skeptical about Paul

[chomputer]

Hello All,

I am really having a hard time understanding why Christians afford such a huge amount of authority based on the word of the apostle Paul. First off, it seems like his very name is deceptive, calling him an apostle. I suppose in the generic sense he was an apostle, but it seems to mislead people into putting Paul on the same footing as the 12 Apostles, which I cannot see any reason for. Maybe the distinction is obvious to versed theologans, but it seems like false advertising to people just starting to investigate Christianity.

I see two alternatives to Paul. The one taken by most Christians I have talked to about this subject. They say that Paul was a prophet and heard God and simply relayed God's word. Well... we have seen that pattern emulated throughout history by charlatans over and over again. So why is it that Paul is assumed to be different?

Jesus never even knew Paul. Paul persecuted the Christians. This much is obvious enough. So let me paint an alternative picture and you guys can explain why this isn't true. I think Paul realized that Christianity was the next big thing. It was catching on and Paul saw an opportunity to become an extremely powerful influence by using people's faith against them. Paul outlined a religion that basically set the stage for controlling and manipulating masses of people.

Take for instance this passage from Romans 13 (NIV):

Obey Those in Authority
1 All of you must be willing to obey completely those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God.
2 So when you oppose the authorities, you are opposing those whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.
3 If you do what is right, you won't need to be afraid of your rulers. But watch out if you do what is wrong! You don't want to be afraid of those in authority, do you? Then do what is right. The one in authority will praise you.
4 He serves God and will do you good. But if you do wrong, watch out! The ruler doesn't carry a sword for no reason at all. He serves God. And God is carrying out his anger through him. The ruler punishes anyone who does wrong.
5 You must obey the authorities. Then you will not be punished. You must also obey them because you know it is right.
6 That's also why you pay taxes. The authorities serve God. Ruling takes up all their time.
7 Give to everyone what you owe. Do you owe taxes? Then pay them. Do you owe anything else to the government? Then pay it. Do you owe respect? Then give it. Do you owe honor? Then show it.

I am having a hard time believing that Paul was anything but a con man or maybe a power/authority freak. I know that portrayal is not flattering and I'm not saying that to offend anyone, but that is the conclusion I am coming to. It seems like that majority of Christianity is based more on what Paul said than on what Jesus said. I am starting to wonder if any of it is true... It just doens't seem to stand up to critical reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Well, to question Paul is to question the authority of the other apostles since the Peter, James, and John accepted Paul's apostleship (Gal. 2:9). It is also putting the writings of Luke into question since in Acts 13:1-3, Luke wrote that it's the Holy Spirit who set apart Saul and Barny for the work they were called to. It is also putting into question Peter's endorsement of Paul (2 Peter 3:15)

To say that Jesus never knew Paul is to question the inspiration of Acts 9. Now if you dont believe in the inspiration of Scriptures, then I'm out of here.

[Jac3510]

Paul's apostleship is rooted in his conversion experience. You should read some of Paul's letters closely. He is always having to defend his apostleship because Judaizers . . . Jewish Christians who wanted Gentile Christians to submit to the law of Moses in order to be saved . . . were always attacking him as not really being an apostle. He argues for his authority in quite a few of his letters.

Also, as TO pointed out, to question Paul's authority means you have to question Peter, Luke, and James. As far as books of the NT goes, that only leaves us with Matt., John, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, and the Revelation. But, if you reject Peter, you have to reject John as well, because John clearly considers Peter an apostle in his writings, as does Matthew.

Therefore, to reject Paul, if you want to be consistent, leaves us with only Jude. I think the NT is pretty clear that Paul was an apostle

[Felgar]

Here's my take: If you can't believe what is in the Bible then you may as well forget the whole thing. We are told that the Bible is inspired by God; it is to be the foundation of our Faith. God provided us with the Bible so that we could follow it. For that reason I have to believe that God has protected His Word throughout time from being tainted by a fraud. Is God not powerful enough to preserve the sanctity of His Word?

