Christians, why do you follow Paul's doctrines?

[DrakoBlaria]

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.

Thing is we keep having saints till like.... the 10th century or something.This is about 1000 years after Jesus died.Who was worthy enough to say they became saints?Lots of documents were written centuries after Jesus died.You cant really say everything was canon,since it was made and chosen by humans.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

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.

I'm an atheist, so it'd be a bit absurd if I were to answer questions on which books were inspired by God.

That doesn't change the fact that I see it as a quite politically motivated and arbitrarily decided thing. You really ought to take an objective look into it.

[DrakoBlaria]

yes

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

I'm an atheist, so it'd be a bit absurd if I were to answer questions on which books were inspired by God.

That doesn't change the fact that I see it as a quite politically motivated and arbitrarily decided thing. You really ought to take an objective look into it.

Cause all holly men were all studying the holly books all day... Please,decisions were taken by Emperors who could barely be consindere Christian.A lot of the religions structure was made in a way to rule and please the populace

[Ashmoria]

yes

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

I'm an atheist, so it'd be a bit absurd if I were to answer questions on which books were inspired by God.

That doesn't change the fact that I see it as a quite politically motivated and arbitrarily decided thing. You really ought to take an objective look into it.

why are you objecting to the paul parts and not the jesus parts?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

I'm an atheist, so it'd be a bit absurd if I were to answer questions on which books were inspired by God.

That doesn't change the fact that I see it as a quite politically motivated and arbitrarily decided thing. You really ought to take an objective look into it.

why are you objecting to the paul parts and not the jesus parts?

*Very slow sigh*

The question being asked here is how, particularly, one gets from faith in Jesus to acceptance of Paul.

Outside the context of this thread, I, personally, do not believe in any gods, and thus not in the divinity of Jesus. But that's irrelevant to the question at hand. I'm questioning how it is internally consistent to jump from faith in Jesus to acceptance of Paul's teachings. So for sake of the discussion, I'm tentatively granting that Jesus really existed, was divine, everything in the Gospels actually happened, etc. and asking how we get from there to Paul. Got it?

[Ashmoria]

why are you objecting to the paul parts and not the jesus parts?

*Very slow sigh*

The question being asked here is how, particularly, one gets from faith in Jesus to acceptance of Paul.

Outside the context of this thread, I, personally, do not believe in any gods, and thus not in the divinity of Jesus. But that's irrelevant to the question at hand. I'm questioning how it is internally consistent to jump from faith in Jesus to acceptance of Paul's teachings. So for sake of the discussion, I'm tentatively granting that Jesus really existed, was divine, everything in the Gospels actually happened, etc. and asking how we get from there to Paul. Got it?

if you dont accept the story of paul in the bible there is no way to know whether or not paul even existed. either you accept the rather clearly laid out story in the book of acts or you dont.

[DrakoBlaria]

why are you objecting to the paul parts and not the jesus parts?

*Very slow sigh*

The question being asked here is how, particularly, one gets from faith in Jesus to acceptance of Paul.

Outside the context of this thread, I, personally, do not believe in any gods, and thus not in the divinity of Jesus. But that's irrelevant to the question at hand. I'm questioning how it is internally consistent to jump from faith in Jesus to acceptance of Paul's teachings. So for sake of the discussion, I'm tentatively granting that Jesus really existed, was divine, everything in the Gospels actually happened, etc. and asking how we get from there to Paul. Got it?

Cause of him doing a great man and being responsible for Christianiti' spread around the globe.

[Arkinesia]

So after some thoughtful consideration, I came up with an answer.

The Gospels, while not written deep into the second century CE as some scholars contend, were actually written after the Pauline epistles.

I would say, then, that the developers of Biblical canon in the fourth century CE recognized this fact, and decided among themselves that it would be best to include the earliest possible post-Messianic texts available, which would have been the Pauline epistles.

