How do you know if Paul was speaking gods words and not just his opinion?

[ToddNotTodd]

the proofs presents themselves.

More non answer. I'll take that as "no, there's no evidence at all."

 

[jayem]

Uh no. It is the verdict of history.

Either they were used by the churches in that time period and considered to be authoritative or they were not.

I'm not arguing how scripture was understood in the past. My point is that what was considered authoritative in antiquity, doesn't mean it is valid and true today. If you've studied theology in any formal setting, you would know there are many serious academic theologians--including many who are professed Christians--who don't believe the OT, or NT, are absolutely infallible and inerrant, and must always be understood literally. I'll refer you to one book by Rev. Peter Gomes, the late Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard Divinity School. The Good Book. Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind.

Paul's epistles were written for a specific audience in a specific cultural context. You can believe whatever you like. But it doesn't destroy Christianity to recognize that teachings designed for the church of 2000 years ago are not necessarily applicable to the 21st century.

 

[tulipbee]

More non answer. I'll take that as "no, there's no evidence at all."

my calculator did just fine. tests passed each time. results are same each time.
dont need to answer something already answered. you didnt do your homework

 

[Albion]

I'm not arguing how scripture was understood in the past. My point is that what was considered authoritative in antiquity, doesn't mean it is valid and true today. If you've studied theology in any formal setting, you would know there are many serious academic theologians--including many who are professed Christians--who don't believe the OT, or NT, are absolutely infallible and inerrant, and must always be understood literally.

The existence of such academics means only that the Bible or the faith has been called into question by some people. Nothing more. It doesn't make them right or even the majority of such people. We have scientists and philosophers who take opposite positions on almost anything but, for some reason, when religion comes up for discussion, there's always someone who says "This professor doubts what a jillion previous scholars believed, so 'that's it! Out with it!'"

Paul's epistles were written for a specific audience in a specific cultural context. You can believe whatever you like. But it doesn't destroy Christianity to recognize that teachings designed for the church of 2000 years ago are not necessarily applicable to the 21st century.

This same argument would apply to the whole of the Bible, logically speaking. All of it was written long ago and by apparently ordinary people who were part of some culture that's unlike our own in certain ways, therefore, it's all to be "de-mythologized." And that is to say, "Don't believe that God had any hand in this." And of course, the next step is to say "We have no proof that there is a God anyway."

The point is that religion does depend, in the end, on faith, albeit a faith based upon a plausible set of ideas and information. Some people accept them. Others do not accept them. Some want to have it both ways at once. And, finally, some don't accept them and are also really determined that those who do accept them must be made to understand that they've been duped but that they of course are entitled to go on believing it if that makes them feel good.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

my calculator did just fine. tests passed each time. results are same each time.
dont need to answer something already answered. you didnt do your homework

Oh, I've read all the reasons why trying to attribute meaning to patterns in large amounts of text is actually meaningless. I've seen the math behind it. Between the two of us, you're definitely the one that hasn't done any homework.

In particular, you should read "How not to be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg. There's an entire chapter about how the Bible code is nonsense.

 

[jayem]

The point is that religion does depend, in the end, on faith, albeit a faith based upon a plausible set of ideas and information. Some people accept them. Others do not accept them.

I agree completely that religious belief is a matter of faith. But claiming that faith is supported by the test of time is not a valid argument. About 23% of the world has faith in Islam. It's been around for 1300 years, and is growing faster than Christianity. To me, that would qualify as passing the test of time. But that doesn't mean the Koran is well-founded and authoritative.

I question why some religious believers (and this goes for observant Muslims or orthodox Jews, and others. I'm not singling out Christians.) insist that ancient scripture must be considered infallible, immutable, and fully binding on those alive today. Does belief in scripture have to be binary--either you believe every word, or you are apostate? I don't see how it damages faith to use some judgment and discernment when applying words written centuries ago to modern life.

 

[tulipbee]

Oh, I've read all the reasons why trying to attribute meaning to patterns in large amounts of text is actually meaningless. I've seen the math behind it. Between the two of us, you're definitely the one that hasn't done any homework.

In particular, you should read "How not to be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking" by Jordan Ellenberg. There's an entire chapter about how the Bible code is nonsense.

ok thank you

 

[Albion]

I agree completely that religious belief is a matter of faith. But claiming that faith is supported by the test of time is not a valid argument.

