Christians, why do you follow Paul's doctrines?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

I'm not even necessarily disputing that (or at least, certainly for sake of this argument, I shan't in this thread). I'm just asking why you take him at his word and not any of the others at the same time period who made the same claims. I don't see any real causal link between "following Jesus" and "following Paul". What am I missing here?

Cause of his work.Period

He certainly wasn't the only figure at that point in history doing such things and making such claims. Why him in particular?

[Violencea]

No particular offense intended. I just thought up a rather perplexing issue with Christianity and would like to hear what it's proponents would have to say for this

It strikes me now, upon consideration, as someone who's reasonably familiar with the Bible (deconverted Christian, read it in its entirety several times), that, taking it at its face value, there doesn't seem to be any particular internal reason for one to take any of the writings of/concerning Paul at their word.

Assuming the narrative of the gospels to be accurate, it would seem that Jesus, upon ascending to heaven, left his 'authority' with his disciples, Peter in particular. From there, his disciples spread out around the Roman Empire and elsewhere making converts and spreading Jesus's teaching, effectively founding the Church.

At some point relatively later, though still in the lifetime of the disciples, schisms begin to form between differing factions of allegedly Christ-aligned religious advocates. Paul himself being only one such man. Per his own presented narrative, he claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, been converted there, etc. but it strikes me that there were a good number of others also claiming to have received the true revelation of Jesus, most of whom have seemed to have faded into historical obscurity, but seem on the face of it, to have equally plausible (ie. unfalsifiable) claim to Paul.

As far as I can tell, beyond his disciples, Jesus himself never seems to name which, if any of these individuals would be his 'true' followers, so there seems to be nothing, objectively, from Jesus himself confirming Paul's authority except for Paul's own claimed narrative.

Basically, I don't see how one draws a logical connection between the authority of Jesus and that of Paul, particularly when some of Paul's teachings seem relatively at odds with the religious teachings Jesus put forth. The more I think of it, it strikes me as quite odd that the writings of Paul are given equal canonical weight with the gospels concerning Jesus, and those writings of his disciples (who Jesus directly stated to be his true followers). Can any Christians shed some light on the underlying reasoning here, because I'm really not seeing it.

If it helps at all to know, I'm a non-denominational Christian, but here's what I can gather.

Well, the entire bible has been "god breathed, or inspired completely by god into the pens o man. So while teachings in the bible could SEEM contradictory, it's really beceause they would've been taught wrongly. But when Paul writes something I don't see it as "the words of Paul" it's "the words of God through Paul"

[DrakoBlaria]

No particular offense intended. I just thought up a rather perplexing issue with Christianity and would like to hear what it's proponents would have to say for this

It strikes me now, upon consideration, as someone who's reasonably familiar with the Bible (deconverted Christian, read it in its entirety several times), that, taking it at its face value, there doesn't seem to be any particular internal reason for one to take any of the writings of/concerning Paul at their word.

Assuming the narrative of the gospels to be accurate, it would seem that Jesus, upon ascending to heaven, left his 'authority' with his disciples, Peter in particular. From there, his disciples spread out around the Roman Empire and elsewhere making converts and spreading Jesus's teaching, effectively founding the Church.

At some point relatively later, though still in the lifetime of the disciples, schisms begin to form between differing factions of allegedly Christ-aligned religious advocates. Paul himself being only one such man. Per his own presented narrative, he claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, been converted there, etc. but it strikes me that there were a good number of others also claiming to have received the true revelation of Jesus, most of whom have seemed to have faded into historical obscurity, but seem on the face of it, to have equally plausible (ie. unfalsifiable) claim to Paul.

As far as I can tell, beyond his disciples, Jesus himself never seems to name which, if any of these individuals would be his 'true' followers, so there seems to be nothing, objectively, from Jesus himself confirming Paul's authority except for Paul's own claimed narrative.

