Paul's value?

@chaney3 said
I'm not certain that I ever paid attention to the fact that Paul never met Jesus, and that Paul's conversion was basically a story told by Paul himself, which is yet another thing one must believe on faith.

Not sure how I feel about that exactly.

For me, it ended up being one of several forks in the road, or one of the dealbreakers I mentioned, on my spiritual journey and during my drawn-out tenets-of-faith stocktake.

Ultimately, it is a take-it-or-leave-it "requirement" for being a conventional Christian.

But, having experienced ~ or realized ~ the spell was broken [for want of a better expression] and having reappraised what I do and don't feel to be credible, I find it inconceivable that I would ever again swallow, internalize and subscribe to such an utterly convoluted and farfetched theology like the doctrine of atonement. It had me going there for many a year.

This is just my personal take on it. If it makes sense and feels worthy of acting upon to Christians, good for them. The religion ~ when practiced more then when just thought about ~ has plenty of positive sides, as I have often stated before.

@chaney3 said
I'm not certain that I ever paid attention to the fact that Paul never met Jesus, and that Paul's conversion was basically a story told by Paul himself, which is yet another thing one must believe on faith.

Not sure how I feel about that exactly.

I think it's generally accepted that Paul’s contributions are the oldest portion of the NT - i.e. approximately 30 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans - so they were written maybe 10 or 20 years before the Gospels. Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor the empty tomb, nor does he mention any physical resurrection [only a spiritual one], and he also talks about Jesus appearing to twelve Apostles which suggests the story about Judas committing suicide wasn't made up until maybe a decade or more later.

@fmf said
I think it's generally accepted that Paul’s contributions are the oldest portion of the NT - i.e. approximately 30 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans - so they were written maybe 10 or 20 years before the Gospels. Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor the empty tomb, nor does he mention any physical resurrection [only a spiritual one], and he also ...[text shortened]... suggests the story about Judas committing suicide wasn't made up until maybe a decade or more later.

I did not know that. Any of it.
I always assumed that the Gospels were written first, simply based on where they appear in the Bible.

@fmf said
I think it's generally accepted that Paul’s contributions are the oldest portion of the NT - i.e. approximately 30 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans - so they were written maybe 10 or 20 years before the Gospels. Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor the empty tomb, nor does he mention any physical resurrection [only a spiritual one], and he also ...[text shortened]... suggests the story about Judas committing suicide wasn't made up until maybe a decade or more later.

If that timeline is really true, then it's highly suspicious that Paul wouldn't mention some of the things in the Gospels.

@chaney3 said
I did not know that. Any of it.
I always assumed that the Gospels were written first, simply based on where they appear in the Bible.

You're not going to get any history lessons from the likes of sonship, KellyJay and SecondSon. You're just going to get doctrine.

Then again, while I am a historian by training, I am not an expert in the early Christianities. So don't accept at face value any "history lesson" from me. I'm just sharing my perspective.

Take a look at Bart D. Ehrman's books and videos. He's a world-renowned and respected-by-many-Christians historian [and former believer] specializing in the New Testament and the early years of Christianity.

When I mentioned him a few months ago [in a very non-"anti-Christian" way... I was extolling the virtues of his recent book "Triumph of Christianity"], a flustered sonship claimed that some bloke with a community college qualification in playing the guitar was a more skilled and knowledgeable historian with regard to that era.

I wouldn't be surprised if sonship's knickers are STILL in a twist after Ehrman's work was mentioned on this message board.

Anyway. If you believe "in" Paul, then that's your prerogative.

@chaney3 said
If that timeline is really true, then it's highly suspicious that Paul wouldn't mention some of the things in the Gospels.

Don't take my word for it.

@fmf said
Don't take my word for it.

I'm assuming 2 things:

You've researched the timeline.
You have no reason to lie.

It's mind boggling that Paul never wrote about some of the many things he could have that are included in the Gospels.

Being repetitive could not have been an issue since he was first in writing.

@chaney3 said
You have no reason to lie.

Look into the role played by the Flavians.

@fmf said
I think it's generally accepted that Paul’s contributions are the oldest portion of the NT - i.e. approximately 30 years after Jesus was executed by the Romans - so they were written maybe 10 or 20 years before the Gospels. Paul doesn't mention the virgin birth, nor any miracles, nor the empty tomb, nor does he mention any physical resurrection [only a spiritual one], and he also ...[text shortened]... suggests the story about Judas committing suicide wasn't made up until maybe a decade or more later.

Does anyone care to comment on this post?
I was surprised by not only the timeline of Paul's writings, but what he chose not to mention as well.

@chaney3

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?

Romans 10:9 is one important verse out of many other important things Paul writes, not only in that book but in his other epistles and speeches in Acts.

I think for one, we could recognize that the man's thought is not just one verse in the New Testament.

We can start on the evaluation of Paul's contribution by taking that passage AND the rest of the 16 CHAPTERS of what he has to tell us.

@sonship said
@chaney3

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?

Romans 10:9 is one important verse out of many other important things Paul writes, not only in that book but in his other epistles and speeches in [b ...[text shortened]... aul's contribution by taking that passage AND the rest of the 16 CHAPTERS of what he has to tell us.

Have you read the entire thread?

@chaney3 said
I was surprised by not only the timeline of Paul's writings, but what he chose not to mention as well.

Perhaps the "what he left out" simply hadn't been conjured up by the NT's writers yet.

@fmf said
Perhaps the "what he left out" simply hadn't been conjured up by the NT's writers yet.

Putting aside the fact that one needs to believe and trust Paul's version of his 'meeting' with Jesus......I'm surprised that nobody on this forum is concerned with the timeline of his writings, and what he neglected to say.

Seems kind of a big deal.

@chaney3 said
Putting aside the fact that one needs to believe and trust Paul's version of his 'meeting' with Jesus......I'm surprised that nobody on this forum is concerned with the timeline of his writings, and what he neglected to say.

Putting aside all doubts is precisely what having firm strong faith involves.

@chaney3 said
Putting aside the fact that one needs to believe and trust Paul's version of his 'meeting' with Jesus......I'm surprised that nobody on this forum is concerned with the timeline of his writings, and what he neglected to say.

Seems kind of a big deal.

Of course you could actually take the time read and comprehend (in its entirety) what's said in the following:

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in The Journals. Quote:
"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, has been called "one of the greatest Christians of his time." In his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul he writes: Quote:
"Paul....did not desire to know Christ....Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded....What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?....The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority....The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."

Pasted from <http://www.wizanda.com/modules/article/view.article.php/article=52>