The claim was that the Scriptures have stood up to 2000 years of skepticism and attacks.

 

[jayem]

The claim was that the Scriptures have stood up to 2000 years of skepticism and attacks.

Have they really? Why is there so much disagreement among scholars over interpretation?

BTW: Which books of the Old and New Testaments are considered canonical wasn't addressed until maybe the 4th century. So. the current canon is more like 1600 years old, at most. And I suppose you know that the Anglicans didn't begin to formally canonize their scripture until the 16th century. And of course, James I, in order to improve on earlier translations, ordered the AV, not completed until 1611.

 

[Dave RP]

I'd like to know what your friend said that Paul said. If you tell me this, I possibly can know which letter has this and we can discuss it.

There is some question about if Joseph Smith really believed everything he has presented, because ones claim that the plates he used were fake and he knew they were fake. I Joseph knew they were fake, may be he did write on them what he believed, or there were a number of things which he put in them, but which he did not believe. I suppose, he could have made the fake plates, in order to try to promote what he believed.

But it has been reported that he had been a con artists. Even so, I know others could make things up about him. Even if he was a fake, still others could add on things which are not true. But I have glanced at some of his writings, I think, and they do not come close to being substantial and helpful like Paul's writings have been, for me.

In our Christian culture churches, we do have people who might believe something, and they will say "God told me this", in order to get others to accept it. They might really believe it is so but did not really hear from God. Others are totally making things up in order to influence others and get status for hearing from God.

But we understand that Paul's letters are what he himself wrote or dictated . . . by God's inspiration. My impression is that what Paul has written is not what genes would in evolution mutate to make a human capable of imagining without God's input

I personally keep finding that what Paul has written matches with Jesus and how Jesus walked and loved and things Jesus said. And Paul's writings have helped me to get with God, and my experience with God is a match with what Paul has written. So, I am not only going by someone else's say-so. However there is one catch > God keeps bringing me to a better meaning, of any scripture, than whatever I might already understand . . . His love meaning, which is not only intellectual explanation, but how I become in His love.

It was all about being "unequally yoked with an unbeliever" and came up as I am a non believer, and am dating a Christian.

Apparently Paul warned against it and I said it was just his opinion as he was talking after Jesus was dead therefore could not be talking the word of god.

 

[Albion]

Have they really? Why is there so much disagreement among scholars over interpretation?

Well, that's a separate matter and disputes over interpretation are just that--issues of the reader's understanding, not the authenticity of the document. What I was referring to were the many attempts to show that the contents are just fiction, fantasy, etc. and, therefore, not inspired.

BTW: Which books of the Old and New Testaments are considered canonical wasn't addressed until maybe the 4th century.

The last several of the NT only, and it's not as though they had not been in use among the churches already.

 

[com7fy8]

It was all about being "unequally yoked with an unbeliever" and came up as I am a non believer, and am dating a Christian.

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14)

This is the scripture which Christians use to advise Christians not to marry unbelievers. But we encourage each other to be good examples so atheists and others will be satisfied to join us.

If a person claims to be a Christian but becomes attracted to marry an atheist, this brings up an interesting question > what it is about the atheist which makes him or her more desirable than another Christian?

Apparently Paul warned against it and I said it was just his opinion as he was talking after Jesus was dead therefore could not be talking the word of god.

I will offer, that the scripture I quoted, above, is not stated as opinion. Also, it is in the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians - - not in the first letter to the Corinthians, where ones say Paul presents an opinion about marriage.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians, we have a case of Paul saying what ones interpret to be his opinion, about marriage > 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. He is clear he is not giving his opinion about a Christian couple > they do not have the option of getting a divorce. But in case a Christian has a nonbeliever who wants to leave, it is his opinion that the believer should let the unbeliever leave. But I understand this would be a case when the two were both unbelievers when they got married; he does not mean he is ok with a Christian marrying an unbeliever and then letting the person do.

But in the case in which two unbelieving people get married and then one trusts in Jesus, Paul can understand that the remaining unbeliever might not be too happy about that, and the person should not be forced to stay in the marriage. But, of course, we would have hope for the unbeliever to see the good of becoming a Christian and would be satisfied by God to join us. We trust God to prove Himself. Therefore, are not to pressure people, certainly not hold a marital relationship and children and intimacy hostage, in order to get an unbeliever to do what we want. Paul, here, I think, is saying not to abuse the fact that you have a connection with someone you are married to, if you have changed to be with Jesus.

