Do fundamentalists exaggerate Paul's significance?

[Greg]

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.

I don't see anything in the rules that forbids scholarly-level discussion of the merits/deficiencies of non-essential doctrine, so I will proceed accordingly concerning the non-essential doctrine that says Paul's epistles were inspired by God.

 

[Greg]

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.

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.

Thank you for that clarification. I disagree with the claim that Paul was inspired by God. I also disagree with the claim that the anonymous strangers who decided what books to put into the NT canon were inspired by God to make the selections that they did.

 

[Arial]

Thank you for that clarification. I disagree with the claim that Paul was inspired by God. I also disagree with the claim that the anonymous strangers who decided what books to put into the NT canon were inspired by God to make the selections that they did.

Disagreeing is fine. It kind of ends a conversation if you don't provide any supportable reasoning behind the disagreement that can be disputed or accepted.

 

[Josheb]

Why does JesusFan think more material makes Paul "greatest"?

Ask him. I know you did but 1) he does not answer questions in a timely manner or address their substance topically, and 2) I was suggesting one possibility. I doubt the capital "R" meant anything specific and was probably a matter of convention that anything else (Post 15 confirms that suspicion).

"When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. (Prov. 10:19).

That use of the verse would a misappropriation of the text. Paul's many words would not be a function of transgression or a lack of restraint.

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.

Peter commended Paul's writings, reporting Paul had written with the wisdom God had given him, and Peter implicitly comparing them to "the other scriptures." Petter's affirmation of Paul's writings occurred after the two of them had one, maybe to disputes. The first being when Paul visited the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 and the second being described by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. Paul affirmed Peter's apostleship even as he confronted Peter's errors and Peter affirmed Paul's inspiration despite previous disagreement. Assuming Paul is not the author of Hebrews, ten of his thirteen epistles are shorter than Hebrews. Seven of his letters are shorter than James' epistle, six are shorter than 1 Peter and 5 are shorter than 2 Peter. Your argument would not be consistent with the whole of scripture, and I do not think an argument can be made for less is proof of disapproval.

 

[Greg]

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.

Paul's statement that he did more than all the other apostles (1st Cor. 15:10) may imply he wrote more books than the other apostles did, but even if not, it at least means he put forth more preaching effort than the other apostles did.

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

Phrasing the debate proposition in the negative usually leads to artificial results. Reasonable people do not believe Tobit is the inspired word of God until somebody can prove otherwise. They believe Tobit is the word of God because they think the evidence in favor of that Apocryphal book's divine inspiration is forceful enough to render that belief reasonable.

It's better to ask whether the evidence in favor of a belief is of sufficient quantity/quality to render that belief reasonable. Otherwise, an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church member could say "If you are going to denigrate Enoch, you first will have to show that the Scripture (i.e., 1st Enoch) is not the word of God". So when you see other Christians employing the same type of negatively-stated debate proposition, you can tell that it is unreasonably presumptuous. I see nothing about mainline Protestantism that would suggest we give them a break and relax the rule, requiring only those "fringe" groups to accomplish tasks the hard way.

 

[Josheb]

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.............

Phrasing the debate proposition in the negative usually leads to artificial results.

I recommend you either rethink one or both premises and make corrections accoridningly.

 

[Greg]

Disagreeing is fine. It kind of ends a conversation if you don't provide any supportable reasoning behind the disagreement that can be disputed or accepted.

True. Matthew didn't supply any supportable reasoning behind his disagreement with Jews about Jesus being predicted in Isaiah 7:14. He merely proof-texts. Can Christians safely follow the apostolic model?

Regardless, how I proceed here depends on how forceful your disagreement with me is. If you can allow that rejection of Paul can possibly be reasonable, we have nothing to talk about. If you say rejection of Paul is "unreasonable", we have plenty to talk about.

 

[Greg]

I recommend you either rethink one or both premises and make corrections accoridningly.

You specify nothing and do not "argue" here. I also "recommend" that you reject Paul, but that would hardly be found the least bit enticing.

Ask him. I know you did but 1) he does not answer questions in a timely manner or address their substance topically, and 2) I was suggesting one possibility. I doubt the capital "R" meant anything specific and was probably a matter of convention that anything else (Post 15 confirms that suspicion).

That use of the verse would a misappropriation of the text. Paul's many words would not be a function of transgression or a lack of restraint.

