Who made Paul the boss?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The following question is taken and enlarged on from a statement on another Christian forum. Why are the writings of Paul taken as the prime directives for how Christians should act and what they should believe (doctrine and gospel)? Paul never met Jesus (except as a bright light and voice AFTER Christ went back to heaven). He never received the gospel directly from Jesus, as did the disciples and those who heard Jesus preach. So what gives Paul the authority to dictate what Christians ought to believe about Jesus and His mission? Why did the 12 apostles (minus Judas Iscariot) not write more about what Jesus Himself told them about the gospel (and doctrines)??

And to take this a step further, why did Jesus not write down what He wanted people to know and understand? He was obviously well educated, but the only instance I know of where Jesus wrote anything (as the human Jesus) is when He wrote in the dirt when the Pharisees were crowing about stoning the woman found in adultery.

[D. Allan]

Just wondering: if it weren't for Paul Christianity may have remained one of those 'eastern religiions.'

It maybe that Jesus wrote nothing down because he planned for the 'good news of the kingdom' to be spread by word of mouth - the disciples were to become teachers and gather their own band of disciples just a Jesus did.

I doubt that Paul intended for his letters to become authoritative for all future Christians. He believed more in the ministry of the Spirit than of the letter it seems. Didn't he say, "The letter kills but the Spirit gives life!"?

_______________________

The vanities of all others may die out, but the vanity of a saint as regards his sainthood is hard indeed to wear away. -Ramakrishna

[Gregory Matthews]

Everybody has their gifts, abilities, and interests in life--you and I included Pam. Jesus chose the 12 for what they could contribute to His ministry during its 3 1/2 years. That, they accomplished. They led the early Christian Church in its development shortly after Christ's death and ascension. They achieved what God wanted of them during the ministry of Christ.

By the time of Paul, a new stage had been reached. The Gospel new needed to go outside of Judaism to other parts of the civilized world. Paul (Saul) was able to do what the 11 probably could not have done as well. Further, due to his background, he had better interests and abilities in writing than the 11 probably had.

At each stage, God choses people who can do what is needed for that stage. Then when they have accomplished that, the mission may be given to others who can accomplish what is needed at that time.

To go to a military model, the forces that are needed for an assault, are not the same needed to govern the conquered country after the invasion.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

ah..okay. I understand that. Thanks, Gregory!

[Robert]

Paul makes up 53% of the NT. The disciples told of the life of Christ. Paul was "set apart" to explain the gospel - how Christ saved you in Himself.

Gal 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

[bevin]

Well, there were lots of people writing and editing various letters and gospels and other books in the period AD60-AD400

There were a whole range of competing variaties of Christianity

And in the huge theological/social shoot-out the leadership promoted books that most promoted the position they believed in

and the other books got dumped

and books got credited to writers who didn't actually write them

and that's how we got the set we got

/Bevin

ps: A lot of scholars aren't convinced Paul wrote all the books we credit to him - specifically 1&2 Tim and Titus are really suspect...

[Robert]

ps: A lot of scholars aren't convinced Paul wrote all the books we credit to him - specifically 1&2 Tim and Titus are really suspect...

Scholars? So what! Who made them so important anyway?

[bevin]

They became important when it was realized that both whole books and insertions into existing books were being forged by a whole range of people from well-meaning nuts to financially motivated con-men.

They became important when it was realized that the theologians claiming the earth was flat with four corners were wrong because it didn't accurately predict what the earth was really like

They became important when it was realized that the church administrations were writing books to reinforce their own comfortable positions against reformers

They became important when it was realized that having the Kings hand laid on didn't really cure the pox

In short, scholarship is important because it protects us from liars and thieves

/Bevin

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

In short, scholarship is important because it protects us from liars and thieves.

But only if the scholar is not a liar or a thief.

[bevin]

Ahhh - the neat thing about scholarship is the publishing of the data and the analysis. That way lots of minds can go over the study and see if the conclusion really does come from the facts.

Here is what we KNOW.

(1) Letters and books beyond what we find the the NT were written

(2) The writing style and the material of various NT books are inconsistent

(3) The non-NT letters and books that we have found descriptions of and quotes from are often widely different from the NT books in some areas and very similar in others

(4) That people writing this material included complaints about other people modifying and adding to their words (see, for instance, the end of the Book of Revelation)

(5) That forgers were caught and confessed

(6) That the NT as we know it today slowly came together over hundreds of years

/Bevin

[Clio]

Paul is not, nor has he ever been, my favorite of the NT writers. I think this is because I find him lacking in compassion where women are concerned. I much prefer Peter's writing's and those of James and John. All three of them strike me as being more compassionate, not just towards women, but towards everyone they came in contact with.

