Look, if the issue is the letters of Paul (who was actually named Saul of Tarsus), it's perfectly clear that they are included because he was one of the first leaders of the embryonic movement of Jesus followers. And it would at least appear that Peter, or whoever wrote Peter's letters, thought of him as a legitimate voice.

That said, the fact that Paul never met or knew Jesus seems to me to be a very good reason to ignore what he says about him or his message. I'm sorry but having a "vision of Jesus" in the middle of the desert isn't a religious experience; it's what happens every year at Burning Man to someone who takes too many shrooms.

Built on shifting sand.

"Like other Enlightenment rationalists, Jefferson was convinced that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle Paul, who had corrupted the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus, which thus had, in combination with the otherworldly outlook of the Fourth Gospel, produced the monstrosities of dogma, superstition, and priestcraft, which were the essence of Christian orthodoxy."

Who really gives a **** what Jefferson thought?

Do most Christians agree with scholars regarding the authenticity of the pauline epistles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline...f_the_epistles

I ask because it seems flaky to say that just because the early churches found many of the epistles useful doesn't mean they are the word of God.

But again, I agree that the epistles has similar benefits as a book written by, say, Greg Boyd. The only difference is, church law is not built around what Greg Boyd wrote, and often times is built around what is in the Epistles.

Add mind reading to the many powers of Pletho. Is there anything this superman can't do?!?

Because Paul was an Apostle of Jesus, and Peter (leader of the Apostles) approved of Him, Paul spread the Gospel to many nations, his writings being very influential.

Only apostles or those very close to them (such as Luke) made it into the Bible.

no he wasn't

which is basically my point. allowing the epistles to be canonical is putting human judgement into the equation.

this is not a good point, and in fact hurts your claims. Jesus Himself said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Paul's writing being influential and "converting" a lot of people shows that his teachings were easy to follow.

Do you disagree with the majority of scholars regarding the authorship of the epistles?

Please try to calm down. Breathe normally.

You guys have your poster child and we have ours.

The people who like the declaration of independence?

Whose human judgement?

Peter, who got his delegation of authority in church matters directly from Jesus, said Paul's writings are inspired scripture.

I like the Declaration of Independence big time, but on scriptural matters TJ can go jump in the lake.

Who wrote that Peter got his authority directly from Jesus?

Where did Peter state that Paul's letters are inspired scripture?

Thats what i was wondering. I thought some of them were said to be forgeries.

Acts 9:15 "But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel."

Human judgment enters the equation, but as a Catholic I believe that God has guided His Church through the Holy Spirit, so that in matters of faith and morals it does not err (and the canonization of the scripture was a matter of faith and morals).

I do not think other Bible-believing Christians can unshakably defend the writings in the New Testament as Catholics can.


This argument seems to be reaching. Jesus didn't say 'if you convert more than 25% of people it's too easy'. His literal point was that it will be hard to follow Jesus. Apostle means 'person sent out' and Jesus sent his apostles out to convert others... I just don't seewhat you are getting at.

TBH I haven't studied the authorship of the epistles so I can't say. I will do that soon.

It would put a dent in the 'apostle writings only in the Bible' argument but even if it were so it wouldn't shake my faith, given the Catholic Church has already canonized the scriptures.

sorry, typically when someone says Apostle of Jesus, they mean one of the 12 Apostles. If you mean that he was a self proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles", then yeah, i agree. But he never knew Jesus when he was alive, nor did Jesus *tell Paul* that he was an Apostle.

sure they can. Your argument rests on the "Holy Spirit" much in the same way other Christians do. Pretty much boils down to a battle of "God works in mysterious ways".

I'm just saying, just because Paul's writings were impressive and influential plays no bearing on whether they are the words of God. Using that same logic, you would have to say Muhammad and Joseph Smith were way more influential than Paul (all who claim divine inspiration)

please do. Its probably one of the main reasons the Catholic church only considers a small portion of the Epistles canonical. (1/2 Timothy, for example, are not)

Your blind faith in the human organization of the "Catholic Church" is a bit weird. Are you not given the ability to make your own judgements?

