probably need to be a bit more studious with this issue, more so than what Bart Ehrman would have us believe we need to be, Cloudy. So, no, I don't think just "anybody" can be an authority by creating Pauline pseudepigrapha.

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually, one would have to forge something in the name of Paul within a time frame quite close to the actual life of Paul and during or just after the period in which he wrote his "authentic" material. If the person comes to late to do so, people will start to realize that "hey, this letter that is supposedly from Paul was written WAAAAAAAAAY later. Throw it out....!"

So, while it is possible that a number of people living at or just after Paul could have forged something in his name, the fact that not many people at all were fully literate like Paul, and the fact that creating written documents wasn't cheap (...they couldn't just go to Walmart and pull a ream or two of new, blank paper off the shelf), and the fact that at the core of Christianity has been this concept called truth, and the fact that another concept--that of 'authority'--has been considered highly relevant, then I don't think we can really expect to see all that many people from the past in a shifty social space where they could just churn out pseudepigrapha in Paul's name.

We probably need to be a bit more studious with this issue, more so than what Bart Ehrman would have us believe we need to be, Cloudy. So, no, I don't think just "anybody" can be an authority by creating Pauline pseudepigrapha.

If that doesn't work, then I would suggest reading the canonical letters of Paul to say whatever you want them to say.