It's for the same reason that I generally accept that we can read any honest translation of the Bible and trust that what it says is true...

[chomputer]

Well, like I said... It seems like Paul was nothing but a supremely adept con artist. Plus early Christian people already believed and what is easier than selling Christian people on Jesus? I mean really, it's about as hard as selling kids on toys and candy. So here was Paul persecuting the Christians, telling them that what they believe is wrong. Well, that is about like beating your head against the wall. But then in a moment of inspiration Paul realized how easy it would be to manipulate these people if he could convince them that he was annointed by God. Which seems exactly like what he did.

I guess regarding the inspiration of scripture I would say I am not convinced of that either. I mean, it seems like maybe Christianity is just a form of modern-day superstition. 2000 years is a long time ago, and people back then weren't exactly the most sophisticated, and myths were pretty common place. I have tried to be a Christian, but I just can't swallow all of it as reality. People try to say that the gospels were "eye witness accounts" but how can that be said with any degree of certainty? Do you know probably the whole state of New York would have been overflowing with people if all the ones who said they were at Woodstock were actually there? I could also see the same phenomenon happening to the stories of Jesus. I mean really it happens all the time when people retell stories, how many times has someone told a story where they were right there in the middle of the story. But how many times is it really that the person who is telling the story heard it from a friend and in retelling it adds themselves into the close proximity. That's pretty much how all urban legends go. That's why crazy things always seem to happen to a friend's cousin, instead of a really long circuitous chain of people back to the legend's victim.

Do I think God could handle all of those situations and prevent any possible distortions? Yes, of course he could. He could also create a mile high slab of marble with His Word inscribed in every language on it. He could have made it out of solid black diamond that would never crack, that would never chip, that would never have the possibilty of being distorted. His etchings in the ancient years could be with greater precision of our modern day lasers. And if he did this latter options then rational minded people like myself would much more readily be convinced that it is in fact directly from the Lord. But, as it is, God created me a logical reasonable person, and I can't imagine why he would do that if he wanted me to believe something so improbable as the bible being the divine word of God perfectly preserved and overflowing with His wisdom.

Am I alone in thinking this? Didn't any of you ever stuggle with questions like these?

[Kurieuo]

I see two alternatives to Paul. The one taken by most Christians I have talked to about this subject. They say that Paul was a prophet and heard God and simply relayed God's word. Well... we have seen that pattern emulated throughout history by charlatans over and over again. So why is it that Paul is assumed to be different?

Jesus never even knew Paul. Paul persecuted the Christians. This much is obvious enough. So let me paint an alternative picture and you guys can explain why this isn't true. I think Paul realized that Christianity was the next big thing. It was catching on and Paul saw an opportunity to become an extremely powerful influence by using people's faith against them. Paul outlined a religion that basically set the stage for controlling and manipulating masses of people.

...

I am having a hard time believing that Paul was anything but a con man or maybe a power/authority freak. I know that portrayal is not flattering and I'm not saying that to offend anyone, but that is the conclusion I am coming to. It seems like that majority of Christianity is based more on what Paul said than on what Jesus said. I am starting to wonder if any of it is true... It just doens't seem to stand up to critical reasoning.

First, the Apostles accepted Paul as one of them. Second, Paul had nothing to gain. So what does he gain from being a con? Power/authority? The verses you quote were of governing authority not his own... and Paul gained nothing from his conversion but persecution and death for his Christianity. Unless of course you have another hunch all that is written of Paul is unreliable? Yet, far from being unreliable, Paul is generally considered to be a reliable source by both secular and Christian scholars alike.

Now my own theological understanding for why there were 12+1 Apostles, is that the 12 Apostles for the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul is considered the Apostle to the gentile nations.

Maybe the distinction is obvious to versed theologans, but it seems like false advertising to people just starting to investigate Christianity.

What you say here is one reason why I believe people ought to investigate. There are many books on Paul. Perhaps you should conduct some research into him? You know... try to build your case up further by researching? Perhaps you could find out something Paul had to gain as a con artist?