Basically, I don't see how one draws a logical connection between the authority of Jesus and that of Paul, particularly when some of Paul's teachings seem relatively at odds with the religious teachings Jesus put forth. The more I think of it, it strikes me as quite odd that the writings of Paul are given equal canonical weight with the gospels concerning Jesus, and those writings of his disciples (who Jesus directly stated to be his true followers). Can any Christians shed some light on the underlying reasoning here, because I'm really not seeing it.

If it helps at all to know, I'm a non-denominational Christian, but here's what I can gather.

Well, the entire bible has been "god breathed, or inspired completely by god into the pens o man. So while teachings in the bible could SEEM contradictory, it's really beceause they would've been taught wrongly. But when Paul writes something I don't see it as "the words of Paul" it's "the words of God through Paul"

I thought this was obvious.I think he is asking 'when did God choose Paul and why him and not someone else.'

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

Snip

I tend to not, because Paul was a man. If he was right, I'm sure God will correct me when I get to Heaven. I'll see if I can expand when I get back from class.

9/10 Thread, Dokuritsu.

[Ashmoria]

welp...

1) his writings make up a huge chunk of the new testament

2) he founded and supported many many christian communities and advised them in the day to day living as a christian

3) the other post-jesus apostles/disciples took him seriously, found that his dramatic conversion qualified, and accepted his teachings.

4) most christian denominations follow his teachings so its hard be in a mainline church and not be taught paul's doctrines.

what more do you want?

1 and 4 are circular reasoning; essentially, "We accept his teachings as canonical because we accept his teachings as canonical." I don't see how you get there from Jesus.

2 - So did a number of other individuals who taught quite different theologies from Paul, and who were not followed, so it seems quite arbitrary.

3 - Where particularly is your evidence for that, either inside or outside of the Bible (obviously excluding the Pauline books, as, again, that would be circular).

How do you get from Jesus to Paul?

what you know about jesus comes from the bible. if you accept the new testament as the word of god where do you get off deciding that parts of it are bullshit?

and yes. christians follow paul because they have followed paul since the founding of the church. pauline christianity IS christianity. christians follow him because they have always followed him. in modern times i dont know that you can find a christian denomination of any size that rejects paul.

and 3) its in the book of acts.

[Risottia]

Christians, why do you follow Paul's doctrines?

Paul's?

Or the Nicene doctrine?

Dun-dun-duuuunnn...

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

No particular offense intended. I just thought up a rather perplexing issue with Christianity and would like to hear what it's proponents would have to say for this

It strikes me now, upon consideration, as someone who's reasonably familiar with the Bible (deconverted Christian, read it in its entirety several times), that, taking it at its face value, there doesn't seem to be any particular internal reason for one to take any of the writings of/concerning Paul at their word.

Assuming the narrative of the gospels to be accurate, it would seem that Jesus, upon ascending to heaven, left his 'authority' with his disciples, Peter in particular. From there, his disciples spread out around the Roman Empire and elsewhere making converts and spreading Jesus's teaching, effectively founding the Church.

At some point relatively later, though still in the lifetime of the disciples, schisms begin to form between differing factions of allegedly Christ-aligned religious advocates. Paul himself being only one such man. Per his own presented narrative, he claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, been converted there, etc. but it strikes me that there were a good number of others also claiming to have received the true revelation of Jesus, most of whom have seemed to have faded into historical obscurity, but seem on the face of it, to have equally plausible (ie. unfalsifiable) claim to Paul.

As far as I can tell, beyond his disciples, Jesus himself never seems to name which, if any of these individuals would be his 'true' followers, so there seems to be nothing, objectively, from Jesus himself confirming Paul's authority except for Paul's own claimed narrative.

Basically, I don't see how one draws a logical connection between the authority of Jesus and that of Paul, particularly when some of Paul's teachings seem relatively at odds with the religious teachings Jesus put forth. The more I think of it, it strikes me as quite odd that the writings of Paul are given equal canonical weight with the gospels concerning Jesus, and those writings of his disciples (who Jesus directly stated to be his true followers). Can any Christians shed some light on the underlying reasoning here, because I'm really not seeing it.

If it helps at all to know, I'm a non-denominational Christian, but here's what I can gather.

