little/no relevance to my daily life. imho.

well, then the thread wasn't really addressed to you, was it

lol @ last two posts

I disagree with what the page said. In every church I've ever attended, the clergy always stressed the supreme power of God over any human (prophet or not). But I was also taught to accept the Bible as the Word of God, and there are prophets in the Bible. But is Paul a prophet or merely a missionary whose letters to various places got a spot in the Bible? It is a tough question, and one that I personally do not have the motivation to explore.

But other people have probably had different experiences. I'm sure there are churches where people are taught to read the entire Bible and not ask questions.

This is coming from a Catholic, who definitely puts the works of St. Paul within the canon of scripture, however we also put much more emphasis on the Gospels in our liturgy and teachings, using the letters of Paul to support and affirm these central teachings that are found in the Gospels.

When you read the new testament as an organic whole, rather then trying to pick out specific verses to prove a certain point and mull over this whole for centuries to come up with a consistent interpretation. This is the job of the Church, to determine what is required from scripture and to teach this to the whole world.

Read the first chapter of the book "Words of Jesus" on the website.

It mentions several reasons why Paul could be considered a false prophet.

A few, in simplicity, are:
-No one attested to Paul's authority other than himself. Everything he said that we take as true was something he himself said.
-Jesus warned of false prophets who would show true signs and wonders but still be false.
-Paul made no prophecies which have come true
-The Epistles were inserted in the 300s into the canon without explanation, and when the council of trent finally canonized the bible in the 1500s, they inserted the espistles based more on tradition than anything else.

the question is: why are the letter of paul part of the new testament,

why do we assume that the new testament was tested as rigorously as the old? because its printed alongside. but it is not the case. in face 2 Peter is almost certainly a forgery.

He's a witch! Burn 'im!

@Joey- well said (Orthodox Christian myself).

@Thucy- interesting thread, I can certainly agree that greater emphasis should be placed on the Gospels than is generally done.

However...
-No one attested to Paul's authority other than himself. Everything he said that we take as true was something he himself said.

2nd Peter (of course, for the site's argument to fly this has to be a forgery as Peter refers to Paul as "our beloved brother Paul.")

Acts: Apostle Luke- Luke writes extensively about Paul's travels and travails- as one who respects and holds Paul in high esteem.

-Jesus warned of false prophets who would show true signs and wonders but still be false.

Yup

-Paul made no prophecies which have come true.

The epistles are select writings of the Apostle Paul which have been preserved and included in the Bible. They are not the totality of everything that he wrote, much less of what he said, during his life. So, yeah, he may have not made any prophecies in those select writings. Did the Apostle Peter? I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.

What it proves is that Paul is just some guy who went around teaching his own brand of Christianity.

Damned if you try to insinuate that you can actually discern everything Paul seemed to instruct categorically from the words of Jesus. I think all you really ought to be looking at is the words of Jesus.

Paul just wrote some letters to some churches. And yet he gets quoted like he's writing God's law.

And indeed, Luke himself didn't know Jesus... so....

I find all this interesting because I had long had the instinct that the Pauline epistles were.... questionable, and certainly far too emphasized. I play a game with myself. Imagine if all there was to Christianity; the whole of the "Bible" were just the words of Jesus.

What shape would Christianity have taken?

lol.. i think you know if would be very very different.

After a bit of research it appears that many others also question Paul. In fact some claim he was a Gnostic.

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapteroneintroduction.html

I'm not really sure what the controversy would be. The Epistles are generally letters to fledgling churches with advice on how to handle specific issues that they were experiencing. The plan for salvation is held in the Gospels not in the Epistles. I've never heard of Paul being called a prophet, false or otherwise, before reading this thread.

Okay, not a prophet. But a false teacher.

How often have you heard pastors read verbatim from Paul's advice in the Epistles, reading it as advice to us?

I reject this notion. Paul does not get to decide what Christian doctrine should be.

So in that vein I accept only the words of Jesus Christ as valid Christian principles.

