In Romans, we are instructed by Paul to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in Him, as our way to salvation.
With all the debates about works, what value do we give Paul?
If we are only to follow the words of Jesus, is the remainder of the NT void? Because it would seem pretty clear, to Paul, that belief in Jesus comes "first", then works would follow....based on the renewal of the mind.
@chaney3 saidTo put Paul, and who he actually was, and what he went on to do, despite never having met Jesus, into context, I suggest you read "Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" by James S. Valliant and C. W. Fahy. It's a scholarly work that looks at the Bible very closely, but it's highly readable too. Make of it what you will. If you send me a PM, I can send you some of my audio book version to sample. The book does not argue that Jesus was not divine, but it does present some interesting theories about Paul's role in the establishment of very early Christianity.
With all the debates about works, what value do we give Paul?
@fmf saidDidn't Paul have a discussion with Jesus, when he was still known as Saul?
To put Paul, and who he actually was, and what he went on to do, despite never having met Jesus, into context, I suggest you read "Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" by James S. Valliant and C. W. Fahy. It's a scholarly work that looks at the Bible very closely, but it's highly readable too. Make of it what you will. If you send me a PM, I can send you som ...[text shortened]... t Jesus was not divine, but it does present some interesting theories about what Paul was all about.
@chaney3 saidThe question of who Paul was and his credibility as a source and the credibility of what he wrote was a milestone along the journey of lost faith and the correction that I made to how I perceived Christianity, so Paul has "value" to me intellectually and spiritually. This seems to be as good a thread as any to throw this into the mix. If this were a Christian website, I wouldn't go anywhere near this topic.
You are approaching this OP as an agnostic atheist, and as such you likely don't believe that anything in the Bible is valid.
And that's fine.
@fmf saidI will look into this book.
To put Paul, and who he actually was, and what he went on to do, despite never having met Jesus, into context, I suggest you read "Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" by James S. Valliant and C. W. Fahy. It's a scholarly work that looks at the Bible very closely, but it's highly readable too. Make of it what you will. If you send me a PM, I can send you som ...[text shortened]... present some interesting theories about Paul's role in the establishment of very early Christianity.
Does it involve the Council of Nicea, which was a turning point for Christianity?
@fmf saidThis is a curious statement to me.
The question of who Paul was and his credibility as a source and the credibility of what he wrote was a milestone along the journey of lost faith and the correction that I made to how I perceived Christianity, so Paul has "value" to me intellectually and spiritually. This seems to be as good a thread as any to throw this into the mix. If this were a Christian website, I wouldn't go anywhere near this topic.
How would your value of Paul affect your opinion of Jesus, as a Christian?
Even if you lost "faith" in Paul you still should have remained loyal to Jesus, one would think?
@chaney3 saidPaul wrote at least 13 of the 27 books that make up the NT. Losing confidence in that much of the text was, I suppose, the thin end of the wedge.
This is a curious statement to me.
How would your value of Paul affect your opinion of Jesus, as a Christian?
Even if you lost "faith" in Paul you still should have remained loyal to Jesus, one would think?
It comes down to this: do you really believe "Saul" met Jesus? It's a dealbreaker.
Another dealbreaker is the utterly ludicrous Book of Revelation. Do you really accept its alleged source, authorship, meaning and credibility?
Once those two dealbreakers have broken the spell, you look at the rest of the NT in a different light and think, wait a minute, what is all this stuff?
And then you look at the OT and ask yourself: do I really subscribe to ancient Hebrew mythology and folklore?
And so it goes, eventually ~ although it took several years ~ you come to realize that you no longer find the Bible to be a credible source to back the claims that Christians make about Jesus and themselves and then you realize the faith that caused you to self-identify as a Christian has gone. I have described this countless times here on this forum.
1 edit
@chaney3 saidLet's see. Christians call Jesus "Lord". Christians call themselves "followers of Jesus".
In Romans, we are instructed by Paul to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in Him, as our way to salvation.
With all the debates about works, what value do we give Paul?
If we are only to follow the words of Jesus, is the remainder of the NT void? Because it would seem pretty clear, to Paul, that belief in Jesus comes "first", then works would follow....based on the renewal of the mind.
At best, others can only echo the gospel preached by Jesus. The teachings of many are so far removed from His gospel so as to be antithetical to it.
For example at the beginning of His ministry Jesus said He was anointed to preach His gospel, give sight to the blind and free the captives. That's it. He did not say that He was anointed as the "substitutionary atonement on the cross".
@thinkofone saidThis then is the question of the OP:
Let's see. Christians call Jesus "Lord". Christians call themselves "followers of Jesus".
At best, others can only echo the gospel preached by Jesus. Many have deviated so far from it in their teachings so as to be antithetical to it.
For example at the beginning of His ministry Jesus said He was anointed to preach His gospel, give sight to the blind and free the c ...[text shortened]... ves. That's it. He did not say that He was anointed as the "substitutionary atonement on the cross".
Are you implying that only the words of Jesus are to be followed, and that Paul's letters and advice should basically be ignored?
You, and others, seem to think that Paul contradicts Jesus.