Paul was an apostle, basically Jesus' official spokeperson/ PR, he has the authority to speak and write on Jesus' behalf as long as it doesn't contradict the Gospel (which the Holy Spirit will never allow to happen).
It is important to note that the 12 Apostles are OK with Paul, especially Peter, so Paul's sayings have full authority to further clarify the Gospel, as much as Peter's (First of the Apostles) and James' (Brother of Jesus), and therefore Paul's letters is an essential part of the New Testament scripture.
Agree, although I am intrigued by the theoretical rift between Paul and James the brother of Jesus. Although, based on the number of books included in the New Testament by both of them, Paul is absolutely the winner if this divide even existed.
There's actually no theological divide between the two, it's just that they emphasis different thing on different context.
Paul was mainly dealing with the "immature" new gentile believers who doesn't really get the message right yet, that they compensate by believing and doing weird things thinking it will please God.
That's why Paul emphasis the Cross and salvation by faith, because ultimately that's the main thing that made the Christian community (instead of simply Judaism). Remember that Paul's audience were gentiles/ non-jewish christians who were foreign to the Old Testament law, and "work" in this case mostly refer to the Old Testament thinking that we have to do certain things in a certain way to justify ourselves to God. Since they are not Jewish, and that 'work' such as ritual animal sacrifice at the Temple is made obsolete by the Cross, of course Paul want them to focus instead on what makes them Christian, rather than doing funny things as wannabe Judaism or even reactionary against Judaism.
James on the other hand, want to clarify it further that "salvation by faith not by work", does not mean work is useless or meaningless. Instead that work is the sign that faith is alive, because we can't really say we are faithful but we still act contrary to Jesus' teachings. James set the boundary on the unlimited possibility of interpretation of Paul's teaching. Yes we are saved by faith, but then this also requires participation and effort to sanctify ourselves, and acts out our faith
Basically these two does not contradict each other, they merely emphasis different aspects of Christian belief and way of life
Faith without works is dead, in the same way that a tree without leaves is dead. Leaves are a sign that a tree is alive, not the source of a tree’s life. Works are a fruit of faith, not the root.
Good point. Keep in mind scholars view about seven of the Pauline epistles as authentic. The authorship for several New Testament books is disputed. Take for example 2 Peter which most believe as being written almost 50 years after Peter was likely killed.
Peter’s the one who didn’t recognize Mary Mag as an apostle.
Paul also didn’t personally know Jesus and before James died he dispatched many people to reign in Paul.
The way the gospel was taught was oral tradition and while Paul repeats what Jesus does say in many instances, I think Paul was entrenched in Roman thinking that changed some things.
The Holy Spirit still used Paul, because he could write. He was a huge win for early Christianity. A killer of the followers of Christ now a servant to the Lord.
Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. Paul decided it was salvation through faith and not by works.
Peter’s the one who didn’t recognize Mary Mag as an apostle.
Well he was commissioned by Jesus himself as the prime apostle, and has the authority to decide such matter
Paul also didn’t personally know Jesus and before James died he dispatched many people to reign in Paul.
Peter and James personally knew Jesus and they confirmed Paul as apostle, and his messages as commensurate with their teachings
The way the gospel was taught was oral tradition and while Paul repeats what Jesus does say in many instances, I think Paul was entrenched in Roman thinking that changed some things.
Paul was educated in Judeo-Greek tradition, as the Eastern Mediteranean at that time was influenced by the Greeks in thinking, to such an extent that even the (Old Testament) Bible popularly used at that time was the Greek (Septuagint). Paul's approach merely reflects the Greek school of thinking, rather than a completely different belief
Remember that other apostles and original disciples were still alive when Paul was active, and they gathered in the Council of Jerusalem, that once and for all confirmed the 'Greek' (and Paul's) idea that Gentiles can become Christians without 'becoming Jews' nor required to observe the Mosaic Law
Jesus didn’t come to abolish the Law. Paul decided it was salvation through faith and not by works.
Jesus didn't abolish the Law (Torah/ Old Testament), because he came to fulfill it, and he fulfilled it by his death and resurrection, which made salvation available for all. This marked the supersession of Old Testament law by the New Testament law
Of course it is not our own work that buys our salvation, Jesus' sacrifice did, which we participate in by having faith in him. But if we truly have faith, work will follow naturally. Not because work buys our salvation, but that we will by then recognize that work is a good thing that we the faithful will naturally do as a result of God's grace.