So . . . that is another question > if someone knows God's word and really is a Christian, is it considerate to get closely involved with someone who is not a believer? Because we who know God and His word are well aware of how our ways do not match with the ways of unbelievers. It can be different, for each couple, though. There might be a person who does not buy his or her parents' Christian stuff and could care less if he or she marries an atheist or other non-Christian. Someone else might be not relating well with Christians and so he or she is not getting a Christian to marry him or her; the person can be unsubject, unhearing; and then, in desperation the lonely person might fish elsewhere for someone to use for what he or she wants, and will not listen to people who counsel him or her to wait on God for a Christian spouse and learn how to relate unselfishly.

Also > what if the Christian is only getting started with Jesus? The person has indeed started to know Jesus and relate more and more caringly; and so he or she can be attractive, by being a sensitive and caring person, so a non-Christian could be attracted to the person. The person might get married but then become much more developed according to the Bible, while meanwhile the unbeliever could be getting more and more turned-off. Things indeed might not stay how they were when the two first got together. And the unbeliever could feel he or she was tricked.

But I feel that if we have the real deal, with the real God, then He is able to deeply satisfy you and whomever to want Jesus and find out how to do things His way. And if my example doesn't work for people, then my talk is nothing. It says >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Apparently Paul warned against it and I said it was just his opinion as he was talking after Jesus was dead therefore could not be talking the word of god.

Paul was taught by Revelation of Yeshua directly,
but that's not as important as Torah.
Torah is what Yhwh Gave Israel so they could be His People separate from all the other nations at the time.
Basically all the New Testament is spoken out from Torah.
To wit, concerning marrying an unbeliever/ gentile/ pagan/ heathen:
Deuteronomy 7:
…2and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. 4"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.…

 

[Dave RP]

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14)

This is the scripture which Christians use to advise Christians not to marry unbelievers. But we encourage each other to be good examples so atheists and others will be satisfied to join us.

If a person claims to be a Christian but becomes attracted to marry an atheist, this brings up an interesting question > what it is about the atheist which makes him or her more desirable than another Christian?

I will offer, that the scripture I quoted, above, is not stated as opinion. Also, it is in the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians - - not in the first letter to the Corinthians, where ones say Paul presents an opinion about marriage.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians, we have a case of Paul saying what ones interpret to be his opinion, about marriage > 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. He is clear he is not giving his opinion about a Christian couple > they do not have the option of getting a divorce. But in case a Christian has a nonbeliever who wants to leave, it is his opinion that the believer should let the unbeliever leave. But I understand this would be a case when the two were both unbelievers when they got married; he does not mean he is ok with a Christian marrying an unbeliever and then letting the person do.

But in the case in which two unbelieving people get married and then one trusts in Jesus, Paul can understand that the remaining unbeliever might not be too happy about that, and the person should not be forced to stay in the marriage. But, of course, we would have hope for the unbeliever to see the good of becoming a Christian and would be satisfied by God to join us. We trust God to prove Himself. Therefore, are not to pressure people, certainly not hold a marital relationship and children and intimacy hostage, in order to get an unbeliever to do what we want. Paul, here, I think, is saying not to abuse the fact that you have a connection with someone you are married to, if you have changed to be with Jesus.

So . . . that is another question > if someone knows God's word and really is a Christian, is it considerate to get closely involved with someone who is not a believer? Because we who know God and His word are well aware of how our ways do not match with the ways of unbelievers. It can be different, for each couple, though. There might be a person who does not buy his or her parents' Christian stuff and could care less if he or she marries an atheist or other non-Christian. Someone else might be not relating well with Christians and so he or she is not getting a Christian to marry him or her; the person can be unsubject, unhearing; and then, in desperation the lonely person might fish elsewhere for someone to use for what he or she wants, and will not listen to people who counsel him or her to wait on God for a Christian spouse and learn how to relate unselfishly.

Also > what if the Christian is only getting started with Jesus? The person has indeed started to know Jesus and relate more and more caringly; and so he or she can be attractive, by being a sensitive and caring person, so a non-Christian could be attracted to the person. The person might get married but then become much more developed according to the Bible, while meanwhile the unbeliever could be getting more and more turned-off. Things indeed might not stay how they were when the two first got together. And the unbeliever could feel he or she was tricked.