[Idealised Monetary Expertise]

I think the first step to take here is taking the four books making up the gospel to be fact, as if they are false this discussion is pointless.
Secondly, if this hasn't already been pointed out, Emperor Constantine was an integral part of choosing which books would constitute the New Testament. This process involved studying and evaluating each of the doctrines carefully, and resulted in many heresies being discarded. Paul's letters were not discarded. This fact alone indicates one of the following: Paul's credibility had been established, Constantine was morally corrupted into selecting Paul's work or an error of some other sort had occurred.
As we have established the gospel to be accurate, we have also established the existence of God, and one would wonder how Christianity could be corely corrupted by a simple mistake made in its early development, and not be corrected by a christian acting under God's will in the centuries that followed. (A correction would have occurred because the Apostles were instructed to spread the Word to the corners of the Earth, and sending a corrupted message to the distant lands of America, far-east Asia etc. would not fulfill this instruction).
I'm fairly confident I do not need to form a similar argument discarding the second possibility set out above.
A third main point is the lack of motive for Paul himself. Yes, he does have a 'legacy', but he could not expect to achieve a legacy by dedicating his life to a young faith by merely sending letters to people/churches. If Paul was not genuine and simply wanted to be immortilised in history, why would he dedicate his life to a faith that could have failed in a matter of decades.
The reason this argument cannot be used to claim the justification of Arianism, Roman Catholicism etc. is that the leaders of these heresies have an agenda that leads to either fame during their lives or a legacy afterwards, or in the case of the Popes both.
That sir, is how you get from Jesus (gospels) to Paul.

[Chinese Regions]

I expected Bluth

[Petrovsegratsk]

As an Orthodox Christian,I do not

This.

[Ordya]

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.

As a Christian deist (not technically a Christian), I only take my teachings from Jesus and the epistles that scholars believe to be written by Peter. I too have asked this question many times, I don't understand why people follow Paul considering Paul never actually met Jesus it creates quite a conundrum.

[Ecans]

Paul was misogynistic in the extreme. He does not fit into my personal Christianity.

[Ashmoria]

As a Christian deist (not technically a Christian), I only take my teachings from Jesus and the epistles that scholars believe to be written by Peter. I too have asked this question many times, I don't understand why people follow Paul considering Paul never actually met Jesus it creates quite a conundrum.

which epistles are those?

[The Merchant Republics]

yes

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

Thing is we keep having saints till like.... the 10th century or something.This is about 1000 years after Jesus died.Who was worthy enough to say they became saints?Lots of documents were written centuries after Jesus died.You cant really say everything was canon,since it was made and chosen by humans.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches recognize saints no older than the 17th century, actually.

In fact, just a quick glance at a list brings up several Saints who lived no more than 50 years ago.

And while naturally man far from infallible, an undeniable doctrine of the Christian church; no matter which sect is that the Holy Spirit worked in the church to present as perfect an account as possible.

If we submit that the Holy Spirit does not do this, it quickly becomes easy to dismiss any canon the church has agreed upon as mere contrivance, soon we're accepting false doctrines and absurdities. Not a good thing.

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

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?

I go to a Baptist Church, but I identify with the Community of Christ.

I know I'm going to catch flak, but I don't think that believing in the Gospel and believing in the epistles are mutually inclusive. The Catholic Church dictated what went into what we now know as the Bible (at least I think, feel free to correct me). Let's assume the Gospel is true and there is such thing as divine revalation, there must have been stuff in the final version of the Bible that could be lies and stuff not in there that could be truth.

That's what I gather from it.

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

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.

As a Christian deist (not technically a Christian), I only take my teachings from Jesus and the epistles that scholars believe to be written by Peter. I too have asked this question many times, I don't understand why people follow Paul considering Paul never actually met Jesus it creates quite a conundrum.

Allow me to play Devil's advocate (religious pun not intended), it does say, in Acts I believe, that Jesus revealed himself to Saul/Paul. Not saying it's true, but just something to think about.

[Atest]

I see that many of you believe that the Paul's writings, or for some of you, even the entire Bible does not fit with your personal Christian beliefs. So, that being said, if it is all edited malarkey, why do you still insist on believing?

[Cetacea]

A third main point is the lack of motive for Paul himself. Yes, he does have a 'legacy', but he could not expect to achieve a legacy by dedicating his life to a young faith by merely sending letters to people/churches. If Paul was not genuine and simply wanted to be immortilised in history, why would he dedicate his life to a faith that could have failed in a matter of decades.
The reason this argument cannot be used to claim the justification of Arianism, Roman Catholicism etc. is that the leaders of these heresies have an agenda that leads to either fame during their lives or a legacy afterwards, or in the case of the Popes both.
That sir, is how you get from Jesus (gospels) to Paul.