Well, the entire bible has been "god breathed, or inspired completely by god into the pens o man. So while teachings in the bible could SEEM contradictory, it's really beceause they would've been taught wrongly. But when Paul writes something I don't see it as "the words of Paul" it's "the words of God through Paul"

I'm familiar with the idea of such, sure.

I guess maybe I wasn't the clearest in my OP, because no one seems to be addressing what I was trying to get at.

I can understand in Christianity's own terms, why it accepts the Gospels as canon, as they concern the life of Christ. I can understand why it accepts the writings of the disciples as canon, as Jesus himself directly stated that he gave his authority to them. But there's absolutely nothing I can see from Jesus himself where he states that he gives such authority to Paul. ONLY in Paul's own account of events, never from Jesus or any of his disciples directly. Eve if you have 100% faith in Jesus, which, fine I understand, how do you know that Paul wasn't just lying about seeing a vision of Jesus? Why do Paul's words have equal canonical weight with those of Jesus or his own directly attested (by Jesus himself physically, not some second-hand account by the claimant) disciples? It seems pretty dubious in its own terms, don't you think?

[Atest]

Christians, why do you follow Paul's doctrines?

Paul's?

Or the Nicene doctrine?

Dun-dun-duuuunnn...

Aw naw you di'nt.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Snip

I tend to not, because Paul was a man. If he was right, I'm sure God will correct me when I get to Heaven. I'll see if I can expand when I get back from class.

9/10 Thread, Dokuritsu.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, what church (if any) are you affiliated with?

[DrakoBlaria]

If it helps at all to know, I'm a non-denominational Christian, but here's what I can gather.

Well, the entire bible has been "god breathed, or inspired completely by god into the pens o man. So while teachings in the bible could SEEM contradictory, it's really beceause they would've been taught wrongly. But when Paul writes something I don't see it as "the words of Paul" it's "the words of God through Paul"

I'm familiar with the idea of such, sure.

I guess maybe I wasn't the clearest in my OP, because no one seems to be addressing what I was trying to get at.

I can understand in Christianity's own terms, why it accepts the Gospels as canon, as they concern the life of Christ. I can understand why it accepts the writings of the disciples as canon, as Jesus himself directly stated that he gave his authority to them. But there's absolutely nothing I can see from Jesus himself where he states that he gives such authority to Paul. ONLY in Paul's own account of events, never from Jesus or any of his disciples directly. Eve if you have 100% faith in Jesus, which, fine I understand, how do you know that Paul wasn't just lying about seeing a vision of Jesus? Why do Paul's words have equal canonical weight with those of Jesus or his own directly attested (by Jesus himself physically, not some second-hand account by the claimant) disciples? It seems pretty dubious in its own terms, don't you think?

Thing is,Jesus never wrote anything.So how do you know everything proving Paul's claims was burnt by Paul haters funded by Satan?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

what you know about jesus comes from the bible. if you accept the new testament as the word of god where do you get off deciding that parts of it are bullshit?

Even in its own terms, the 'New Testament' isn't a homogeneous whole; it's a compilation of a number of writings by a number of different writers. The canon of which books were and were not included wasn't determined until several centuries after the events as well; but in any case, I can see, internally, how you can justify the Gospels and Epistles of the Disciples. Just how do you justify Paul from the other bits?

and yes. christians follow paul because they have followed paul since the founding of the church. pauline christianity IS christianity. christians follow him because they have always followed him. in modern times i dont know that you can find a christian denomination of any size that rejects paul.

Well, again, that's rather circular. Yes, it does seem to be the fact that most Christians seem to follow Paul. Mostly, I'd presume due to those factions winning out in the conflicts in the early few centuries CE in the Roman Empire. But how do you justify such a position internally from the Gospels/writings of the Disciples?

and 3) its in the book of acts.

Which is one of the Pauline books in question, so circular reasoning. How do you justify that from any of the Gospels/writings of the Disciples?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Christians, why do you follow Paul's doctrines?

Paul's?

Or the Nicene doctrine?

Dun-dun-duuuunnn...