Peter commended Paul's writings, reporting Paul had written with the wisdom God had given him, and Peter implicitly comparing them to "the other scriptures." Petter's affirmation of Paul's writings occurred after the two of them had one, maybe to disputes. The first being when Paul visited the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 and the second being described by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. Paul affirmed Peter's apostleship even as he confronted Peter's errors and Peter affirmed Paul's inspiration despite previous disagreement. Assuming Paul is not the author of Hebrews, ten of his thirteen epistles are shorter than Hebrews. Seven of his letters are shorter than James' epistle, six are shorter than 1 Peter and 5 are shorter than 2 Peter. Your argument would not be consistent with the whole of scripture, and I do not think an argument can be made for less is proof of disapproval.

Your argument would not be consistent with the whole of scripture

I don't see that objection as significant, since I reject biblical inerrancy, and therefore, I will not give up an otherwise grammatically and contextually justified interpretation of a bible verse merely because that interpretation would conflict with something the bible says elsewhere.

I do not think an argument can be made for less is proof of disapproval.

Not sure why you take the argument in the direction of Peter approving or disapproving of Paul. I would retain my rejection of Paul even if I found out that Peter approved of Paul, because all that would do is convince me that one of the most gullible and impulsive apostles made yet another mistake.

 

[Greg]

That use of the verse would a misappropriation of the text. Paul's many words would not be a function of transgression or a lack of restraint.

Fallacy of argument solely by assertion.

 

[Arial]

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")?

The inspiration/revelation by the Holy Spirit to the human writers of the Scriptures is a pivotal doctrine of Christianity. So how did that come to be?

The idea of divine inspiration did not start with Christianity but was already established in Judaism.

The Hebrew OT was already considered sacred.​

Jewish tradition held that prophets spoke under divine guidance i.e. Moses and Isaiah.​

Texts were believed to carry God's authority, not just human ideas.​

​

Jesus and his followers reinforced this view. Jesus frequently quoted Hebrews Scriptures as authoritative. His followers (the apostles) believed they were guided by the Holy Spriit in teaching and writing. We see this in 2 Tim3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed".

After Jesus' death, writing began to circulate. The Gospels (accounts of Jesus' life. Letters from leaders like Paul the Apostle and other texts such as Acts and Revelation. In the beginning there was no fixed NT.. Different churches used different texts.

Church leaders gradually identified certain writings as authoritative based on

Their link to apostles (apostolic origin​

Consistency in teaching​

Widespread use in worship​

​

By the fourth century a core set of books was widely accepted. Formal recognition came through church decisions: councils such as Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage. They listed the books of the NT. They were not creating Scripture. but recognized what was already widely accepted. This became the canon.

The Theology of Inspiration

The belief that Scripture is inspired developed into doctrine. Christians came to believe God worked through human authors and is called divine inspiration. God is the ultimate source. Humans are the writers, using their own styles and contexts. Christianity inherited a belief in sacred writings from Judaism, but Jesus and the apostle affirmed that belief and extended it. God speaks to mankind through his word.

2 Peter 1:21 "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I suppose one could be saved without knowing or before learning the Christian doctrine of the Scripture being the inspired word of God. After all, one is not saved by doctrines but one is saved by believing and trusting in the person and work of Jesus. But let me ask you this: If it is not the word of God and therefore may contain both things that are true and those that are not, how do you trust and believe any of it?

​

​

 

[Arial]

Regardless, how I proceed here depends on how forceful your disagreement with me is. If you can allow that rejection of Paul can possibly be reasonable, we have nothing to talk about. If you say rejection of Paul is "unreasonable", we have plenty to talk about.

There is no way that can be answered with anything besides just saying it is reasonable or unreasonable. How am I to know if your rejection of him is reasonable if I don't know what your reason and reasoning is. So, answer that instead of just providing riddles when I suggested you do that the first time. You are in the midst of critical thinkers here so you can let go of the thrice made implication that we are a bunch of unlearned idiots.

 

[Greg]

The inspiration/revelation by the Holy Spirit to the human writers of the Scriptures is a pivotal doctrine of Christianity. So how did that come to be?

The idea of divine inspiration did not start with Christianity but was already established in Judaism.

The Hebrew OT was already considered sacred.​

Jewish tradition held that prophets spoke under divine guidance i.e. Moses and Isaiah.​

Texts were believed to carry God's authority, not just human ideas.​

​

Jesus and his followers reinforced this view. Jesus frequently quoted Hebrews Scriptures as authoritative. His followers (the apostles) believed they were guided by the Holy Spriit in teaching and writing. We see this in 2 Tim3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed".

