- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 4,230
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The Bible is filled with the stories of people who suffered for their beliefs -- including the gentleman that Paul was telling everyone about.What helps make Paul credible ln my book is everything he "gave up" to preach the gospel. Think of his lifestyle before the "road to Damascus " and what he endured after that encounter. He surely didn't "profit" from such a story if it was fabricated.
The historical figure named Jesus lived and died without encountering Paul.
Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
I never said I discarded Paul entirely. Without his good works in expanding the Church I don't think organized Christianity would be what it is today.
That said, I still think he was merely a man and some of his words were based, as with many fellow Christians today, on what he thought best reflected his understanding of the teachings of Christ.
What helps make Paul credible ln my book is everything he "gave up" to preach the gospel. Think of his lifestyle before the "road to Damascus " and what he endured after that encounter. He surely didn't "profit" from such a story if it was fabricated.
The Bible is filled with the stories of people who suffered for their beliefs -- including the gentleman that Paul was telling everyone about.
His faith isn't a concern for me, it's proximity.
There is no evidence that Paul followed Jesus prior to his crucifixion.You've got to use logic, then....especially when you're throwing out faith.
And we've got logic on our side.
There is no evidence that Paul followed Jesus prior to his crucifixion.
That is the criteria I was using to determine whether someone is an apostle.No one is claiming that! :doh
Read please.
That is the criteria I was using to determine whether someone is an apostle.
That is the criteria I was using to determine whether someone is an apostle.
No one is claiming Paul/Saul encountered Jesus in the flesh during his earthly incarnation, but rather that it was a spiritual meeting on the road to Damascus.
Now as a non-Christian, you have the option of discounting such supernatural events, as you seem to be doing. However, actual believers are typically going to be more open to the idea that Paul encountered Jesus in a spiritual form on the Damascus road. There's a significant difference of perspective involved.
Granted, Paul was not one of the original 12, nor a follower of Jesus during his time on earth. His status as an apostle could be questioned on that basis, yes.
Yet for those who accept the supernatural Damascus road encounter, and the commission by God to carry the word to the Gentiles and its subsequent tremendous success as evidence of its divine ordination, Paul is widely considered an Apostle by most of Christendom.
His writings have been considered canon scripture by almost every branch and denomination of Christendom for roughly two millennia; accepted by almost all highly regarded theologians and church leaders; and even today there are few actual believers who question the inclusion of Pauline scripture into canon.
All that adds up to a lot of "firepower" on the side of considering Paul a genuine representative of Apostolic authority and his writings suitable for Christian guidance.
Who wrote the Book of Acts?
Captain Adverse and all the rest who share the same view regarding Paul, kindly answer - who wrote the Book
of Acts?
Paul was a very preachy apostle but an apostle he was - given his transformation from killing Christ's followers to then being a follower himself.
On a personal note I find Paul's books very cumbersome to get through. Perhaps it's because for years my pastor dove into 90 minutes of various aspects of Corinthians1 and 2 for what seemed like eons. When I read Paul's work now I tire of it quickly.
There are several possible reasons that might contribute to that. First of all, Paul was not writing letters to be scripture, but he was addressing what he saw as problems with various communities. The second issue is that the letters are actually a composite of several letters rolled up in one, and then at least a couple seem to have gone through some interpolations.
Yep all true - but you'd think our pastor thought it was the gospels the way he went on week after week for nearly two years then. The congregation would visibly get ecstatic if we moved to Matthew or Acts for a while.
You'd think pastors would get it when their "Forty-seven part series of sermons analyzing Thessalonians line by line" results in reduced attendance and a lot of sleepy stares after a few weeks...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?