Reject Paul = Reject the Gospels?

[DayRaven]

I'm sorry if I'm kicking and beating an already bloody horse, but I'm not sure if my question has been covered.

It seems to my mind that if the gospels post-date Paul's epistles (which I believe is the case) then the gospels are products of the church climate that Paul was instrumental in creating. Does this not mean, then, that if you argue that Paul was an imposter/fraud/mentally disturbed etc and you reject his writings then are you not also in the process rejecting the gospel documents (or at least having to edit them) if they are products of the very Christian environment he shaped?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logically, no.

{ B } derives from { A }
{ A } is false, therefore
{ B } is false.
​

Seriously?

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm sorry if I'm kicking and beating an already bloody horse, but I'm not sure if my question has been covered.

It seems to my mind that if the gospels post-date Paul's epistles (which I believe is the case) then the gospels are products of the church climate that Paul was instrumental in creating. Does this not mean, then, that if you argue that Paul was an imposter/fraud/mentally disturbed etc and you reject his writings then are you not also in the process rejecting the gospel documents (or at least having to edit them) if they are products of the very Christian environment he shaped?

Dear Raven,
Paul actually post dates the true church, which fell away after the striking of "My Shepherd". (Ze 13:7 & Mt 26:31). The " Christian" church is simply the followers of the beast with two horns like a lamb, Constantine, who built his Roman church on those two " Christ like " horns, Peter and Paul, who were described in Ze 11 as the shepherds " Favor" (Paul), and " Union" (Peter). Peter was described in Ze 11:17 as the "worthless shepherd". Paul's false gospel of Grace, which supposedly comes from God's "Favor", is antithetical to the gospel of Yeshua, which is the gospel of the Kingdom. The " Christian" church would be the " flock doomed to slaughter" (Ze 11:7), and their shepherds would be Peter and Paul.

 

[Nakosis]

For all we really know, any part of the Bible, NT or OT could be fictional as there exists little to validate it. Culturally it was accepted as historical because it has been promoted as the Word of God. And what earthly authority exists that you accept has the ability to make this claim?

If you free yourself to question any part of the Bible you've freed yourself to question every part of the Bible.

That being said, whether Jesus is a fictional character or not I still think what he is claimed to have said is worthy of learning.

 

[nazz]

I'm sorry if I'm kicking and beating an already bloody horse, but I'm not sure if my question has been covered.

It seems to my mind that if the gospels post-date Paul's epistles (which I believe is the case) then the gospels are products of the church climate that Paul was instrumental in creating. Does this not mean, then, that if you argue that Paul was an imposter/fraud/mentally disturbed etc and you reject his writings then are you not also in the process rejecting the gospel documents (or at least having to edit them) if they are products of the very Christian environment he shaped?

You make a good point and one that has been noted in the world of critical biblical scholarship. But the real story is a bit more complex. The gospels were based on oral traditions handed down from before the time of Paul and there may have been written gospels before the present canonical ones.

 

[allfoak]

Paul wrote letters.
What he wrote was mostly interpretation of the O.T. and his experiences.

The gospels were written in the language of the soul to be a spiritual catalyst for those who are able use them for this purpose.

 

[rusra02]

I'm sorry if I'm kicking and beating an already bloody horse, but I'm not sure if my question has been covered.

It seems to my mind that if the gospels post-date Paul's epistles (which I believe is the case) then the gospels are products of the church climate that Paul was instrumental in creating. Does this not mean, then, that if you argue that Paul was an imposter/fraud/mentally disturbed etc and you reject his writings then are you not also in the process rejecting the gospel documents (or at least having to edit them) if they are products of the very Christian environment he shaped?

The Apostle Peter classed Paul's letters as part of the inspired Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16) Paul was appointed to his office by Jesus Christ. His letters harmonize with the gospel accounts, Peter and Johns letters, and the rest of the Bible. Paul was not a fraud, imposter, nor mentally disturbed. Why would you think he was?

