Do fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance?

[Greg]

Although Paul founded the churches of Galatia, Galatians 1:6-9 has him cursing anybody who would disagree with his gospel. Reading the entire epistle reveals that at some point, residents of Galatia who had converted to Jesus through Paul eventually decided the Judaizer gospel was the truth, and so accepted it.

Now what group is more likely to know truths about Paul not subject to interpretative-subjectivity: his original contemporary converts? Or people who wouldn't be born for another 1900 years, who know precisely nothing about Paul except what they find in a collection of books that ancient supporters of Paul helped put together?

 

[makesends]

Well, now, that's quite an attitude! You do know that Paul wrote his books under the authority of God himself, right? Paul's Gospel isn't about Paul.

 

[Greg]

Is it too much to ask for a direct answer to my two questions?

 

[JesusFan]

Although Paul founded the churches of Galatia, Galatians 1:6-9 has him cursing anybody who would disagree with his gospel. Reading the entire epistle reveals that at some point, residents of Galatia who had converted to Jesus through Paul eventually decided the Judaizer gospel was the truth, and so accepted it.

Now what group is more likely to know truths about Paul not subject to interpretative-subjectivity: his original contemporary converts? Or people who wouldn't be born for another 1900 years, who know precisely nothing about Paul except what they find in a collection of books that ancient supporters of Paul helped put together?

Paul was the greatest of the Apostles, as the Lord chose Him to give Revelations such as in Romans

 

[makesends]

Is it too much to ask for a direct answer to my two questions?

It's a loaded question. Ask each question independently, without implying that for them to be more familiar with Paul does not imply that their Judaizer sympathy is valid.


And then, answer my question.

 

[Arial]

Although Paul founded the churches of Galatia, Galatians 1:6-9 has him cursing anybody who would disagree with his gospel. Reading the entire epistle reveals that at some point, residents of Galatia who had converted to Jesus through Paul eventually decided the Judaizer gospel was the truth, and so accepted it.

Now what group is more likely to know truths about Paul not subject to interpretative-subjectivity: his original contemporary converts? Or people who wouldn't be born for another 1900 years, who know precisely nothing about Paul except what they find in a collection of books that ancient supporters of Paul helped put together?

Is it too much to ask for a direct answer to my two questions?

Probably. The questions themselves are loaded questions as they are structured to bias the answer. It discredits modern readers ("know precisely nothing") while elevating the Galatians without proving their reliability. Your post treats the Galatians alleged acceptance of the Judaizer position as established fact as evidence of truth and demonstrated neither. You appeal to proximity assuming the earlier is more accurate. Being close in time doesn't guarantee correctness. People can be misled, divided, or uninformed even in the moment. The post sets up a false dichotomy of early Galatians vs. modern readers. It does not consider any other possibilities besides those closest in time and modern readers.

The letter itself suggests some Galatians were being persuaded but does not clearly confirm a full or final conversion as you do. That is not historical fact but an interpretive leap.

You don't cite any broad textual or historical evidence and build a major conclusion off limited data.

It assumes the supposed shift in the Galatians reflects truth when it could be persuasion or confusion.

IOW your post was intended to provoke rather than engage in a thoughtful discussion.

If you could reframe it by providing evidence of what you assert and then ask questions that are not loaded or full of logical fallacies, I am sure there are a number of people who would engage in the conversation.

 

[Carbon]

Well, now, that's quite an attitude! You do know that Paul wrote his books under the authority of God himself, right? Paul's Gospel isn't about Paul.

Amen brother!

 

[Carbon]

Although Paul founded the churches of Galatia, Galatians 1:6-9 has him cursing anybody who would disagree with his gospel. Reading the entire epistle reveals that at some point, residents of Galatia who had converted to Jesus through Paul eventually decided the Judaizer gospel was the truth, and so accepted it.

Now what group is more likely to know truths about Paul not subject to interpretative-subjectivity: his original contemporary converts? Or people who wouldn't be born for another 1900 years, who know precisely nothing about Paul except what they find in a collection of books that ancient supporters of Paul helped put together?

Ill tell you who would know the truths about Paul. Jesus, that should be good enough?

 

[JesusFan]

Ill tell you who would know the truths about Paul. Jesus, that should be good enough?

Lord Jesus personally chose and commissioned him as the Apostle to the gentiles , and revealed to him theology of Romans greatest book in the Bible IMHO

 

[Carbon]

Lord Jesus personally chose and commissioned him as the Apostle to the gentiles

Amen brother!

 

[Greg]

Paul was the greatest of the Apostles, as the Lord chose Him to give Revelations such as in Romans

How could Paul be "greatest" on the basis of the Lord giving him Revelation, when the Lord gave John the revelation called the Book of Revelation?

 

[Josheb]

How could Paul be "greatest" on the basis of the Lord giving him Revelation, when the Lord gave John the revelation called the Book of Revelation?

If I may....

@JesusFan probably meant lower case "r" revelations when referring to Paul. The revelation of Revelation is primarily apocalyptic and only one book, whereas the revelations given to Paul were more numerous and more diverse. John also wrote a gospel and three epistles, not just an apocalyptic prophecy. Paul, in comparison, wrote 13 epistles that contained theological commentary, doctrinal direction, practical correction and prophecy. However, the best way to look at the apostles is not to compare them in a competitive sense but to consider them complements of one another. Keep in mind the titles of the books of the New Testament are extra-biblical.

