Christians, why do you trust Paul so much?

Question

Why do you trust Paul to tell you what Jesus meant? What if he was wrong?

How would you know? He never meant Jesus, just told you what in his opinion Jesus meant. And now his opinion of what Jesus meant is the basis of Christianity. His opinion is a large part of the New Testament. Why care what he says so much? He wasn't God, or the son of God.

Couldn't taking his word as truth be considered idolatry? Why just accept that he was right? All we have are his own claims of divine inspiration to go on, and what is that worth really?

He never **met** Jesus, sorry.

Honestly, if you let Pauls' words into the Bible because he says he was divinely inspired, than shouldn't anyone who says their writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit be allowed to add their writings to the Bible. What is it that makes Paul different?

Why would you trust anyone to tell you what Jesus meant in the first place?

They did not meet- Paul was not during Jesus' lifetime.

Paul SAID Jesus appeared to him. But I'm sure lots of people have said that. Why believe him over many others?

Batgirl, Tbone, I'm sorry, but most do unfortunatly. Good for you guys though.

Answer 1

God protects His Word.

Answer 2

It's funny, modern Christians are MUCH more likely to quote Paul when telling you something about Christianity than Christ himself.

Personally, I think to their credit at least Catholics run about 50-50 between the two (probably because all the "saved by works" stuff by Jesus runs exactly counter to Paul's "Saved by grace" them).

Along those lines, if evangelicals do quote the gospels, it is almost always John, which is the only one that even hints at Paul's type of theology.

It is funny that they trust most of their theology and almost half their testament to a guy who claims Jesus visited him a dream, and gives conflicting stories as to how it happened.

I always wonder why Paul is necessary. Jesus handpicked 12 guys (Judas didn't work out so well, so the other 11 replaced him), yet none of them had the chops to do Gentile work. Why was Jesus so inept at picking his apostles that 3 years after he died he had to go back and recruit another. Was Bartholomew really that big of a screw up? Was Andrew busy? What was Phillip's problem?

Paul named himself an apostle, obviously didn't get along with the original 12, and took off in a whole new direction. Personally, I think he was just trying to cash in on a good idea. Worked out pretty well for him, in the long run.

Answer 3

Simple. I have studied the new testament books for years, many of which are generally thought to be authored by Paul. I have heard the word of God in them, just like the rest of scripture. Being a Christian, I have the spirit of God within me and have been given "ears to hear" and discern God's spirit.

Nothing Paul ever taught contradicted anything else in scripture. He was, as He claimed to be, an apostle called by Jesus Christ.

Interesting that Paul's letters are attacked so often. But then, he gave us most of what the new testament consists of today, no real wonder the enemy (not you; but satan) would call him into question.

Answer 4

I don't idolized any of the human writers of the Bible, as they were all just God's servants. I do however, read and reverence the scriptures, because I believe God gave each writer that calling and inspired their writing. I have reverence for God and His word first and foremost.

I don't know Paul as a person, but do trust his writings because I recognized the spirit behind them, if that makes sense. God has been good to me and I've had a relationship with Him for years... it's not too hard to recognize his voice when He is behind a person's words.

In a more tangible way, Paul's writings line up with the central principles of the Bible. If you want to know my thoughs on specific points that Paul made, and how they line up with scripture, ask me by email.

If, by chance, you have questions about things Paul said about women, please do ask me! Or read "Beyond the Curse, Women Called To Ministry" by Aida Spencer. Paul did NOT say that women were inferior nor did he give them second-class status in the church. Many people claim that, but he actually had at least one woman who he considered a leader to him. He wasn't a sexist, his words got twisted.

Answer 5

I take it for what it is. Good advice in some respects but it is a human sermon by a human who claims to follow Jesus and claims to have had an experience with him.

I don't take his word as 'Gospel.' How can I? His friends are the ones who wrote the new testament other than the Synoptic gospels and a few others. It is said that Peter was written by a contemporary of Paul and not Peter himself.

James contradicts Paul.

So, you have take it as it is, someone's opinion and let God's holy spirit guide you through the rest.

Answer 6

Paul never expected his letters to become part of the Old Testament either. I don't think Paul is entirely to blame for the longevity of his preachings that were not of Jesus' real religion which led men to believe they can be Sons of God - free of dogma and enslaving creeds and dogmas. Paul was a murderer who became a convert. But his social and cultural beliefs got really mixed up with his spirituality and his preachings show that clearly.

I do not follow all of Paul, but then again I'm Jesusonian, not entirely Christian. I don't think Jesus came for our atonement at all, and so, no, Paul made that up in order to try and relate the events of the cross to the more stubbornly stuck Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis of those days who would not let go of the sacrificial idea. They still held tight to the jealous wrathful God ideas...so, Paul just went at it, and sadly some of the other apostles followed him. Not Abner, though.

Truth is, that atonement idea is really, really selfish, and conflictory with the truth of Jesus incarnation here. All people are responsible for their own actions and choices. God is forgiving and merciful the same as always whether Jesus was crucified or not. God would have preferred that Jesus live his whole life out here - he would have done so much more good for humankind if he could have lived. The people of those days who crucified him are the ones who sinned against God's wishes that horrible day.

Answer 7

Paul did meet Jesus and was taught by Jesus.
Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Why do you diss Paul? God must have thought Paul was important enough to use to get His message across, otherwise He would not have inspired him to write almost half the New Testament. FYI...Paul wrote 13 of the 27 New Testament epistles.

Answer 8

St. Paul's writings are in the Bible because the CHURCH decided Paul's words were true ... and his theology was correct, and perfectly in keeping with what was revealed to the other apostles on Pentecost, by the Holy Spirit.

Paul would have never been accepted and appointed as one of the bishops of the church if this was not the case.

By what authority do you write?

Answer 9

Why are you particularly picking on Paul.

We accept the teachings of Paul because even though he had a rocky past he proved himself as righteous in the eyes of the Lord. Even more so, many of the older prophets have never seen Jesus and they testified of him.

If you're a problem with the bible pray to God and ask Him. I'm sure he'd give a much better answer than everyone here.

Answer 10

i'm additionally having hassle wisdom your question. You look analyzing the scriptures based on the thought that the Catholic variety is the sole one that suits the passages. I additionally disagree along with your fact that Protestants unavoidably deny that the Holy Spirit preparation is lacking in Catholicism. i understand that some Protestant denominations and persons do, yet no longer all. the main distinction between Catholic and Protestant Christianity is the doctrine of 'sola scriptura'. Protestants believe that the 'Bible on my own' is God's optimal authoritative source to humanity. while the Catholic Church considers itself to have equivalent doctrinal authority to the Bible (or a minimum of is the sole corporation qualified to interpret the Bible). The doctrine of a Protestant Christian might desire to continually be examined against the authority of the scriptures. No Protestant doctrine could be legitimately taught dogmatically apart from the exhibit help of the Bible. that may no longer unavoidably the case with Catholicism. So Protestants will handle some Catholic doctrines with distrust.

Answer 11

Because his teachings are consistent with the doctrine passed down thru the old testament and thru the teachings of Christ. Therefore, it is as he and Peter explained that the scripture is not of private interpretation, but holy men of old were moved and inspired by the Spirit of the Living God to write down these things.
Also, the Spirit of the Living God leads us and guides us into all truth and Paul's teachings are clearly doctrine the Holy Spirit reveals.