But Saul of Tarsus a "Pharisee, a son of Pharisees" and member of the Sanhedrin did have motivation, being the persecution and destruction of the Christ-lead faith. With the springing up of Christian communities across the empire perhaps he did have an epiphany on the road to Damascus and just like all the modern TV Evangelist he decided to use the media, corrupting the faith and recreating it in his own image. Thus did Saul become the great missionary and letter write he is remembered for and in doing so largely obliterated the 'true' teachings of Christ.

There were other missionaries, other gospels and other epistles which have been altered and removed from the canon in favour of one politically motivated account which is todays 'Bible'.

As to your second point there is no where stated that Jesus would be the last prophet so perhaps later prophets and even some yet unborn are part of gods plan to restore the true faith or perhaps that is the mission of the holy spirit to allow the faithful to discern the truth or error of Pauls account for themselves (which of course is what marks the difference between Catholic and Protestant)...

[The Archregimancy]

As an Orthodox Christian,I do not

Interesting. So the Pauline books aren't considered canonical by the Orthodox Church then?

DrakoBlaria's talking out of his arse - sorry.

Here are some Orthodox perspectives on Saint Paul:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Paul
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=101842

From the perspective of your OP, Paul did interact with Peter, James, and the other surviving members of the Jerusalem church, and was given approval for his mission to the gentiles by the Jerusalem Church. This is outlined both in Acts and one of the undisputed Pauline epistles, so it's not just his own word, and he was clearly quite keen to derive a form of authority from the actual disciples rather than rely entirely on the authority of his personal vision - though it's also clear that Peter, James and Paul didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues; the author of Acts can't quite gloss over the disagreements.

Your OP notes that you've read the Bible extensively, so I'll refer you to both Acts 15, Acts 21, and Galatians 2.

In terms of the historical reasons why Paul's message likely triumphed over Jewish Christianity - leaving aside for the moment the more difficult theological issues that cause you concern here - I would refer you to an excellent book by Etienne Trocme called The Childhood of Christianity. It's a proper history book written by an academic, deals at length with this specific issue, so may be of some interest to you.

[Tmutarakhan]

The passages in Galatians 2 in which Paul gets "approval" are almost certainly forged interpolations into the epistle. The use of Petros instead of Kephas are the main give-away, aside from the interruption of the stream of thought and botching of the chronology. In the undisputed portions of Galatians, Paul is at great pains to emphasize that he doesn't give a damn what those so-called pillars of the church think; he got his dope straight from Jesus, so there!

[DrakoBlaria]

Interesting. So the Pauline books aren't considered canonical by the Orthodox Church then?

DrakoBlaria's talking out of his arse - sorry.

Here are some Orthodox perspectives on Saint Paul:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Paul
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=101842

From the perspective of your OP, Paul did interact with Peter, James, and the other surviving members of the Jerusalem church, and was given approval for his mission to the gentiles by the Jerusalem Church. This is outlined both in Acts and one of the undisputed Pauline epistles, so it's not just his own word, and he was clearly quite keen to derive a form of authority from the actual disciples rather than rely entirely on the authority of his personal vision - though it's also clear that Peter, James and Paul didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues; the author of Acts can't quite gloss over the disagreements.

Your OP notes that you've read the Bible extensively, so I'll refer you to both Acts 15, Acts 21, and Galatians 2.

In terms of the historical reasons why Paul's message likely triumphed over Jewish Christianity - leaving aside for the moment the more difficult theological issues that cause you concern here - I would refer you to an excellent book by Etienne Trocme called The Childhood of Christianity. It's a proper history book written by an academic, deals at length with this specific issue, so may be of some interest to you.

I fixed it later on

[The Archregimancy]

The passages in Galatians 2 in which Paul gets "approval" are almost certainly forged interpolations into the epistle. The use of Petros instead of Kephas are the main give-away, aside from the interruption of the stream of thought and botching of the chronology. In the undisputed portions of Galatians, Paul is at great pains to emphasize that he doesn't give a damn what those so-called pillars of the church think; he got his dope straight from Jesus, so there!