After Jesus' death, writing began to circulate. The Gospels (accounts of Jesus' life. Letters from leaders like Paul the Apostle and other texts such as Acts and Revelation. In the beginning there was no fixed NT.. Different churches used different texts.

Church leaders gradually identified certain writings as authoritative based on

Their link to apostles (apostolic origin​

Consistency in teaching​

Widespread use in worship​

​

By the fourth century a core set of books was widely accepted. Formal recognition came through church decisions: councils such as Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage. They listed the books of the NT. They were not creating Scripture. but recognized what was already widely accepted. This became the canon.

The Theology of Inspiration

The belief that Scripture is inspired developed into doctrine. Christians came to believe God worked through human authors and is called divine inspiration. God is the ultimate source. Humans are the writers, using their own styles and contexts. Christianity inherited a belief in sacred writings from Judaism, but Jesus and the apostle affirmed that belief and extended it. God speaks to mankind through his word.

2 Peter 1:21 "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

I suppose one could be saved without knowing or before learning the Christian doctrine of the Scripture being the inspired word of God. After all, one is not saved by doctrines but one is saved by believing and trusting in the person and work of Jesus. But let me ask you this: If it is not the word of God and therefore may contain both things that are true and those that are not, how do you trust and believe any of it?

​

​

I'm afraid that I cannot speak to all of your assertions since that would encourage the discussion to become 90 miles long.

If it is not the word of God and therefore may contain both things that are true and those that are not, how do you trust and believe any of it?

I'm an atheist. But I couldn't tell from the rules whether atheists were allowed to post here, so I took a chance. If I get booted, fare ye well.

But anyway, do YOU believe and trust anything in Josephus, given that you deny his writings are the word of God?

I neither trust nor reject a statement in ancient accounts until I analyze the author's identity, credibility and any other evidence that bears on the author's factual assertion. Since "truth" in uncorroborated ancient accounts is almost impossible to achieve, my belief that certain such statements are "true" is tentative...and I might later decide that the author is lying or mistaken.

 

[Greg]

There is no way that can be answered with anything besides just saying it is reasonable or unreasonable. How am I to know if your rejection of him is reasonable if I don't know what your reason and reasoning is. So, answer that instead of just providing riddles when I suggested you do that the first time. You are in the midst of critical thinkers here so you can let go of the thrice made implication that we are a bunch of unlearned idiots.

There is no way that can be answered with anything besides just saying it is reasonable or unreasonable.

That's false. You could say my rejection of Paul is unreasonable or very unreasonable. But regardless, I've admitted I'm an atheist, so I'm going to wait to see if I get banned. If I'm not banned, I'll probably start a new thread, since this was just testing the waters.

And I resent that you think I've thrice implied you are a bunch of unlearned idiots. That's an insult to me because I never expressed or implied any such thing. In fact part of my justification for rejecting Paul is to specifically affirm that your acceptance of Paul as divinely inspired can possibly be reasonable. Yes, that means I think you can possibly be reasonable to exaggerate Paul's significance. Fundamentalists exaggerate lots of different things at different times. They can exaggerate what "inspiration" means, they can exaggerate how committed they are personally to Christ. Accusing fundamentalists of exaggeration does not necessarily imply they are "unlearned idiots". Not all fundamentalists are guilty of the same types of sin. Please refrain from insulting me...unless the owners/moderators have granted you an exception to the applicable rule.

 

[Arial]

But anyway, do YOU believe and trust anything in Josephus, given that you deny his writings are the word of God?

Do you not know how to ask a question without making it a logical fallacy? Category (primary). false dichotomy (secondary), false equivalence (present, but indirect).

I do not believe that the writings of Josephus are the word of God. That does not mean that I "don't trust anything he wrote".

His writings are a historical source.

 

[makesends]

@Greg , it occurs to me to ask: Do you think you can become convinced God does (or does not) exist, by objective reason alone?

Is objective reason even possible in a human —no presumptions, no assumptions, no bias, no attitude, cold hard facts alone?

 

[Josheb]

You specify nothing and do not "argue" here. I also "recommend" that you reject Paul, but that would hardly be found the least bit enticing.

The posts prove otherwise.

I don't see....

Reason dictates it.

Not sure why you take the argument in the direction of Peter approving or disapproving of Paul.

I don't "take it." I simply observe what is stated in the text.

I would retain my rejection of Paul even if I found out that Peter approved of Paul, because all that would do is convince me that one of the most gullible and impulsive apostles made yet another mistake.

Your posts increasingly contradict one another.

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.

Fallacy of argument solely by assertion.

