Paul's credentials

DarkProphet said:

Paul has many opinions on Christian practice and doctrine but one thing I don't get is why his opinions are held in higher regard then Jesus' teachings.

Click to expand...

They aren't. Or at least they shouldn't be.

What credentials does Paul have that give his words so much weight?

Click to expand...

There's obviously a number of factors at work:
They will have originally stood on their own merits to a degree, and still do. When one get's one's head around understanding them they are quite amazing pieces of literature.
Paul's success as a church planter/encourager
The 12's apparent acceptance of his commission and authority.
And eventually the canonisation of his letters - or at least those we have in the canon, based on their almost universal use in the early church.

DarkProphet said:

Paul has many opinions on Christian practice and doctrine but one thing I don't get is why his opinions are held in higher regard then Jesus' teachings. What credentials does Paul have that give his words so much weight?

Click to expand...

As other posters and I have repeatedly explained to you each time you ask this question, it isn't that Paul's teaching of the doctrines Christ instructed him to teach are held in higher regard than Jesus' teachings, but that ALL scripture is equally inspired.

In more than twenty years as a Christian, I have never heard one Christian say that Paul's teaching of the doctrines Christ instructed him to teach are any more important than Christ's teaching, because Paul's teaching is Christ's teaching.

There is a heretical movement in Christianity now called "Red Letter Christians". Where they make their mistake is that they believe that only the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels matter and that everything else in the Bible is subject to them, but the truth is, because Jesus is God and because all of the Bible is God-breathed, that means that all of the Bible is the teaching of Christ.

The fact is, other than one short statement about church discipline and a command to observe the ordinances of the church, Jesus really didn't give any instructions to the church. He left the responsibility to Paul to speak on His behalf.

JohnDeereFan said:

As other posters and I have repeatedly explained to you each time you ask this question, it isn't that Paul's teaching of the doctrines Christ instructed him to teach are held in higher regard than Jesus' teachings, but that ALL scripture is equally inspired.

In more than twenty years as a Christian, I have never heard one Christian say that Paul's teaching of the doctrines Christ instructed him to teach are any more important than Christ's teaching, because Paul's teaching is Christ's teaching.

There is a heretical movement in Christianity now called "Red Letter Christians". Where they make their mistake is that they believe that only the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels matter and that everything else in the Bible is subject to them, but the truth is, because Jesus is God and because all of the Bible is God-breathed, that means that all of the Bible is the teaching of Christ.

The fact is, other than one short statement about church discipline and a command to observe the ordinances of the church, Jesus really didn't give any instructions to the church. He left the responsibility to Paul to speak on His behalf.

Click to expand...

The above is fully accurate. In addition I would say that DarkProphet seems to have a problem of incorrect presuppositions. His question implies that Paul's teachings don't come from the Spirit of God. And if they don't, then they ought not to be canonical. The fact that Paul's letters are in the canon should tell the reasonably intelligent person that Christians believe them to come by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is a very well-known Christian doctrine.

So to DarkProphet I would say this. If you are asking a question for the sake of obtaining information, it would be best not to make unreasonable presuppositions within your questions. And if you're just trying to start an argument: well played, but not original. This is virtually identical to the proverbial lawyer who asks his witness whether or not he has stopped beating his wife.

DarkProphet said:

So basically Paul's only credentials are the fact that he is accepted as canon? That seems rather arbritrary.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the canon is the rubber stamp to say that his letters met a set of criteria deemed appropriate by the early church.

To be fair, the canon is the rubber stamp to say that his letters met a set of criteria deemed appropriate by the early church.

Click to expand...

The concept of blanketing many books as the Word of God came after canonization. The tablets from Moses, the voice of the prophets, the visions -- these were seen as the Word of God, because they were directly given.

I really like your question, because many people use the Bible now almost like a magic book -- they speak the scriptures to make things happen. I have done this too, so I'm not completely condemning the idea of claiming God's promises. But all logic shows that Paul wrote one word of advice to one church, and other advice to another. The letters were personal and individualized.

The words of Jesus were recorded decades later by friends and followers who wanted to treasure and preserve what they'd seen and heard. So even the gospels were not as direct as we want to think they are. The red-letter quotes had to survive years in people's minds.

It sounds more spiritual to claim that every word is infallible and inerrant. But the Bible does not make claims for itself, because the pieces were compiled quite late in history. That should not shake our faith. But presenting the Bible as such a closed book sets us up for a fall. Paul did the best that he could, and allowed God to work through him. His advice was probably given after much prayer and consideration. God did work through him. But if the epistles said "now you must go up to Thessaloniki," we would not all dash out with our suitcases.

(Then again, it's tempting... )

DarkProphet said:

I was not aware that the disciples ever met Paul.

Click to expand...

One example is, in Galatians he talks about going to Jerusalem and visiting with James, and staying with Simon Peter - the very man who denied Christ 3 times the night before He died on the cross.

Christian actions basically. A simple example, Jesus reached out to all kinds of un-Godly people, the most famous of which was the adulteress he saved from stoning. Now Paul says almost the opposite, that you should not associate with un-Godly people. My interactions with Christians seem to show that Christians follow Paul more then Jesus.

Click to expand...

He doesn't say that... he says we should not be equally yoked. Bear in mind, Paul was the evangelist to the gentiles. He was the first one to reach out to the ungodly.