On another note, the NT is comprised of writings that were accepted by early Christians. This is one reason why the current books were accepted as "authoritative." It is said the New Testament in particular received such a status and became canonized not because someone or a council decided upon it, but rather it is because the books which comprise it amongst other things had gained such wide acceptance within Christianity and had "apostolic authority." One theologian, Morwenna Ludlow, summarised the situation in these words:

"With regard to most books it was a question of [the church] explaining why it had what it had, rather than deciding on what it should have. No council sat down to choose the texts according to some pre-established set of criteria, just as a selection committee might decide on the sort of person they want to fill a post, before interviewing the candidates. Rather, there is some sense in which the canon chose (or formed) the Church, rather than the Church chose (or formed) the canon….[W]hat seems to be happening…is that the Church is formulating reason or explanations for why it has what it had, not criteria for choosing what it should have in the future."

(Morwenna Ludlow, "'Criteria of Canonicity' and the Early Church" in John Barton and Michael Wolter (eds), Die Einheit der Schrift and die Vielfalt des Kanons /The Unity of the Scripture and the Diversity of the Canon (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 69-93)

Anyway, if you're going to go questioning Paul's authority, I think you'll need to look into the issue more. Then present a good argument for your claims of not trusting Paul, or the other Apostles' acceptance of him as one of them. Perhaps you might end up coming to grips with why "versed theologians" accept Paul's claims, or to use your own words perhaps you might be able to able to justify your case beyond someone "just starting to investigate Christianity."

Articles that might be of further interest:
- Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
- Is Our Copy of the Bible a Reliable Copy of the Original?

Kurieuo.

[RGeeB]

Do I think God could handle all of those situations and prevent any possible distortions? Yes, of course he could. He could also create a mile high slab of marble with His Word inscribed in every language on it. He could have made it out of solid black diamond that would never crack, that would never chip, that would never have the possibilty of being distorted. His etchings in the ancient years could be with greater precision of our modern day lasers. And if he did this latter options then rational minded people like myself would much more readily be convinced that it is in fact directly from the Lord. But, as it is, God created me a logical reasonable person, and I can't imagine why he would do that if he wanted me to believe something so improbable as the bible being the divine word of God perfectly preserved and overflowing with His wisdom.

Am I alone in thinking this? Didn't any of you ever stuggle with questions like these?

Possibly because humans would have started worshipping that carving. It is a proven tendency that idols are made out of creation. God is jealous of our affections. Christianity is about a personal relationship with God rather than following a set of orders. Scriptures show us the way to God rather than possessing 'magical' qualities itself. The 'words' of God and inspired text contained in them are poweful if used in the right context. Again, chomputer, why don't you find out for yourself, straight from God?

Jesus is just not the source of the word and truth - He is the word and truth. There lies the undistorted original, accessible to everyone.

[Felgar]

That's why crazy things always seem to happen to a friend's cousin, instead of a really long circuitous chain of people back to the legend's victim.

But, as it is, God created me a logical reasonable person, and I can't imagine why he would do that if he wanted me to believe something so improbable as the bible being the divine word of God perfectly preserved and overflowing with His wisdom.

Am I alone in thinking this? Didn't any of you ever stuggle with questions like these?

Well many of the books were written by those who were right there. They personally watched Christ crucified and talked with Him after the resurrection. These aren't 'my friend's cousins daugher-inlaw' situations.

God created me a logical person too. Such logic is put to good use as we investigate the scripture and its meaning.

I think its a very dangerous road to go down if you try to invalidate the scriptures. If you believe that God is God, then how can you question what He says? If He says the Word is divine, then it is. To question that would be to question whether God even exists. I see it as one package deal. Now certain verses we could attempt to examine original texts, etc. and argue to their meaning. But even that is a very slippery slope. Next thing you know we're fighting crusades, aborting children by the millions, and legalizing gay marriage because we've chosen to ignore portions of God's Word.