But I feel that if we have the real deal, with the real God, then He is able to deeply satisfy you and whomever to want Jesus and find out how to do things His way. And if my example doesn't work for people, then my talk is nothing. It says >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

Thanks again for the response.

Our situation is this, we are both in our 50's with grown up children, she is a long term Christian, having been brought up in a church going christian family. We are both divorced, her husband effectively abandoned her with two young children, I was divorced for my adultery. My parents were of the opinion that I should find out and decide for myself if I wanted to follow any religion so apart from the odd marriage, funeral or christening we never went to church and I have found that I simply do not believe in God.

I cannot say why she was attracted to me, but after 17 years of being on her own and with her children growing up and leaving home she was hoping to find a man to share her life with, she hadn't found anyone in her church that she was physically attracted to or felt an emotional connection with. She says she prayed to god, and god sent me (my version is of course different, I think we just met by coincidence). Some people at her church have been very judgemental, one even going to the point of saying she MUST finish this relationship and quoting Paul for the reason, that made her upset and was, I thought, a very hurtful thing to do.

So, I am not a believer in any religion, but I am a caring person and I respect everyone has the right to believe anything they want as long as it respects the law of the land and they don't try to force their beliefs on others. We get on really well and are fond of each other, my adult children have met her and they all liked each other, and vice versa, so we can see no reason why we shouldn't carry on seeing each other. We are not married but we don't see that as an issue as we are committed to each other. In any event no church would marry us as I am divorced for my own adultery, so the church can hardly comment about whether we are married or not.

Paul like most writers of the time would not really understand what modern society is about, where religion is on the decline and we live in a multi-faith society, where contraception and sexual equality are the norm, so I don't think his texts should be taken to literally. In ancient times a wife was more like the chattel of the husband and equality in relationships didn't exist. Society has moved on and I think Christianity (and all faiths for that matter) need to find a better way to reflect the modern world. In my opinion it was wrong for some members of her church to condemn a loving, faithful relationship on the basis of my lack of faith, when ther hadn't even met me.

 

[Dave RP]

Paul was taught by Revelation of Yeshua directly,
but that's not as important as Torah.
Torah is what Yhwh Gave Israel so they could be His People separate from all the other nations at the time.
Basically all the New Testament is spoken out from Torah.
To wit, concerning marrying an unbeliever/ gentile/ pagan/ heathen:
Deuteronomy 7:
…2and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. 4"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.…

That's Old Testament stuff, not related to Paul. In modern Britain it would not be considered good form to "utterly destroy... " people with different views than yourself, this was written for different people at a different time and is irrelevant to modern life, thankfully.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yhwh Spoke First.
Yeshua Spoke what Yhwh Spoke.
Paul Spoke what Yeshua Spoke.

The whole world is under a death sentence.

The only salvation is in Yeshua Messiah.

That's Old Testament stuff, not related to Paul. In modern Britain it would not be considered good form to "utterly destroy... " people with different views than yourself, this was written for different people at a different time and is irrelevant to modern life, thankfully.

 

[com7fy8]

She says she prayed to god, and god sent me (my version is of course different, I think we just met by coincidence).

lololol I understand you each might have different interpretations And if you have love, you are getting a sample of how different ideas can matter less if you have love to satisfy you through differences. And our Apostle Paul . . . though he would not approve of you getting married . . . would likely say that he has experienced how God's love made him able to even take "pleasure" in his various troubles > 2 Corinthians 12:7-15. He could take quite a beating, at times, and get a lot of rejection, for what he promoted. But love made him able to keep on facing and reaching to even ones who hated him.

Some people at her church have been very judgemental, one even going to the point of saying she MUST finish this relationship and quoting Paul for the reason, that made her upset and was, I thought, a very hurtful thing to do.

Well, if they don't even know you, and maybe do not really know her . . . why let someone who doesn't know you have power over how you are? I am not perfect about this, but I keep praying for God to make me strong so if anyone is against me I can be in their face with kindness so they can see they are not going to decide how I am. And this can help to encourage people who may fear me, somehow; among other things, they can see I am not going to retaliate.

no church would marry us as I am divorced for my own adultery,

Well, you have told the truth about this, I seems. So, I respect this! I understand that different even Bible claiming churches and individuals can have different practical ways of handling if they would pronounce someone who was divorced for adultery. While ones of us would not advise a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, ones might say that if you become a Christian, you start new and so your past is erased > 2 Corinthians 5:17 < Paul says this; so, possibly Paul is not as against you as much as you think.