Oh I don't have any problems with Paul's "difficult" passages. I've come to complete agreement with him on everything he has to say.

I just don't like him much. We wouldn't have been "friends" I guess.

Whereas... Peter... I love Peter. I suspect he and Mike will have much in common, and Peter's wife and I will recognize kindred in one another....

I think this is why Christ called the first Twelve not including Judas Iscariot, because He knew they would have Charity among the brethren more so than Paul. I would think that God chose Paul out of due time because He was a Soldier, a Warrior, and lacked that compassion that was needed to build upon the Foundation of Our Lord and Saviors compassion and Virtue of Pure Love flowing from the Father.

Paul being a fighter knew to stand Strong in defense of the Word of God. And this is why (I believe) God had preordained him to be an Apostle born out of due season called into service by the Lord.

In some circles I've been branded a heretic for saying I don't like Paul much.... I LOVE his message, but him.... I just don't do well with warriors.... not being warrior-like much myself.

My character is more on the order of long-suffering endurance... and soldiers tend to make me uncomfortable... especially militant ones.

But Paul is also a good example of fitting in with Abba's plan, even though he was called out of due season. He was called for a specific purpose that needed someone of his talent, character and militant bearing. Remember, he went to the Gentiles, which were mostly Romans or those conquered by Rome, which means societies with many military aspects to them.

Paul spoke their language, not just the tongue, but the way he put words together, the examples he chose, and the descriptions and concepts he used to present the Gospel.

I also think that Paul was chosen because his writings would best exemplify what we face today, in terms of the ongoing Civil War in the Heavenlies.

[Robert]

In short, scholarship is important because it protects us from liars and thieves

So scholars have a blank check? Their words are gospel and therefore we should trust them?

I don't think so....Individually we should study things out for ourselves and not rely on someone with a Ph.D. scribbled on some sheepskin. In other words no blank checks, bevin!

[bevin]

Robert. How on earth did you read

Quote:

Ahhh - the neat thing about scholarship is the publishing of the data and the analysis. That way lots of minds can go over the study and see if the conclusion really does come from the facts.

and conclude that I am saying scholars have a blank check?

/Bevin

[Robert]

I didn't base it on your quote....

[bevin]

Quote:

I didn't base it on your quote....

Fortunately, as with scholarship, anyone who wants to can read the material and see how the discussion went, and decide for themselves what they want to carry away from it.

/Bevin

[skyblue888]

Clio, please allow me to differ with you for I have come to see the apostle Paul as an example of deep love and humility. He loved the brethren. In fact in chapter 9 of Romans he is like Moses pleading for his people. "I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." verses 2,3.

Apart from Jesus of Nazareth, can we find a man more humble than the apostle Paul himself? He was a man greatly honored with divine light and power. He had a deep knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel (Eph.3:3) and yet he said, "If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." 1 Cor.8:2. He was behind in nothing among the most eminent of the apostles and yet he said, "I am nothing." 2 Cor.12:11. It was him who wrote, "If any man thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself." Galatians 6:3.

He considered himself to be "less than the least of all saints." Eph.3:8.

He was among those rare men who lived nearest to God, men who would sacrifice life itself rather than knowingly commit a wrong act and yet at the end of his life he confessed himself to be "the chief of sinners." 1 Tim.1:15.

Paul considered himself in the light of the infinite sacrifice that was made for him upon Calvary's cross and the result was that he retained not one particle of self-esteem! He died to self daily through faith in the all-sufficient merits of a crucified and risen Saviour. He had nothing to boast about except in the Lord. "Therefore let no one glory in men." 1 Cor.3:21. "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Cor.1:31.

For all these reasons Paul had to be a man of deep compassion for "great grace" was upon him. "By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all (apostles), yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." 1 Cor.15:10. He was clothed with the glistening vesture of Christ's righteousness which imparts all the grace, all the powers, all the repentance, all the inclination, and all the pardon of sins!

And "The grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 1:14.

He truly possessed the spirit of the Gospel!