I ask: where does Paul get his authority?

but seriously read this:

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/chapteroneintroduction.html

and about 2 peter:

http://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter’s

Sure he's read as advice. The Epistles are the oldest books in the New Testament. But that's really as far as the Epistles should go. They are advice from one believer to another. The Book of Acts mentions Paul in many contexts (arguing with Peter, etc.), so it isn't as if he's this renegade who was preaching a different doctrine. Paul's big thing was the inclusion of the Gentiles. Beyond that his writing should have no more weight than any other Epistle from any other apostle. Any Epistle is subordinate to and Gospel.

The services in the Anglican Church and Roman Catholic Church are set up so that Lay Ministers read the Old Testament and Epistles and the Priest reads the Gospel. It's usually the Gospel that the Sermon is based mainly upon with the Epistle thrown in from time to time. THat's been my experience for the most part.

I really see no basis for calling it Pauline Christianity. He was one of the apostles. Nothing more; nothing less.

** subordinate to a Gospel**

Paul generated doctrine that is found nowhere but with Paul, if you don't acknowledge that, you're fooling yourself.

Well how can I argue with that? It seems that you weren't really that interested in my opinion at all.

I read the site. I've read the Gospels and the Epistles. I'm not surprised, and any doctrine that Paul may have introduced is of less consequence than the Gospels themselves. I'm not a big proponent of faith alone for salvation. Once you have the faith then you should how it through works. The problem is that the site seems to show Paul disagreeing with Christ on this position, but he doesn't. Paul advocates that those who are no longer in sin should show that through their works.

@Thucy: the Gospels don't present "the words of Jesus" in the way you seem to think. They're written in Greek, and Jesus preached in Aramaic--so anything you have is at best a translation (and the different Gospel writers translated Jesus differently, leading to variations on some of his most significant points). Plus, ancient historians commonly created speeches that expressed the views and conflicts facing the people they wrote about. Ancient history is more like a good biographical movie--in the interest of expressing the lessons and conflicts of history, they sometimes compress complex discussions into simple ones.

The version of history on the Web page you quoted is, to be blunt, totally wrong. The New Testament canon evolved gradually, over a long period of time, as a discussion between churches all over the (Old) world. And for as far back as anyone can find, Christians have recognized Paul's letters as part of God's word to all people in all times.

Furthermore, if you're willing to believe that some random guy could insert his own wrong ideas into a huge chunk of the New Testament, you should also be willing to believe that the people who wrote down the words of Jesus might have just made them up. If the church was wrong about Paul, then the church could be wrong about anything else.

maybe less about the circumstances, and more about the meaning, what do you think Paul has added in his teachings?

You don't have to forget Paul was the first one who traveled around to teach non-jews about Jesus. So the people he was talking to did not know the God of the old testament, so they where not used to behaving to the rules given by Moses which ware ?steeped?/completed by Jesus dying on the cross.

oh no... i'm with you pastor. lol. i would definitely take the "words of jesus" with a grain of salt.

a grain of salt that, coincidentally, leaves intact all behavioral recommendations, but looks skeptically on any categorical claims about the metaphysical.

;)

@Thucy: that's a very old-fashioned way to look at Jesus, and you should be careful. Traditional historical criticism of the Gospels includes a lot of circular argumentation. The oldest text in the New Testament (Philippians 2:5-11) is all about metaphysics, and there's no getting around the fact that the one thing we can say for sure about Jesus based on the historical record is that he was a miracle worker.

With regards to faith and works, James said it best in James 2:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d]And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The Authority of the Pauline epistles comes from the Church. It is the Church that has been set up to discern what is true. Having a book that says that it is true does not make the book true, you need an external source of authority. That source is the Apostolic Church.

I don't understand how the sola-scriptura crowd can justify this

is it old-fashioned though? i feel like... it's not. but then i'm not very familiar with all the different views of jesus.

also, "based on the historical record"

you mean josephus? i feel like he more wrote down some rumors than anything.

Thucy: yes, it is old-fashioned. You're basically going back to the view of Jesus promoted by 18th and 19th-century historical critics--basically, Thomas Jefferson beat you to it, and his ideas weren't original either.

joey1: I believe in the authority of the church, but not the authority of a pyramidal structure. The Church affirmed the authority of the Pauline epistles in a messy process that lasted for centuries, not in a decree from a council or pope.

The Protestants ignore James. Luther said it was an 'epistle made of straw'.

I'm a Protestant, and I rather liked James. II Peter was my favorite Epistle though.