Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you may have misread my post..I did not say that Paul did not preach the "Good news" He did.Paul never met or sat or learned at the feet of Jesus while he was alive. Paul was a pharisee bent on destroying the early church and murdered christians, until he says he had an encounter on the road to Damascus in Acts 22 when Jesus appeared in a vision..What I was referring to in my post is plainly about the church at Corinth and Ephesus, which I am sure you are familiar these two cities were steeped into worshipping Athena and others and had temples to them..They had never heard the "good news " until Paul taught it..The problem I refer to are his instructions to the churches he was trying to establish there. He had to give them some rules because of their lifestyles which were quite different now 2000 years in the future..We have the bible and 2000 years of teaching behind us that the Corinthians and Ephesians didn't..God Bless..
Quote:
I know a lot of people and a couple congregations who come very close to worshipping Paul..Everything is Paul said this or that..Not much is preached from the four gospels which contain the "good news" that Jesus taught..I think there is a lot of misunderstanding today when people try to apply Pauls instructions to the early churches in Corinth and Ephesus to us today..That is as always
just my opinion.
Hi Blue, I did not see the part that you wrote about the two churches until later...I believe Paul when he says that he saw a vision of the Lord and that he did not receive the revelation from man but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Yes, Paul was a murderer at first but in ignorance and Jesus was the One who appointed him to be a apostle. (Galatians 2) I believe that he has just as much acceptance and authority as any of the apostles regardless of his background. I believe that the same good news of Jesus Christ that was preached in the gospels was preached by Paul. It just sounded like to me that you were saying that that what Paul taught was not the same as the good news taught in the gospels. God bless.
[quote=blue62;3506150]I know a lot of people and a couple congregations who come very close to worshipping Paul..Everything is Paul said this or that..Not much is preached from the four gospels which contain the "good news" that Jesus taught..
Once more Shanna..I did not say that Paul did not preach the god news..I said that TODAY some congregations keep saying Paul said this or that( referring to church rules)instead of preaching (modern church leaders, not Paul) from the 4 gospels..Sorry I have such a hard time with explaining my opinions, must be a lack of some kind of vitamin
I put this on the other thread also before I realized this was here. This is partly why I believe Paul (and the others as well)...
As far as authority of Paul's writings...they are given authority by God himself. Paul performed miracles and other acts and signs, which confirmed he was a messenger of God. His writings were referred to as scripture by the other apostles, and vice versa.
All the NT documents have been scrutinized and have been found to be histroically accurate documents, not embellished or legend. It has been shown that the books and letters that make up the bible we have today are the same as when they were originally written. They have not been altered by man or time. There are very, very minor translation and transcription errors, but the accuracy is over 98%. None of those very minor issues affect any doctrinal teaching at all. Not one bit.
The books and letters were written by or under the guidance of first-hand eyewitnesses, who used names of very powerful people and many other witnesses to the events they describe. If they were lying, I'm sure those folks would have pointed it out back then. They didn't.
So we have accurate books and letters written by first-hand witnesses shortly after the events happened (within 20-30 yrs); making statements about events that were not contradicted by contemporaries and corroborated by and in complete harmony with the other books by other authors written at different times in different locations; written about by secular historians around the same time; and above all confirmed by God himself declaring these men his messengers by giving them the power to perform miracles and wonderous acts in front of thousands.
I say they're authentic and truthful and reliable just as it says in 2 Timothy.
The other part is faith .. but with all this support, the "leap of faith" isn't as large or as blind as some would lead you to think.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,387,912 times
Reputation: 3539
1. The book of Acts (authorship generally attributed to Luke, NOT Paul) does a pretty good job of explaining why Paul is considered authoritative. The documentation of Saul's conversion in Acts 9, and reiterated by Paul in Acts 22 and 26, states that Paul was accompanied by others on the road to Damascus where he had his encounter with Jesus. The companions heard the noise, but didn't see what Paul saw. Paul ended up blinded by this encounter. (So, there were witnesses to Paul's Damascus road experience.)
2. Then, Ananias had a vision where the Lord told him that Paul was the Lord's chosen instrument to carry his message to the Gentiles and their kings as well as to the people of Israel.
3. After that, Saul/Paul met with the apostles in Jerusalem and apparently received their seal of approval for they even protected Paul's life by removing him from Jerusalem when others sought to kill him.
4. Furthermore, the Bereans were mentioned in Acts also (ch 17). They were known for searching the Scriptures to see if what preachers told them could be found. Paul's teaching apparently met their strict standards.
5. In Acts 13, the Holy Spirit told the prophets and teachers at Antioch that Paul and Barnabas were to be set aside for the work the Holy Spirit was assigning them.
6. As Shana stated, Paul exhibited gifts such as tongues and healing. Acts 15:12 mentions signs and wonders God performed through Paul and Barnabas. Acts 19:11, 12 gets more specific: "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them." Others cast out demons in Jesus' name "of whom Paul speaks. (19:13)"
7. I have seen many studies about the composition of the Bible, with some truly awesome insights regarding placement of books, chapters, and verses. I am convinced the Bible we have today is divinely inspired and preserved despite man's intervention. I am further convinced God has preserved the Bible with 66 books, with the chapters and verses preserved in the order accepted today, including the writings of Paul. If God has seen fit to preserve Paul's writings, I'm going to pay attention to them.
-----
I once heard Luke referred to as an investigative reporter. His books are indicative of someone who interviewed witnesses in order to get a complete story. Likely, Luke obtained corroborating testimony about Paul before recording the book of Acts. Also, the original apostles would have investigated Paul's claims before accepting him, and other early Christians were wary of Paul's conversion until the details were proven to their satisfaction.
If we're going to discount Paul's teaching, then all of us Gentiles better start converting to Judaism because it is through Paul's testimony that the good news was open to the Gentiles (without them having to conform to Mosaic Law). Peter's vision only corroborates Paul's mission, and Ananias' was relative specifically to Paul.
I know a lot of people and a couple congregations who come very close to worshipping Paul..Everything is Paul said this or that..Not much is preached from the four gospels which contain the "good news" that Jesus taught..I think there is a lot of misunderstanding today when people try to apply Pauls instructions to the early churches in Corinth and Ephesus to us today..That is as always just my opinion.
If we're looking for more than Paul's witness of himself as an apostle,
we get get it from other sources than Paul himself.
For example, Peter ( an apostle ) also acknowledges Paul.
I dont' really understand your question.. Can you clarify?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