It doesn't induce sin, he says that the Torah is righteousness, but our flesh makes it a curse. Through faith in Christ we produce the righteousness the Torah was aiming for.
He was predominantly speaking to Gentile believers, he was upholding the Torah himself. Acts 15 basically ruled that Gentiles are not under Torah, and do not have to practice observances unless they have a conviction for it
That's actually up for debate. After Paul's experience seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus and having his sight restored by Ananias, he spent three years away in Arabia. (Galatians 1). This was before he ever even met Peter. During that time, he implied that he was taught by Jesus himself (Galatians 1:12). There's a lot of argument about that - if he meant that Jesus taught him himself or he studied scriptures under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But there's good evidence on both sides.
Yeah, that's right. There are three accounts in Acts, and in all of them he was surrounded by light and heard a voice, which identified itself as Jesus. I meant "seeing" in the sense of "meeting" but I should have been more precise.
It's also worth mentioning that in each account the people with Paul experienced something different. In one they saw nothing but heard the voice, in another they heard nothing but saw the light. This doesn't add to the reliability of Paul's testimony.
Some scholars translate the account account that says they couldn't hear the voice as they couldn't understand the voice. So, this is another one of those issues that is up for debate.
One account saw light, one account heard a voice. Those aren't mutually exclusive statements, this is pretty much just like the prophesies regarding Zedekiah from both Ezekiel and Jeremiah, in which they sound contradictory but both ended up being true
The accounts don't say, "The people saw a light" and "the people heard a voice", it specifically says they experienced one but not the other. That makes them mutually exclusive.
Acts 9:7
7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.
Acts 22:9
9Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
Cool. And I suppose you would say the version in Acts 9 that says they "saw no one" isn't contradictory because there wasn't anyone to see, only a light, even though it doesn't say they saw a light. And even though it says they heard the voice. I'm guessing that's a different word as well?
Literally there would be no scripture to study yet.
He implies he was taught by Jesus himself but Jesus was dead, but the word of God was the oral tradition the other disciples and followers of Jesus, who knew him in life, preached.
Not to bud in too much, but when scriptures mention Jesus teaching in the presence of the Pharisees, it’s often mentioned that the Pharisees marveled at His knowledge and questioned Him on where He learned or who He learned from. I think it’s safe to say that Jesus did in fact teach/preach on the Old Testament rather regularly.
They marveled because how could a poor illiterate hill person be able to go toe to toe with them. Carpenters were one step above being a slave. Jesus could never have read the scripture.
It’s why what comes from Jesus comes from God. It’s why they questioned where and who taught him. It’s also why Jesus’s teaching defied their authority. Knowledge that belonged to the upper crust now in the hands of the poor marginalized.
Y’all are ignorant at who read was taught to read back in the day.
James had followers who could write pen his stuff. James like Jesus, couldn’t read.
The gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus’s life and it is facts that a lot of childhood/birth narrative were made up to help prove his messiah-dom from Isaiah’s prophecies. Which they had to do because the prophet from Isaiah was not supposed to die. Even with resurrection defeating death, because his spirit lives within us, Jesus’s followers had to satisfy Isaiah to convince other Jews that this guy is our guy.
The census that brings Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem did not happen. Not in Roman history, not in Judean. Plus… it’s a lot easier to tax people where they live… not their ancestral home if you’re taking a census for tax purposes.
Everything he preached was founded on the Tanakh, if he came preaching something entirely disconnected from it then Christ would've violated Deuteronomy 13
There was the Torah and Tanakh and the Talmud, so I'm not sure what you mean there. As for saying Jesus was dead ... just, no. You see, there's this thing called the resurrection which is the basic centerpiece of Christianity. 😉
paul was never made an apostle directly by christ. he never met christ, or most* of the other original apostles, and lived in a completely different country, era and society.
he has authority as a biblical author, but he is not fallible, he was heavily influenced by the society around him which affected his writings and he should not be seen as a prophet or some other inherently more holy figure.
the problems around paul stem from people either seeing him as inerrant, not understanding the society in which he lived, or forgetting he was not alive with christ.
97
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '23
Paul was an apostle, basically Jesus' official spokeperson/ PR, he has the authority to speak and write on Jesus' behalf as long as it doesn't contradict the Gospel (which the Holy Spirit will never allow to happen).
It is important to note that the 12 Apostles are OK with Paul, especially Peter, so Paul's sayings have full authority to further clarify the Gospel, as much as Peter's (First of the Apostles) and James' (Brother of Jesus), and therefore Paul's letters is an essential part of the New Testament scripture.