Desert Snake
Veteran Member
If it wasn't intended as gospel then why is it being read as such?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Paul was not an Apostle. Where in the Gospels is there any mention of Paul being an Apostle?
Yes, indeed. Secular history will tell you that Paul, Peter, James, Luke, etc actually worked often together to set up Christianity as a viable religion among the Roman Empire. I don't know about the others.I believe the Apostles were very aware. Peter describes Paul's writings as scripture even as he was alive, and Paul in several places gave his judgement, and claimed that the Spirit moved him to do so.
Yes, indeed. Secular history will tell you that Paul, Peter, James, Luke, etc actually worked often together to set up Christianity as a viable religion among the Roman Empire. I don't know about the others.
None of the NT authors knew they were writing scripture. Jesus never wrote anything. None of the books of the NT have ever been matched with an author undisputedly. Paul is supposed to be the largest contributor to the NT. Jesus never knew Paul existed. None of the gospels mention or even hint of Paul. Paul is called an Apostle only by himself and Luke. Luke was not an Apostle either, and never knew Jesus.
Yes, indeed. Secular history will tell you that Paul, Peter, James, Luke, etc actually worked often together to set up Christianity as a viable religion among the Roman Empire. I don't know about the others.
I would say absolutely not... and furthermore, I think that they would be horrified to learn that Christians place their writings alongside the "Old Testament."
I agree on this 100%
paul would be a example of someone who would roll over in his grave if he knew what happened to his letters.
I would agree that Paul never intended for his work to be scripture, but not the cannonical gospels
I have difficulty understanding this concept. Are you saying that Paul actually wrote scripture without realizing it?The letters were simply that: Letters. They became important as more and more people read them and realized that what they were reading was the theology of the church.
Yet you claim that Paul's letters contain church theology. How is it that Paul's letters contain authoritative doctrine, whereas, modern bishops' letters do not, despite their equal authority?Even modern bishops, who carry the same authority as Paul, engage in these activities on a regular basis.
It appears that the NT authors did not know they were writing scripture. If they were not writing scripture, what were they writing? Opinions?