I honestly believe that much of the doubt comes directly from Satan. I'd encourage you to seek counsel from people close to you who are on fire for the Lord, and also pray. Seek and you shall find.

[chomputer]

I think its a very dangerous road to go down if you try to invalidate the scriptures. If you believe that God is God, then how can you question what He says? If He says the Word is divine, then it is.

That's all God has to do, tell me that it is divine, and then so be it, I'll believe just as devoutly and most of you do. But so far God hasn't told me that, and I am not just saying that hollowly, I really prayed about it.

But I am curious about the idea of the bible being inerrant. Mainly, the Catholic bible has 73 books while the Protestant bible has only 66. So if the bible is the infallable word of God why did he let one version of the bible contain 7 more or less books? Doesn't that mean that one of those versions is fallable or at least incomplete? And if it's incomplete then aren't you ignoring part of God's word? And if the other 7 books are false then why did God let that particular version of the bible get corrupted since it was earlier stated that God can protect His word from any distortion. And if you just say one version is incomplete then you're saying that all the Protestant Christians are ignoring part of God's word. And it was ealier mentioned that ignoring God's word can lead to aborting fields full or fetuses, and gays joining in evil monogomous commitments. So the way I see it, there are two options. Either God can and does protect his word completely 100%, in which case you've got to conclude that the Catholic bible is the correct one, and all other denominations are ignoring part of God's word and thus just as guilty as those who would ignore parts that prevent abortion and gay marriage. The other case is that God either can't or chose not to prevent distortion of His word, in which case who's to say what is really God's word and what is the interjected agenda of people.

Like I said, God made me a logical person, and those are the only two logical conclusions I can see from the evidence. Maybe there are others that I'm missing, I'd be happy to hear them.

I still don't know about Paul... I am skeptical. Some people are just really power-hungry and love to have authority and play the power game their whole lives. I could totally see Paul loving the fact that he had a whole people believing he was annointed by God. And why would he go on to the end if he was a fraud? Well... how many times had he narrowly escaped death? I mean, there's always that chance that he would make it through to see another day, and where would he be if he dennounced his faith and expose himself as a fraud? No one would respect him anymore, he'd be exposed and he'd lose all his authority and power. And why would he want to have that power? The same reason all charlatans do, they want to feel important, they want to use those people for their own personal gain, they want to be glorified and feed their own narcisism. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened, but it does seem like a viable way to explain things. Right now I just can't accept that Paul was at best mentally ill and at worst a con artist. I'll keep praying though, and if it really is the infallable word of God written through the hand of the apostle Paul then I'm sure he will let me know.

[Felgar]

To be honest I have never really investigated the Catholic scriptures. But I do believe that some Catholics are saved; namely the ones who accept Jesus as their personal saviour. I see only 2 possibilities: 1) The additional Catholic books were distortions of the Word in the first place and that's why they aren't included in the Protestant Bible. 2) The Catholic books offer no substantial new or contradictory information other than what is already present; in this case both Bibles are valid and are the Word of God.

Personally I'd expect #2 to be the case. As for ignoring parts of it... Well, we'd have to see what new information is in them to know one way or the other.

The same thing applies to Paul as I see it. Do you see contradictions between his writings and the words of Jesus or the other books of the NT? Personally I see them as all saying the same thing: You are saved by the belief and acceptance that Jesus, the Son of God, died for your sins but rose and now lives. It's not like Paul says "you're saved by making a sacrifice every 3rd day."

Are there certain passages you really question? Cuz I'd be willing to bet that every passage from Paul could be reinforced from elsewhere in the scriptures.

[Kurieuo]

But I am curious about the idea of the bible being inerrant. Mainly, the Catholic bible has 73 books while the Protestant bible has only 66. So if the bible is the infallable word of God why did he let one version of the bible contain 7 more or less books?

Considering these additional books were not considered canonical by the Jews, I don't see the problem. While the books within the Apocyrpha (which Catholics call "deuterocanonical"), I believe should be read, they do not meet the same standard as the other books which comprise the canonical Bible.