Hmmmm..... The onus is on you, not me or anyone else, to prove Proverbs 10:19 applies. The assertion of Pr. 10:19 occurs as a fallacy of argument solely by assertion.

 

[Greg]

Do you not know how to ask a question without making it a logical fallacy? Category (primary). false dichotomy (secondary), false equivalence (present, but indirect).

Fallacy of argument by assertion. You name the fallacies but fail to point out how they were committed.

I do not believe that the writings of Josephus are the word of God. That does not mean that I "don't trust anything he wrote".

but your question

If it is not the word of God and therefore may contain both things that are true and those that are not, how do you trust and believe any of it?

certainly gives the appearance that if I don't believe a thing is the word of God, then you cannot understand how I could possibly believe it or trust it.

His writings are a historical source.

That's my answer to you, which you should have anticipated anyway: I see the bible as a historical source. I do not either believe it or reject it. There are parts of it that I believe are likely accurate, and other parts I think are likely false. Yet the way you asked the question, made it seem you think I'd be lost in a sea of subjectivity if I tried to decide whether to trust something that was any less than the word of God. Either way, I haven't been banned, so I'm going to introduce myself further and start a new thread that proceeds in a logical order.

 

[makesends]

Fallacy of argument by assertion. You name the fallacies but fail to point out how they were committed.


but your question

certainly gives the appearance that if I don't believe a thing is the word of God, then you cannot understand how I could possibly believe it or trust it.



That's my answer to you, which you should have anticipated anyway: I see the bible as a historical source. I do not either believe it or reject it. There are parts of it that I believe are likely accurate, and other parts I think are likely false. Yet the way you asked the question, made it seem you think I'd be lost in a sea of subjectivity if I tried to decide whether to trust something that was any less than the word of God. Either way, I haven't been banned, so I'm going to introduce myself further and start a new thread that proceeds in a logical order.

It seems strange to me that you would begin with this tack. Why Paul? Are you trying to build up to something else? For example, are you trying to discredit Scriptures in their entirety as "inspired", in the long argument, and this is an easy entrance into the matter?

Or are you trying, perhaps, to topple some other foundational principle the "Fundamentalists" (whatever you mean by that) get particularly from Paul? Are you here because on the whole, the membership on this site is Reformed/Calvinistic, and purportedly, Paul is the main Apostle that teaches what they believe?

—Would your introductory questions be any different on any other Christian debate site?

 

[Greg]

It seems strange to me that you would begin with this tack. Why Paul? Are you trying to build up to something else? For example, are you trying to discredit Scriptures in their entirety as "inspired", in the long argument, and this is an easy entrance into the matter?

Or are you trying, perhaps, to topple some other foundational principle the "Fundamentalists" (whatever you mean by that) get particularly from Paul? Are you here because on the whole, the membership on this site is Reformed/Calvinistic, and purportedly, Paul is the main Apostle that teaches what they believe?

—Would your introductory questions be any different on any other Christian debate site?

I added text to the "introduce yourself" section.

My purpose in starting with Paul is because of my own observation that what passes for Christianity after the 5th century is nearly never something Jesus said, but what Paul said. So it's only rational that if I wish to show I can reasonably disagree with Christianity, I start with the one religious figure that most Christians pay the most attention to. For most Christians involved in apologetics, that is not Jesus, it's Paul.

—Would your introductory questions be any different on any other Christian debate site?

No. I realize that to suggest Paul lacked apostolic authority, hurts modern Christianity more than to suggest Jesus did not rise from the dead. Another reason I always begin by showing reasonableness to disagree with Paul is that I find the case in favor of Paul's divine inspiration extraordinarily weak, and yet popular, so that by showing the weakness of a very popular Christian assumption, I am also showing that a person can possibly be reasonable to disagree with a very popular Christian doctrine.

 

[Arial]

Regardless, how I proceed here depends on how forceful your disagreement with me is. If you can allow that rejection of Paul can possibly be reasonable, we have nothing to talk about. If you say rejection of Paul is "unreasonable", we have plenty to talk about.

Christianity (and I say Christianity rather than Christians because the first applies to its actual doctrines and the second to all Christians without exception which would be way overstepping) recognize that all unbelievers will reject Paul and that they themselves did so before they were regenerated by God. And the atheist rejects God all together so of course they reject Paul.

Before the believer (therefore application to all unbelievers) was regenerated they considered their rejection of Paul and or God reasonable. That doesn't mean it was reasonable---just that they had reasons.

What are your reasons?