He's also the man that told the church not to browbeat non-believers - he told us to hold one another accountable, and that outsiders aren't within our remit. That's actually where we mess up the most.

He talked about love being patient, kind and slow to anger...

Paul carried on Christ's work fully. That so many of us mess up and behave cruely and act with hypocrisy doesn't negate Christ, or Paul, or Paul's teachings. It certainly doesn't mean he is valued above Jesus and accusing Christians of worshipping a man other than Christ is kind of mean.

All that being said, I agree that as Christ's ambassadors, we're going terribly, horribly wrong in so many ways, and we aren't always representing Him as He deserves. Either we focus on the sin and condemn people as if we're not sinners, too, or we turn Him into a happyclappy hippy who thought anything goes, and hate anyone who doesn't see Him the same way.

But that's our failing, and it's something we need to submit to the Lord over, and pray He fills us with grace, and love others. It's not Paul's error, and it doesn't mean his teachings are valued over those of Christ.

ETA: DP, is it the behaviour of many Christians that prevents you from following Him?

My interactions with Christians seem to show that Christians follow Paul more then Jesus.

Click to expand...

This is really interesting! The pendulum of theology sways this way and that every decade or two, and I think you're on to something.

No one's mentioned here that Paul's writings are given weight because he is an apostle: he has seen the risen Christ. This is more than can be said of Luke, and possibly Mark and the unknown author of Hebrews.

DarkProphet said:

Paul has many opinions on Christian practice and doctrine but one thing I don't get is why his opinions are held in higher regard then Jesus' teachings. What credentials does Paul have that give his words so much weight?

Click to expand...

Paul is quoted more than Jesus, I think, because he addressed so many issues in and out of the church.

His credentials apart from the Bible are proof enough for believers. The ancient Jewish leaders claim that he was very high up in rank of their religion and he thought by getting the daughter of the High Priest to marry him that he would then be in line for that position. They claim that she turned him down and he was filled with such animosity that he diverted all his energy to promoting Christianity instead of Judaism. We Christians know by reading his letters that it was not possible for him to pen what he did being driven by animosity. We know that no human without divine help could have penned such works.

arunma said:

The above is fully accurate. In addition I would say that DarkProphet seems to have a problem of incorrect presuppositions. His question implies that Paul's teachings don't come from the Spirit of God. And if they don't, then they ought not to be canonical. The fact that Paul's letters are in the canon should tell the reasonably intelligent person that Christians believe them to come by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is a very well-known Christian doctrine.

So to DarkProphet I would say this. If you are asking a question for the sake of obtaining information, it would be best not to make unreasonable presuppositions within your questions. And if you're just trying to start an argument: well played, but not original. This is virtually identical to the proverbial lawyer who asks his witness whether or not he has stopped beating his wife.

Click to expand...

If I may ask what makes following Jesus's words heretical?

DarkProphet ...you do have a point and I will try to address this to some of the others who have been opposing your statement about Paul.

Max

What credentials does Paul have that give his words so much weight?

Click to expand...

It is not contested that Paul's strong training in Judaism gave him knowledge about the entire faith, and he was able to see how the gospel fit into the overall plan.

Apostles who were fishermen might have been devout, but were not educated to the extent that Paul was. Paul would have seen how Messianic prophecies fit, how the sensibilities of Jesus' teachings coincided with certain scriptures, even remote ones. He could show the big picture to others.

Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it. Paul could see how the two covenants fit together, and continue to promote the teachings of Judaism. The disciples still considered themselves Jews, even after baptism. Paul would have been a trusted Jewish mentor and teacher, who could keep doctrine on track.

The apostles are often elevated in denominations today. These men were trained directly by Jesus. But they were not selected because of their greatness, their knowledge, and maybe not even for their faith. God knows the hearts of each person, so he would have known their potential. But there were only a few years between "I will make you fishers of men" and what we consider saintdom.

Paul had a lifetime of training, topped with the intervention of Jesus. Certainly there is something special about spending daily time with God incarnate! But that does not make any of us great... just fortunate. When Jesus sent them out to heal, cast out demons and proclaim the good news, He did not ask them to also teach Judeo-Christianity and mentor new believers. They did front line work.

Jesus sent out seventy more disciples to deliver miraculous healing and hopeful news. They were also people who had followed Jesus long enough to grasp His message. But they did not necessarily have formal training. Paul did, even though he missed the direct teachings of Jesus. He certainly knew about the message, because he was working so hard to stop it.

In 2 Corinthians 11, Paul talks about the series of events that gave him credibility.


Ac 9:25 summarizes Paul's (Saul) transition to Christianity, where disciples (not necessarily the twelve) had to decide whether to trust him.

And instantly it was as if scales fell away from his eyes. And rising up at the thing happening, he was baptized.

And taking food he was strengthened. And Saul was with the disciples in Damascus some days.

And at once in the synagogues he proclaimed the Christ, that this One is the Son of God. All those hearing were amazed and said, Is this not the one destroying those who have called on this Name in Jerusalem, and he had come here for this, that binding them he might lead them before the chief priests?

But Saul was more filled with power, and he confounded the Jews living in Damascus, proving that this One is the Christ.

DarkProphet said:

That's a shame because his post does get to the heart of the OP.

Click to expand...

If you want to ask any questions (including ones similar to his) I'm happy to try to answer you, but this forum prohibts Christians discussing each other's posts (for good reasons).

If he would like to take his discussion to an appropriate forum I'm happy to chat with him about his points.