On the contrary, that Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem in Galatians 2 differs so significantly from the account given in Acts is one of the key pieces of evidence in favour of Galatians being an authentic Pauline epistle according to mainstream academic scholarship. You're perhaps misremembering parts of the passage since Galatians 2:9 clearly and explicitly refers to Cephas (and John and James) "extending the right hand of fellowship" - it's likely Galatians 2:7-8 only that you're remembering.

The classic recent study on interpolations in the Pauline epistles is William Walker's pithily titled 2002 book Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. Walker doesn't expend too much effort on Galatians 10, except to note in a footnote that Ernst Barnikol argued in 1998 that Galatians 2:7-8 might be an interpolation; but even this minority view doesn't really matter since those 2 lines are arguing a different point, and the rest of Galatians 2 shows that they all met, initially on friendly terms, though Paul then claims to have disagreed strongly with Cephas/Peter in Antioch.

[Tmutarakhan]

The passages in Galatians 2 in which Paul gets "approval" are almost certainly forged interpolations into the epistle. The use of Petros instead of Kephas are the main give-away, aside from the interruption of the stream of thought and botching of the chronology. In the undisputed portions of Galatians, Paul is at great pains to emphasize that he doesn't give a damn what those so-called pillars of the church think; he got his dope straight from Jesus, so there!

On the contrary, that Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem in Galatians 2 differs so significantly from the account given in Acts is one of the key pieces of evidence in favour of Galatians being an authentic Pauline epistle according to mainstream academic scholarship.

And what it indicates, if you put the two together, is that Paul flatly refused to agree with the position of the disciples. The major issue that separated them was whether it was permissible to eat meat that had been dedicated to pagan deities: there were hardly any "secular" butchers in those days, most butchering being done by priests of one god or another with sacrificial rites or at least dedicatory prayers, and in communities where Jewish presence was rare or non-existent, Gentile Christians could not expect to rely on "kosher" butchers.

You're perhaps misremembering parts of the passage since Galatians 2:9 clearly and explicitly refers to Cephas (and John and James) "extending the right hand of fellowship" - it's likely Galatians 2:7-8 only that you're remembering.

Gal. 2:7-8 is clearly bogus, not only for the un-Pauline usage of Petros but for the claim that Peter/Kephas only preached to "the circumcised" where Acts is plain that reaching out to non-Jews was Peter's ideas to begin with, and Gal. 2:9 has a doublet, again repeating this claim supposedly as an explanation of what the "handshake" was agreeing to. It appears that sectarians who wanted to deny that Peter's followers (in Antioch as well as Rome) had any authority whatsoever over Gentile Christians made this interpolation inconsistently, sometimes between 2:6 and 2:9a and sometimes between 2:9a and 2:10, and both have been preserved.

The classic recent study on interpolations in the Pauline epistles is William Walker's pithily titled 2002 book Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. Walker doesn't expend too much effort on Galatians 10, except to note in a footnote that Ernst Barnikol argued in 1998 that Galatians 2:7-8 might be an interpolation; but even this minority view doesn't really matter since those 2 lines are arguing a different point, and the rest of Galatians 2 shows that they all met, initially on friendly terms, though Paul then claims to have disagreed strongly with Cephas/Peter in Antioch.

No, this is not at all about a "different" point; I am disappointed that you don't see the point, and neither apparently does Walker. Yes, they met initially on friendly terms: Gal. 2:2 = Acts 15:12, Paul speaking out fully on what the doctrines are that he has been preaching to the Gentiles. But the final decision of the council includes the point that Gentile Christians must not eat meat that has been dedicated to idols, and it is when this is relayed to Antioch that Paul is absolutely defiant, and expends much space in further epistles mocking and denigrating the viewpoint of the disciples. At least by the time that Paul has gone to Rome, the churches in Asia Minor which he has founded have decisively repudiated him and sided with Peter and James on this issue ("all Asia turns against me", whines Paul, while John praises Ephesus for "repudiating those who call themselves apostles, when they are no such thing"), as we see in Pliny's letter to Trajan where one of the signs that underground Christianity has become influential is that "meat can scarcely find a buyer"; it was not until after the Great Fire incident, claiming the lives of both Peter and Paul as well as many followers of both, that the hatchet was buried.

[Distruzio]

As an Orthodox Christian,I do not

What are you talking about? Much of our faith is premised along pauline advice.