[Clio]

Thankfully we don't have to be friends with everyone we meet. You like Paul, I prefer other Biblical writers styles.

I have more in common with Peter's wife than I do with Paul from a friendship perspective.

I never said I had a problem with Paul's message, just I don't think I would have chosen to associate much with him on a social level.

[skyblue888]

Clio, I never said a word about his message either or that you had a problem with his message. I left that out completely. I merely pointed out his character, his faith, his love and his humility as a child of God in light of Scripture.

Does it matter weather it is Paul or Peter? They were both Christlike! Were they not?

What do you know about Peter's wife?

[Clio]

Skyblue, why is it a problem that I don't care much for Paul? I'm not friends with every person I come into contact with even though I may associate with them with courtesy and politeness and they may be a Christian.

I don't have to be FRIENDS with every Christian out there. Do I?

As for what I know about Peter's wife? I know she was married to Peter! :LS And I LOVE her for that! I bet we have a ton in common! I can't wait to meet her.

Loud, boisterous, impulsive, hot-tempered, a man who worked with his hands, agressive, passionate, loyal, honorable, who wore his emotions on his sleeve, and was militant about what he was passionate about. :PF

I know I have a lot in common with Peter's wife. I could have written those same words to describe my husband.

Is it any wonder that someone who would marry someone like Peter would not really want to be friends with Paul? Paul and Peter had their share of disagreements... rather publically too. Paul and Peter both talk about them, and Peter talks about Paul's "difficult" passages.

I'm just saying that I prefer other Biblical writers styles.

Why would you need to point out his character, faith, love, and humility? I never called any of that into question, and if I did, I do apologize. Paul was a giant of faith, no doubt, and was an Apostle called out of due season to minister to the Gentiles.

But I don't have to be his friend. On the other hand, I would VERY much like to meet Peter and his wife.

[aldona]

Not a reply to anybody specific, just my $0.02 worth...

This thread reminds me of a quote I read somewhere by a Christian writer.

"Protestatism was the triumph of Paul over Peter.

Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Jesus."

aldona

[Robert]

Thankfully we don't have to be friends with everyone we meet. You like Paul, I prefer other Biblical writers styles.

I have more in common with Peter's wife than I do with Paul from a friendship perspective.

Does God love me more than you? Will He hang around me more than you?

No, God is impartial. He loves all equally. There will be no partiality in heaven. We will love all equally. Otherwise "self" will pop its head up once again.

For example, on this forum I've butted heads with you, Ed and Gerry. I probably wouldn't want to hang with you guys, but in heaven my nature will be gone and all of you will mean the same to me there as my closest friends down here. Here we differentiate, there we will not.

Rob

[Nan]

[quote name='Robert

No' date=' God is impartial. He loves all equally. There will be no partiality in heaven. We will love all equally. Otherwise "self" will pop its head up once again.

Rob

[/quote']

Jesus is/was impartial but He had a special place in His heart for the apostle John. In the same way I feel there will be those with whom we choose to spend more time in heaven - not through dislike of others, just that we have more in common with some.

I guess we will know when we get there.

[Robert]

Jesus is/was impartial but...

"But"? In other words, Jesus was in reality partial according to your viewpoint?

When Christ was on the cross being treated like a common criminal, did He love John more than His murderers? No! When He said, "it is finished" He gave up heaven forever so that His enemies, not His favorite buddies, could have heaven in His place. That's impartiality!

[skyblue888]

So Jesus gave up Heaven FOREVER so that His enemies, not His favorite buddies, could have Heaven in His place!!!

Somehow, Robert, I find this statement to be ambiguous, to say the very least of it. It sounds like you are saying that Jesus won't be in Heaven but His enemies will even before His closest disciples!!!

Could you, may be, rephrase what you said. Thanks.

p.s. if you can't get along now with those you mentioned, why would you get along with them in Heaven? Character must be transformed now, not at the second coming! Then it will be too late! The only transformation that takes place at the second coming is that of receiving a new body. Right Robert?

Today we are to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. At the second coming we are to be transformed by the renewing of the body.

[Robert]

So Jesus gave up Heaven FOREVER so that His enemies, not His favorite buddies, could have Heaven in His place!!!

Jesus didn't differentiate bewteen His friends and those who hated Him - His enemies.

Romans 5:7 Very rarely will anyone die for a just man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners [His enemies - see verse 10], Christ died for us.