 

[gsa]

It seems to my mind that if the gospels post-date Paul's epistles (which I believe is the case) then the gospels are products of the church climate that Paul was instrumental in creating. Does this not mean, then, that if you argue that Paul was an imposter/fraud/mentally disturbed etc and you reject his writings then are you not also in the process rejecting the gospel documents (or at least having to edit them) if they are products of the very Christian environment he shaped?

No. Paul does not show much knowledge of the accounts recorded in the gospels, including the teachings and sayings of Jesus. He does seem to have a vague view of the passion narrative and a number of theological and moral precepts that were being developed among Christian communities, but he is also aware of competing teachings, most prominent of which is spelled out in the circumcision controversy (i.e., the so-called "Judaizers"). And there are of course the gnostic sects that were ultimately wiped out, but may have been contemporaneous with the "orthodox" sects that ultimately prevailed.

It is also unclear how influential Paul was in the community of Christians in existence at the time of his writing. Marcion accepted some Pauline epistles, but his own teaching was ultimately rejected as heretical and is responsible for much of the development of modern "orthodox" canon.

Obviously, rejecting Paul would put you outside "mainstream" Christianity, but it doesn't require sacrificing the gospel accounts, and it certainly doesn't require ignoring competing gospel accounts (i.e., Thomas).

 

[2ndpillar]

The Apostle Peter classed Paul's letters as part of the inspired Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16) Paul was appointed to his office by Jesus Christ. His letters harmonize with the gospel accounts, Peter and Johns letters, and the rest of the Bible. Paul was not a fraud, imposter, nor mentally disturbed. Why would you think he was?

Dear rus,
2 Peter was written by an unknown writer. As for Peter, he was called "Satan" and a "Stumbling Block" by Yeshua in Mt 16:23. As for Paul, he was appointed "by Jesus Christ", according to Paul's testimony, and the testimony of more unknown writers. According to Yeshua in John 5:31, Paul's testimony " is not true". As for being " mentally disturbed", I think the medical term for Paul's condition was " Saint Paul's disease", a form of epilepsy, which consists of blindness, and visions. All probably due to the "messenger of Satan" which was given to Paul to try and contain his pride, which apparently failed.

 

[rusra02]

Dear rus,
2 Peter was written by an unknown writer. As for Peter, he was called "Satan" and a "Stumbling Block" by Yeshua in Mt 16:23. As for Paul, he was appointed "by Jesus Christ", according to Paul's testimony, and the testimony of more unknown writers. According to Yeshua in John 5:31, Paul's testimony " is not true". As for being " mentally disturbed", I think the medical term for Paul's condition was " Saint Paul's disease", a form of epilepsy, which consists of blindness, and visions. All probably due to the "messenger of Satan" which was given to Paul to try and contain his pride, which apparently failed.

Jesus reproved Peter on the occasion you mentioned for suggesting Christ should not take the course God sent him to take. However, after his resurrection, Jesus invited Peter to serve as a shepherd for Christ's "sheep", his followers. (John 21:16) Peter was used by Christ thereafter as an apostle. Though imperfect, Peter became an example of faith and humility.
As to Paul, he served faithfully as a missionary and apostle for decades. And Jesus himself bore witness about Paul: "this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel." (Acts 9:15) the apostle Paul proved his faith by his works, setting an example for all true Christians.

 

[DayRaven]

{ B } derives from { A }

But if B is contingent on A?

That being said, whether Jesus is a fictional character or not I still think what he is claimed to have said is worthy of learning.

I don't believe Jesus was fictional, nor do I believe that all of his attributed sayings are fictional either.

Paul was not a fraud, imposter, nor mentally disturbed. Why would you think he was?

I'm referencing reasons that others have given to disqualify Paul.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But if B is contingent on A?

The OP is nevertheless flawed.

I don't believe Jesus was fictional, nor do I believe that all of his attributed sayings are fictional either.

That's nice. Therefore?

 

[DayRaven]

The OP is nevertheless flawed.

Demonstrate why.

Therefore?

Therefore what?