I do believe you have a valid point though. One cannot just accept what is before them as true, because others have come to accept them. They need to be tried and tested. And I personally, consider myself an inerrantist, as I begin with the belief it is so and every objection I've examined, I've been able to satisfy to my own satisfaction. Most are very easy to brush aside.

Now you're beginning from the other side, believing it to be errant until proven. So every objection to you would be seen as valid. You got no reason to look further into Scripture. Therefore the most an Evangelical Christian (which does not comprise all Christians for sure) could put to you, is what all Christians would generally agree upon. That is, the Bible is given authority (regardless of inerrancy) because it came to be accepted widespread by early Christians as having Apostolic authority (i.e., the authority of people who received Christ's teachings directly and were to pass them on).

Kurieuo.

[chomputer]

Now you're beginning from the other side, believing it to be errant until proven. So every objection to you would be seen as valid. You got no reason to look further into Scripture.

I am going to have to disagree with you. I don't believe I am seeking with the preconcieved belief that it is erroneous, just that I am not certain of its inerrancy. I am coming at the topic neutral without any particular bias in one direction or the other. There are basically two alternatives, one is that the bible is the infallable word of God, the other is that it is not. From that point all I can do is look at the evidence, interpret that evidence and see if the evidence leads me to a logical conclusion of the bible being either fallable or not.

As far as submitting to the authority of early Christians I find that idea to be pretty flawed. I mean, how many times growing up did you hear parents say, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge does that mean you would jump off the bridge too?" And of course I wouldn't. I think the same thing applies here. What is it that is convincing me that the bible is the infallable word of God? Is it that the evidence supports this claim? Or is it that I believe it because a bunch of other people believe it? Well, if it's the latter, and I take away the fact that a whole bunch of other people believe it what is my belief left to stand on? If the former is the case and I take away anyone else's belief in it, my belief is still grounded on evidence and logical reasoning. And again, if that's not what God wanted me to base my beliefs on why would he have made me a logical reasonable person?

I mean let's consider parallels through history. How long was it that everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe. They really believed that, but Copernicus said that was wrong. Well, their belief had nothing to stand on except religious dogma. People believed that of course the earth was the center of the universe, because God made the universe entirely for man, so of course everything revolved around the earth. But Copernicus just recorded observations and it seemed to indicate that the earth was actually in motion around the sun, not the other way around. All those people's beliefs didn't matter one bit and, even though they might have taken comfort in the fact that a lot of people agreed with them, it didn't stop all of them from being wrong.

So again, I've got to come back to the fact that a whole lot of people believing that the bible is the inerrant word of God doesn't mean that it actually is the inerrant word of God. So I'm left to look at the evidence, and at this point it seems a lot more likely that Paul was just someone who saw the current state of things and saw a way to use them to his advantage. I mean, Christianity was catching on, the leader of the movement had died leaving a void at the top position of power and authority. You had all these people, hearing that their leader, the Son of God was crucified, and though none of them had actually seen him risen up they had heard stories. I mean, come on, they already believed this stuff, Paul just told them exactly what they wanted to hear: that their beliefs were well-founded, to keep having faith because God was going to come and end the world soon. And when God came to end the world they were going to be separated out, they were going to be saved and they would get the satisfaction of knowing all those who doubted them and said bad things about them would be punished for all eternity. Who wouldn't want to believe that?? Who wouldn't want to believe that for no money down they would become a millionare selling real estate? Who wouldn't want to believe that they can make $3-5000 a week stuffing envelops in the comfort of their own home? I'd like to believe that, but logic prevents me from doing so. It seems like Paul just saw a way to sell Christians exactly what they wanted to hear and gain prominence and glory for himself in return. Actually, it was absolute genius when I stop and think about it. The planning and strategy, and just how masterfully he orchestrated his rise to power.