Jerok, perhaps you missed my question: why should we believe that the bishops who determined what ought to be Canon were able to differentiate between what was actually inspired scripture and what was not?

Blind faith? Woah now. When I started to believe in God and became Christian I studied many different belief systems... the Catholic system was the only one that seemed reasonable. I definitely made my judgment to trust the Catholic Church over my own interpretation of the Bible (see Acts 8:31)

Issues that led me from Protestantism to Catholicism:
Confession
Real Presence
Moral beliefs (condoms, sex before marriage, masturbation, etc)
Infallible interpreter of an infallible document (Holy Spirit guides to truth)
Church History

Imo, if you are going to be Christian, you should be Catholic.

Sorry for off-topic, it's just that my faith in God is guided by reason.

Your question is a good one. Here's the Catholic response:
Because I believe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, in proclaiming truths of faith and morals to the whole Church.

Here's the Protestant response: Because the Bishops stamped approval on documents that were being widely used. It wasn't really much of a change in anything, just an official approval.

The problem with #2 is that there was many disagreements in what should be considered scripture - as I said before, Hebrews almost didn't make it, others were considered, etc. There wasn't a definitive canon before the canon was made definitive. So this would leave room for error and disagreement.

Thus it takes not only reason but faith to believe that the Bishops could recognize inspired written woks.

um, no one said your decision to become Catholic was based no blind faith did I? But clearly now, based on your many posts on the subject, you now have "blind faith" regarding Catholic doctrine.

I mean, pray tell, is there any way you would convert from Catholicism to Protestantism? Would be really interested to just hear 2-3 ways that would possibly happen.

But why do you believe that this is true?

I don't think I could find myself going to Protestantism (barring some private revelation). If I were to leave the Church, I would definitely become an atheist/agnostic. God's very existence is my #1 doubt. If He does exist, everything is very internally consistent in the RCC, unlike the other Christian denominations I have studied.

John 16:12-13 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

The successors of the apostles eventually took this to mean that on the matter of faith and morals they would be guided into all truth.

I don't have good reason to disagree with them and follow some other theory.

The anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus giving Peter authority in church matters.

Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Authorship of Peter's epistles is claimed within the texts themselves.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...

It is here that Peter tells us Paul's writings are inspired scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Jesus is dead. He will not ressurect

Oh, so you do want to believe?
You want to know God?
You want to learn the accuracy of the Bible?

I won't answer because I do not think it will help you believe, because I think that you are here for the same reasons the atheists are here....

Am I wrong?

I mean, since I have been on this forum all your posts seem so wishy washy as if you are super confused about God and the bible. It almost seems waay to convienient and just an open door and invitation for the Athiests here to take a jab and stab at the word.

I mean NO HARM to you at all, its just after reading and discussing things with you I am not convinced that you are a believer and if you are one, then you are definately not a beliveing believer, meaning you just go to church to socialize like 99.9% of all mainstream Christians.

Or you go because you feel you have to? Or maybe someone pressures you to go?

Why do you go to a church?

What about church is there too like?

It's obvioulsy not a place that is teaching you truth and helping you to understand, am I right? It probably more than anything confuses you, like it does almost all people. Because there are very, very few mainstream churched in the world that teach the truth, they teach versions of it, twisted versions, deluted versions, for their own agenda, mainly money.

Don't get me wrong or take me wrong, I am an avid, die hard believing believe, who believe that the word of God is the will of God. But I have never seem one mainstream church or minister teaching the word of God accurately, they always seem to miss the most important things.

One of the biggest is that Jesus is NOT God, they all teach that he is God. Then some even get to the point of worshipping Jesus. Jesus this and Jesus that, thank Jesus, praise Jesus, holy holy holy Jesus......

None of that is right on with Gods word, its religion, man made error filled doctrine.

Jesus Christ is the son of God, I have great and deep respect for him and what he did, but I would never worship him, he is not God.