Paul like most writers of the time would not really understand what modern society is about, where religion is on the decline and we live in a multi-faith society, where contraception and sexual equality are the norm, so I don't think his texts should be taken to literally.

I think Paul understood how things work deeply, in our character; and this has not changed. He says there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience", in Ephesians 2:2. And I understand that Satan's spirit of selfishness does have conscious feelings and emotions which can mess people up. And the personality torments of this do not go away because of physical medicines; so the ones who do not understand might not be Paul.

In ancient times a wife was more like the chattel of the husband and equality in relationships didn't exist.

That was present in culture, but look at how the men reacted, in 1 Samuel 30, when the enemy Amalekites took their wives and children. I don't think they just considered their families to be property. Also, look how the LORD dealt with Jacob when he loved Rachel but not Leah > Genesis 29:31.

And here is how we Christians are directed to relate with one another >

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

To me, this means men and women relate in mutual submission . . . "in the fear of God", which I think means in submission to how our Father has us relating. So, both the man and woman need to be submissive to our Father. But roles and positions may vary, but the love is the same (Romans 5:5). But humans can confuse status with love; ones, of course, would be fine with being a big movie star, even if it means being a dirtbag character. So, why are ones so worried if a man has more authority . . . while deeply caring for his wife, like Paul says to do > Colossians 3:19? But for money and fame, sure ones want to be stars. But trusting a husband to take certain responsibility for things . . . all of a sudden this is a problem.

Society has moved on and I think Christianity (and all faiths for that matter) need to find a better way to reflect the modern world.

Well, if the modern world has developed more physical ways of doing things, and these ways don't work to make us deeply sound and happy and peaceful people, I don't think the Bible needs to adapt to this

In my opinion it was wrong for some members of her church to condemn a loving, faithful relationship on the basis of my lack of faith, when ther hadn't even met me.

Now . . . about being strong and loving, Jesus says, "if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46) I have seen how a number of church people, themselves, can go find someone for romance and we never even meet the person. They, then, have possibly isolated themselves with each other, not developing as family with all of us, then they ambush us with their news that they're getting married. How is this family? Our Heavenly Father, I understand, is about family caring and sharing love >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

I notice and offer how we need "longsuffering". Because yes there will be people who will be wrong. We need to be ready with strong love with the "longsuffering" Hiding and isolating is not having "longsuffering". And in case our love is mainly capable only of loving certain people who give us what we want, this is weak and we could break down even with our favorites as we get closer and more involved. So, I think Paul cares about how you develop and love. This is what he is most concerned about, more than our beliefs and practices.

So, in comparing Paul's writings with what Jesus says, I am comparing how they apply to lovlng, most of all, with how love has me become in my character.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Biblical Canon is confessed to be the word of God through the historic consensus and tradition of the Christian Church. I'm not of the opinion that the biblical writers saw themselves as "God's mouth piece", certainly in the case of the ancient Prophets there's that where there is, "Thus says YHVH"; but I simply don't think that's how the biblical writers understood themselves or what they were doing for the most part.

But the writings of Paul are not confessed to be God's word because Paul was, in some sense, God's quill; but because the letters of Paul were received within the Church, read as Scripture, and from these the faithful heard Christ being preached, in the reading of these books the faithful received and heard God's Gospel word, they heard God's Eternal Word (Jesus Himself).

It is therefore within the Church's ancient and received confession that I accept the Scriptures to be divinely inspired for the purpose of directing my--and the rest of God's people--focus to Christ and the confession of Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

To put it simpler, did you know or realize or ever even hear,
that it was proven satisfactorily way before you were ever born
that Paul and all his letters in Scripture are absolutely authentic !?
(and the rest of Scripture as well).

Sorry. This ends this little tidbit of information. Any further knowledge of it will have to be found elsewhere. Shalom !

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I've been seriously out of touch not learning about the contention surrounding Apostle Paul. What's this now? Three threads questioning his authenticity as an Apostle of Christ?