Heh. One question at a time, my good sir. xD

[Ashmoria]

what you know about jesus comes from the bible. if you accept the new testament as the word of god where do you get off deciding that parts of it are bullshit?

Even in its own terms, the 'New Testament' isn't a homogeneous whole; it's a compilation of a number of writings by a number of different writers. The canon of which books were and were not included wasn't determined until several centuries after the events as well; but in any case, I can see, internally, how you can justify the Gospels and Epistles of the Disciples. Just how do you justify Paul from the other bits?

and yes. christians follow paul because they have followed paul since the founding of the church. pauline christianity IS christianity. christians follow him because they have always followed him. in modern times i dont know that you can find a christian denomination of any size that rejects paul.

Well, again, that's rather circular. Yes, it does seem to be the fact that most Christians seem to follow Paul. Mostly, I'd presume due to those factions winning out in the conflicts in the early few centuries CE in the Roman Empire. But how do you justify such a position internally from the Gospels/writings of the Disciples?

and 3) its in the book of acts.

Which is one of the Pauline books in question, so circular reasoning. How do you justify that from any of the Gospels/writings of the Disciples?

*I* dont have to justify it. learned men over the millennia have justified it. smarter, holier, and more scholarly men than i could ever be.

paul is one of the key founders of the christian church because he made himself one. the rest of the apostles/disciples were happy with it. the other branches of christianity that did not include paul didnt survive.

you may as well ask "why jesus? there were many other jewish street preachers in that time"

[DrakoBlaria]

Even in its own terms, the 'New Testament' isn't a homogeneous whole; it's a compilation of a number of writings by a number of different writers. The canon of which books were and were not included wasn't determined until several centuries after the events as well; but in any case, I can see, internally, how you can justify the Gospels and Epistles of the Disciples. Just how do you justify Paul from the other bits?



Well, again, that's rather circular. Yes, it does seem to be the fact that most Christians seem to follow Paul. Mostly, I'd presume due to those factions winning out in the conflicts in the early few centuries CE in the Roman Empire. But how do you justify such a position internally from the Gospels/writings of the Disciples?



Which is one of the Pauline books in question, so circular reasoning. How do you justify that from any of the Gospels/writings of the Disciples?

*I* dont have to justify it. learned men over the millennia have justified it. smarter, holier, and more scholarly men than i could ever be.

paul is one of the key founders of the christian church because he made himself one. the rest of the apostles/disciples were happy with it. the other branches of christianity that did not include paul didnt survive.

you may as well ask "why jesus? there were many other jewish street preachers in that time"

Actually there were prophets before and after him.Muhamad anyone?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

*I* dont have to justify it. learned men over the millennia have justified it. smarter, holier, and more scholarly men than i could ever be.

1st Peter 3:15, my good sir. I'm afraid your own religion's founders would say that doesn't quite cut it.

paul is one of the key founders of the christian church because he made himself one. the rest of the apostles/disciples were happy with it. the other branches of christianity that did not include paul didnt survive.

Simply because a certain faction happened to win out has nothing to do with its truth or falsehood.

And I'm not even particularly saying Paul is false. I'm just asking how you theologically justify Paul's doctrines/position from Jesus. His followers happening to be the most numerous doesn't really cut it.

you may as well ask "why jesus? there were many other jewish street preachers in that time"

Well, sure, but that's an entirely different question.

Christians by definition follow Jesus; I don't see how that leads to following Paul.

[Ashmoria]

*I* dont have to justify it. learned men over the millennia have justified it. smarter, holier, and more scholarly men than i could ever be.

paul is one of the key founders of the christian church because he made himself one. the rest of the apostles/disciples were happy with it. the other branches of christianity that did not include paul didnt survive.

you may as well ask "why jesus? there were many other jewish street preachers in that time"

Actually there were prophets before and after him.Muhamad anyone?

what point are you trying to make?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Christians don't follow Paul's doctrines. Paul's doctrines repudiate the teachings of the Christ, so those who follow them are necessarly not Christians. They may call themselves Christians, but they're wrong to do so: they are, rather, Paulinists.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Christians don't follow Paul's doctrines. Paul's doctrines repudiate the teachings of the Christ, so those who follow them are necessarly not Christians. They may call themselves Christians, but they're wrong to do so: they are, rather, Paulinists.