 

[Greg]

My assumption is that you don't view yourself as final dogmatic authority, and therefore, you don't give a reply expecting it to be the last word, but you expect it to possibly be challenged. Therefore, challenging it could not possibly be objectionable. Therefore, if you make several different points in a single reply, you also expect that each point may possibly be challenged. I can answer everybody's replies here point-by-point. Can I do that without breaking any rules?

 

[Greg]

If I may....

@JesusFan probably meant lower case "r" revelations when referring to Paul. The revelation of Revelation is primarily apocalyptic and only one book, whereas the revelations given to Paul were more numerous and more diverse. John also wrote a gospel and three epistles, not just an apocalyptic prophecy. Paul, in comparison, wrote 13 epistles that contained theological commentary, doctrinal direction, practical correction and prophecy. However, the best way to look at the apostles is not to compare them in a competitive sense but to consider them complements of one another. Keep in mind the titles of the books of the New Testament are extra-biblical.

Why does JesusFan think more material makes Paul "greatest"? "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. (Prov. 10:19). My argument would be that the very fact that the original apostles each produced far less than Paul, suggests they disapproved of Paul's loquacious approach, even if they thought his theology was acceptable.

 

[JesusFan]

If I may....

@JesusFan probably meant lower case "r" revelations when referring to Paul. The revelation of Revelation is primarily apocalyptic and only one book, whereas the revelations given to Paul were more numerous and more diverse. John also wrote a gospel and three epistles, not just an apocalyptic prophecy. Paul, in comparison, wrote 13 epistles that contained theological commentary, doctrinal direction, practical correction and prophecy. However, the best way to look at the apostles is not to compare them in a competitive sense but to consider them complements of one another. Keep in mind the titles of the books of the New Testament are extra-biblical.

Thanks, you are correct, as did mean revelations ,general, but Paul doctrines and theology were highlights, as the Holy Spirit used him to bring in the expanded theology gleaned from his epistles

 

[JesusFan]

Why does JesusFan think more material makes Paul "greatest"? "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. (Prov. 10:19). My argument would be that the very fact that the original apostles each produced far less than Paul, suggests they disapproved of Paul's loquacious approach, even if they thought his theology was acceptable.

Or could be that to Paul was granted the fulness of Theology due to divine revelation, as even peter mentioned that even his fellow Apostles found some of Paul theology hard to grasp and understand fully

 

[Arial]

Why does JesusFan think more material makes Paul "greatest"? "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. (Prov. 10:19). My argument would be that the very fact that the original apostles each produced far less than Paul, suggests they disapproved of Paul's loquacious approach, even if they thought his theology was acceptable.

We don't even know that the other apostles produced less. What we have in the Bible are translations from the only verifiable documents available. There are likely a great many originals that were lost. What we have is the inspired writings of apostles---what God decreed to be in his word.

If you are going to denigrate Paul, you first will have to show that the Scripture is not the word of God.

 

[Arial]

My assumption is that you don't view yourself as final dogmatic authority, and therefore, you don't give a reply expecting it to be the last word, but you expect it to possibly be challenged. Therefore, challenging it could not possibly be objectionable. Therefore, if you make several different points in a single reply, you also expect that each point may possibly be challenged. I can answer everybody's replies here point-by-point

But can you support the claims you make in the OP? Can you ask questions without inserting your own unsupported opinion into them as loaded questions. Example of a loaded question would be "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It is a question that contains an unproven or disputed assumption. Either a yes or no answer accepts the presupposition.

Can I do that without breaking any rules?

Only you can answer that question. No one else knows what you are capable of. So, if you meant to ask is it ok to disagree with the points people make, yes, you may do that. It would not be breaking a rule.

 

[makesends]

My assumption is that you don't view yourself as final dogmatic authority, and therefore, you don't give a reply expecting it to be the last word, but you expect it to possibly be challenged. Therefore, challenging it could not possibly be objectionable. Therefore, if you make several different points in a single reply, you also expect that each point may possibly be challenged. I can answer everybody's replies here point-by-point. Can I do that without breaking any rules?

Greg, one of the rules is: 1.1. All members are required to read, ensure they understand, and comply with the Rules & Guidelines at all times

The rules are found under Forums (at the top of most pages) > Members Information Center > Forum Rules > CCAM Forums: Rules & Guidelines

If you have any specific question on the meaning/use of the rules, either start a public thread on it, inviting the staff, or, better yet, Direct Message one (or all) of the staff.

 

[Greg]

Or could be that to Paul was granted the fulness of Theology due to divine revelation, as even peter mentioned that even his fellow Apostles found some of Paul theology hard to grasp and understand fully

Can I possibly be reasonable to reject Paul's claims to divine inspiration? Or do you think Paul's divine inspiration is so evidentially incontestable that only fools would question it? Does this forum allow scholarly-level discussions involving non-essential doctrine? Or does this forum insist that "Paul was inspired by God" constitutes one of those few doctrines that must be believed in order to be saved (i.e., "essential doctrine")?