17 Mar 21
@fmf saidThere's no knowing Christ without the Bible; there is also no approaching Christ without approaching through the Church, though surely those who are prevented from Church membership are not cut off from Christ. Christ will work with them how He can.
There is no knowing Jesus without Paul.
There is no knowing God without Paul.
There is no knowing God without Jesus.
Are all these statements 100% true according to Christians?
St. Paul's epistles are in the Bible because they are the inspired word of God. St. Paul was chosen by God to be instrumental in the formation of the Church.
I think this is a much better way of understanding St. Paul's relationship to the church, and the effort to say that St. Paul is a vital doorway for getting to Christ is actually wrong.
St. Paul is simply an inspired New Testament author who faithfully recorded God's words and interpreted God's message at the behest of God.
This is how St. Paul even records himself:
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
(1 Tim. 1:12-16)
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidAnd these are take-it or leave-it assertions, right?
St. Paul's epistles are in the Bible because they are the inspired word of God. St. Paul was chosen by God to be instrumental in the formation of the Church.
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidUtter church garbage. Will deal with this tomorrow.
There's no knowing Christ without the Bible; there is also no approaching Christ without approaching through the Church, though surely those who are prevented from Church membership are not cut off from Christ. Christ will work with them how He can.
St. Paul's epistles are in the Bible because they are the inspired word of God. St. Paul was chosen by God ...[text shortened]... an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.[/quote]
(1 Tim. 1:12-16)
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidDo you think the evidence that "St. Paul was chosen by God" has exactly the same credibility as the evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and that he rose from the dead?
St. Paul was chosen by God to be instrumental in the formation of the Church.
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidYou mean, Paul makes claims about himself being chosen by God and about his words being inspired by God - and he makes these claims in his own writing and, regardless of whether this is credible or not, one MUST believe this?
This is how St. Paul even records himself...
I get that people who buy into these claims rely on their faith to ignore the fact that it is extraordinarily weak evidence, but HAVING to believe this seems like a very mundane, partisan concept and not some supernatural design for the human race.
17 Mar 21
@fmf saidI would imagine that people who reject Christ would most certainly reject the idea that St. Paul was compelled by the triune God to undertake his mission.
Do you think the evidence that "St. Paul was chosen by God" has exactly the same credibility as the evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and that he rose from the dead?
So, I do not see the idea that they are regarded as having similar levels of 'credibility' being false, and that people who do not find Christ credible would likewise not find St. Paul credible, or the claims of any of the Apostles to be credible.
17 Mar 21
@fmf saidSt. Paul is written about in Acts 9; Acts 9 was not written by St. Paul.
You mean, Paul makes claims about himself being chosen by God and about his words being inspired by God - and he makes these claims in his own writing and, regardless of whether this is credible or not, one MUST believe this?
I get that people who buy into these claims rely on their faith to ignore the fact that it is extraordinarily weak evidence, but HAVING to believ ...[text shortened]... his seems like a very mundane, partisan concept and not some supernatural design for the human race.
St. Paul linked together many churches, evangelized many places, and was held in very high esteem by early Christians, in spite of the fact that he was initially an agent of the Jewish fanatics that were persecuting Christians.
I do not understand what is suspicious about believing in what is written by St. Paul.
Seeing how he was lauded by so many Christian communities and his advice followed trusted, and seeing how Church fathers followed his words closely,and believed what was said about him, and we do not have records of the Church community denouncing him anywhere, and that the persecuted Christians flocked to this man who himself was persecuted, it would be rather odd to believe some conspiracy where he is some corrupter of Chrsitianity or an illegitimate Church figure.
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidIn my case, I suppose, it was the other way around.
I would imagine that people who reject Christ would most certainly reject the idea that St. Paul was compelled by the triune God to undertake his mission.
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidNo one is disputing that Christianity was established, that it went through rough times, that it prospered, and that it has been and is a very successful religion.
St. Paul linked together many churches, evangelized many places, and was held in very high esteem by early Christians, in spite of the fact that he was initially an agent of the Jewish fanatics that were persecuting Christians.
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidYou have misunderstood me. I am not "suspicious" about you "believing in what is written by St. Paul".
I do not understand what is suspicious about believing in what is written by St. Paul.
17 Mar 21
@philokalia saidThis is evidence that he was an important figure in the early Christian church. It isn't direct evidence that he was chosen by God to be instrumental in the formation of the Church.
Seeing how he was lauded by so many Christian communities and his advice followed trusted, and seeing how Church fathers followed his words closely,and believed what was said about him, and we do not have records of the Church community denouncing him anywhere, and that the persecuted Christians flocked to this man who himself was persecuted, it would be rather odd ...[text shortened]... believe some conspiracy where he is some corrupter of Chrsitianity or an illegitimate Church figure.
17 Mar 21
@fmf saidThat would not be without consistency and thus can be said to be a rational way to approach the question.
In my case, I suppose, it was the other way around.
17 Mar 21
@fmf saidThat would be correct.
This is evidence that he was an important figure in the early Christian church. It isn't direct evidence that he was chosen by God to be instrumental in the formation of the Church.
What we have are the testimony of the Apostles, and that is it.
There is no direct evidence in any of this that will get you beyond the point of faith and into the realm of just believing in proven facts.