Again, an interesting (if somewhat more consistent, as far as I can tell) position. What church (if any) are you affiliated with, out of curiosity?

[DrakoBlaria]

Actually there were prophets before and after him.Muhamad anyone?

what point are you trying to make?

The point that Jesus gave you the world of God and then other people claimed they did the same.Some people like Paulos and Muhamad gained power and became holly when others got murdered.
Religion is made by men,just follow Jesus's preaches and its all good

[The Merchant Republics]

I find anything in Paul's words to be of secondary authority to the word of Christ, for obvious reason, Paul may have been moved by the spirit, but he was not himself infallible, if we listen to him, it's because there is truth to what he refers to in scripture.

If Paul doesn't make a convincing argument, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to disagree with his conclusion. The notion of course is that the writings of Paul should be considered accurate expressions of the word of God, but that was itself an agreement arrived to by the early Church, it is not, in my opinion beyond reproach, if we are led to reproach it by the Holy Spirit.

Paul's epistles should be read as they were; instructions to churches on how better to lead Christian lives, on the manner in which they uphold scripture, and on the truth of Christ and the Gospels. If we shouldn't stray too far from it, it's only because in many cases Paul refers and backs his arguments with concrete logic, scripture and the agreements in doctrine between himself and the Disciples of Christ.

We should believe his vision of Christ on the Road to Damascus, not simply because he told us of it but because his actions betray him as a man possessed by the Holy Spirit, and because of his conviction to the church. The others who faded into obscurity were by and large regarded as false teachers, while Paul, with exception is in line with the Gospels and the Disciples.

[Ashmoria]

what point are you trying to make?

The point that Jesus gave you the world of God and then other people claimed they did the same.Some people like Paulos and Muhamad gained power and became holly when others got murdered.
Religion is made by men,just follow Jesus's preaches and its all good

sure...

but if you doubt the authority of paul, which rests in the writings of the new testament, why do you accept the authority of jesus, which also rests in the writings of the new testament? can you really pick and choose what parts are the actual word of god and what parts are ignorable bullshit?

[Alternalienation]

how do you know that Paul wasn't just lying about seeing a vision of Jesus?

Maybe, your question comes from your belief that part is the only real cause of people following Paul's teachings, while i don't think it's the case.
Like most of the bible, it's not the miracles to give it credit, take away all the miracles, take away Paul's visions, the message is still the same.

[DrakoBlaria]

The point that Jesus gave you the world of God and then other people claimed they did the same.Some people like Paulos and Muhamad gained power and became holly when others got murdered.
Religion is made by men,just follow Jesus's preaches and its all good

sure...

but if you doubt the authority of paul, which rests in the writings of the new testament, why do you accept the authority of jesus, which also rests in the writings of the new testament? can you really pick and choose what parts are the actual word of god and what parts are ignorable bullshit?

I am preety sure the Byzantines did that in one period of history

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

The point that Jesus gave you the world of God and then other people claimed they did the same.Some people like Paulos and Muhamad gained power and became holly when others got murdered.
Religion is made by men,just follow Jesus's preaches and its all good

sure...

but if you doubt the authority of paul, which rests in the writings of the new testament, why do you accept the authority of jesus, which also rests in the writings of the new testament? can you really pick and choose what parts are the actual word of god and what parts are ignorable bullshit?

That's pretty much exactly what the Council of Nicene (which established the canon that YOU presently use) did. Learn2history.

[Ashmoria]

sure...

but if you doubt the authority of paul, which rests in the writings of the new testament, why do you accept the authority of jesus, which also rests in the writings of the new testament? can you really pick and choose what parts are the actual word of god and what parts are ignorable bullshit?

That's pretty much exactly what the Council of Nicene (which established the canon that YOU presently use) did. Learn2history.

yes

and do you consider yourself to be more of an expert at christian writings than they were? i know i dont.