I guess you could say that Paul's miracles set him apart, but how many "miracles" did Jim Bakker perform on the television? How many people were healed by the holy spirit? If a hack like that could convince so many people, I have no question that in the time right after Jesus' death, when people most wanted and needed to believe, someone could have convinced them of all kinds of other miracles. Again I'm not saying that he definitely did, but only that it is possible that he did just that. So I ask myself which one is more likely, that Paul was truly inspired by God, heard the word of God, and wrote down the words of God verbatim to instruct the rest of the Christians, or that Paul was just selling people beliefs that they really wanted to believe were true. Well, I also ask myself which is more likely, that I can really make myself a million dollars with no money down selling real estate, or that the company is just after my money. Now if I take away the fact that so many people believe that Paul was speaking the infallable word of God, what is left in terms of pure logic and reasoning that would make me convinced of one but not the other?

[Felgar]

Now if I take away the fact that so many people believe that Paul was speaking the infallable word of God, what is left in terms of pure logic and reasoning that would make me convinced of one but not the other?

What reasoning is there to doubt what Paul wrote? What does he say that is contrary to Jesus' own words?

And btw it was John who wrote Revelations which is really the definitive book of prophecy.

[chomputer]

Well, if I came to you and said that God had spoken to me would your reaction be one of "oh, okay I have no reasoning on which to doubt what this guy is saying and therefore accept it as the infallable Word of God"? Or would it be one of skepticism? I mean, really, what reasoning is there to doubt that I am not telling you the truth?

And... it's not so much that Paul contradicts Christ so much. I mean, it wouldn't be to his advantage to do that. If he wanted to gain power he'd have to gain the respect and backing of the 12 real Apostles. In fact, he'd have to surpass them, at least in the eyes of the public; the real power was and always will be with the ability to sway the masses. Paul needed a way to escalate himself to a position of power, and so he claims divine revelation. He assigned himself a designation as high as the 12 Apostles Christ had actually chosen when he was alive. But he needed to escalate himself even higher, needed to be even more authoritative than the 12 Christ had hand picked. So how could he do this? Well, by attacking his competition of course. I mean, right here is a perfect example of when Paul contradicted Christ. Look at Galations 2:11-13, Paul is bragging about how he slammed Peter for shunning gentiles in front of a whole cafeteria of people. But in Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus says that if a brother sins against you go to him, and if he doesn't listen get some more people, and then if he still doesn't listen go to the whole church. But look, Paul isn't doing that, he's telling all the people in Galatia about Peter not eating with the Gentiles. It's like he's screaming to them, "Look! Peter is supposedly so good as to be chosen directly by God and yet I am so far superior that I have to correct him!" He didn't say Peter rejected him, he says he was receptive, and according to Jesus that should have been the end of it. But here's Paul gossiping to all of Galatia about it, making himself look better and Peter look worse. He didn't have to say it was Peter, he could have left it anonymous, but he chose to mention Peter by name, though it serves no purpose other than to humilate poor Peter.

To me that's suspicious.

[Felgar]

Well Paul did confront Peter face-to-face, as he says in Galations. I'm not sure if it says anywhere else in scriptures whether Peter admits he was in the wrong. Nevertheless, we can only assume that Peter would have given Paul his blessing to make a point of the incident, so that others might learn from it.

After all, as has been mentioned, Paul was accepted by the Apostles. And given that the apostles were clearly disciples of Jesus, they would have been entirely unconcerned with attaining power, wealth, and praise. (Jesus' kingdom was not of this world) So, had they truly been opposed to Paul, I believe that they would have dealt with him accordingly. Remember that these 12 were possibly the most furvent followers of Christ that may ever have lived, and in addition to that they were filled with the Holy Spirit. As we see in John, these men have received the Counselor of Truth (aka the Holy Spirit) and I don't believe that they could have been so deceived by Paul.

John 16:7-8
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:

Now if you still have a major problem with Paul maybe there's another solution... Focus on the writings of the original 12 apostles and on Jesus' actual words. For they too explain how we are saved. Upon that foundation develop your personal relationship with Jesus... Really that relationship is the the key - in knowing Him ever more, I truly believe that you will find the truth that you seek.