The Credibility of Paul as an author of the NT

[drekmed]

this thread is a break off of the "Can 500+ eyewitnesses be wrong thread" of AV1611. that thread brought an interesting subject to my mind.

should the writings of Paul and his followers be considered a credible source of scripture, or something closer to religious fiction? he writes about things he wasn't there for. he uses things other writers wrote about, and then adds others things that can't be substantiated by using anything other than his own words. it is believed by scholars that most books were written by either Paul or his followers. it could be said, given this, that paul had in fact attempted to and i suppose succeeded in changing the ideals of christianity to that of his own ideals.

the books attributed to either paul or his followers are: Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, Colossians, 1 Thessolonians, 2 Thessolonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.
there is also some controversy over whether 2 Peter was written by the apostle or someone else.
info on authors found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

discuss, debate, im just curious what others think about he subject.

Drekmed

 

[Mister Emu]

Mark

Mark is supposed to be the disciple of Peter, and Luke is supposed to have done an independant investigation into to write his gosple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

there is also some controversy over whether 2 Peter was written by the apostle or someone else.

There is controversey over whether any of the NT was written by an apostle. Furthermore, the Pastorals are thought by many to be pseudepigraphic.

 

[Scott1]

There is controversey over whether any of the NT was written by an apostle. Furthermore, the Pastorals are thought by many to be pseudepigraphic.

No controversy here... I'm not quite sure who wrote them.... best of luck to those of who are searching for info!

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Drekmed, Scott 1, Mr Emu, and Deut.

In my research on the subject, I am really believing that the elusive "Q" gospel that the synoptic gospels are based on was written by Paul (Romans 2:16). It may have been unwise to include a Gospel by Paul in the canon because he is almost everwhere else in it. Paul Paul Paul.

What is supicious about Paul is that he is never quoting Jesus. If it were true that Jesus revealed the truth to him, wouldn't it be appropriate to quote Jesus once in a while?

 

[Studmuffin]

What is supicious about Paul is that he is never quoting Jesus. If it were true that Jesus revealed the truth to him, wouldn't it be appropriate to quote Jesus once in a while?

It would have been hard for Paul to quote Jesus's words because when Paul was converted, Christ was not on earth. Paul did not hear what Christ said, so he couldn't say it. And by the way the Bible does not say that Jesus revealed truth to Paul, it was the Holy Spirit. Read II Peter 1:21. And just for another perspective on Romans 2:16, when Paul says, "according to my gospel." the word gospel here simply means good news. In Romans 1:1 Paul says that he is called to be an apostle of the gospel of God, literally, the good news of God. The word gospel was also used to give good news about the emperor, so when Paul claims God's judgement coming according to his gospel, he is simply differentiating the good news of God (The Bible) from any other good news.

 

[Merlin]

It would have been hard for Paul to quote Jesus's words because when Paul was converted, Christ was not on earth. Paul did not hear what Christ said, so he couldn't say it. And by the way the Bible does not say that Jesus revealed truth to Paul, it was the Holy Spirit. Read II Peter 1:21. And just for another perspective on Romans 2:16, when Paul says, "according to my gospel." the word gospel here simply means good news. In Romans 1:1 Paul says that he is called to be an apostle of the gospel of God, literally, the good news of God. The word gospel was also used to give good news about the emperor, so when Paul claims God's judgement coming according to his gospel, he is simply differentiating the good news of God (The Bible) from any other good news.

Well said. This is a very good simple explanation.

Paul was writing down what the Holy Spirit was inspiring him to write. Only much later did people start to write down what they claim Jesus said, even though it was two or three generations after the crucifixion, and they couldn't possibly know.

PS

If anybody is interested, Paul did not write his epistles in the order in which they appear in the Bible. I believe they were put in there by their size. Shortest one at the front, longest one at the back. Can anybody confirm that?

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

2 Peter 3:15, 16:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter backed Paul up, even calling his letters Scripture.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4): ...

- see Early Christian Writings

Quoting 2 Peter to validate Paul is just a little bit silly.

 

[Merlin]

What is supicious about Paul is that he is never quoting Jesus. If it were true that Jesus revealed the truth to him, wouldn't it be appropriate to quote Jesus once in a while?

Was it Jesus who gave the revelations to Paul? Why would it not be God directly, or through the holy spirit from God.