Zone1 Does Paul receive enough credit in Christianity?

No, the reality is that you have no clue how much effort I have put into the topic. Just because I came to different conclusions than you doesn't mean I have not studied the topic and I'd put my knowledge against what I've seen of yours any day.
I kind of do have an idea. You made up your mind at an early age. You have been putting up your knowledge against mine. They have all been arguments why God doesn't exist. You never looked for reasons why God exists. You only looked for reasons why God doesn't exist.
 
No thanks, let's just move forward.


I'm not sure how high that bar is since there were no copyright laws and forgeries were common (and some items, falsely claimed to have been written by an authority) even made it into the NT.
Those were not false claims or forgeries though. It was the custom of those times that the student often wrote under the name of his teacher/master. Thus some books attributed to Paul, but that reflect a different style/context/content are likely written by those who studied with/under him. The early Fathers chose those manuscripts to include in the New Testament that were written by Apostles or those who were close to Apostles and that included all the writings with Paul's name on them.

Which is why I said in an earlier post that Paul is not only given enough credit, but was the most honored person who authored any of the New Testament in what we now call The Holy Bible.
 
Last edited:
Obviously so. It's in plain language.

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt 15:24)

[F]or he will save his people from their sins. (Mt 1:21)

You know what Jesus referred to the Canaanites as? Dogs. And the woman agreed. Christ's disciples begged him not to associate with her.

But like dogs, she settled for crumbs, so he obliged. He did not come for her.
If you are going to take statement out of context I can't help you. I've already explained it once.
 
I agree. I never said it did. God is the source of all reality. To see reality one must be objective. To be objective one must have no bias. To have no bias one must have no preference for an outcome.
Sounds like you've got a preference for the source of all reality.
 
Sounds like you've got a preference for the source of all reality.
No. It's just logic applied to science. It's because I have no preference for an outcome that I was able to discover it.

And before you ask me to explain it, I've been explaining it to you for two days. So feel free to tell me why you don't believe it.
 
I kind of do have an idea. You made up your mind at an early age. You have been putting up your knowledge against mine. They have all been arguments why God doesn't exist. You never looked for reasons why God exists. You only looked for reasons why God doesn't exist.
This is America, I grew up with the assumption that God exists. Later, I found evidence He doesn't so I changed my beliefs. Since then, all the overwhelming evidence points to as single conclusion.
 
This is America, I grew up with the assumption that God exists. Later, I found evidence He doesn't so I changed my beliefs.
You found evidence God doesn't exist? I don't think that's possible. Please explain how you were able to prove a negative.
 
Those were not false claims or forgeries though. It was the custom of those times that the student often wrote under the name of his teacher/master.
Tell that to Galen

Thus some books attributed to Paul, but that reflect a different style/context/content are likely written by those who studied with/under him. The early Fathers chose those manuscripts to include in the New Testament that were written by Apostles or those who were close to Apostles and that included all the writings with Paul's name on them.

Which is why I said in an earlier post that Paul is not only given enough credit, but was the most honored person who authored any of the New Testament in what we now call The Holy Bible.
Seems a stretch to believe that a student of Paul would write something under his name that contradicts Paul's own teachings.
 
Tell that to Galen


Seems a stretch to believe that a student of Paul would write something under his name that contradicts Paul's own teachings.
Not at all. The apostles themselves were not in total agreement on doctrine. The tiff between Paul and Peter is pretty obvious. And what student has ever not expanded on or added his/her own thoughts to that taught by his mentor? Paul himself as one raised as an orthodox Jew struggled between the concept of salvation by grace alone versus virtue in obeying the Law. And whoever wrote Timothy--it almost certainly was not Paul--was even more conflicted between grace vs law as was James.

Which is why when I teach Bible I encourage looking at it within the context of all the different points of view that generally get us closer to the same point. And that point is not closed doctrine any more than it was then but left open the intervention of the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. And I think most Christians probably quote the teachings of Paul far more than any other source in the New Testament.

And Christians to this day still struggle with the virtue of law/behavior/good works/'Christian conduct' versus salvation by grace even as each one believes in salvation by grace.

But as Paul said, now we see through a glass darkly but then face to face. I trust--I hope--God is patient with all our various beliefs knowing that ultimately we all will know what we got right and what we got wrong. :)
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top