Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A little something called the Council of Nicaea, was it not?

Hippo and Carthage, actually.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

A little something called the Council of Nicaea, was it not?

Not really, no.

[Fake Messiah]

Basically, then, the Pauline texts would be considered by most traditional Christians to be a mix of Paul's opinions and recollections and things passed to him directly by revelation, but all are divinely inspired and suitable in a special way for use by the church.

That sounds like a mess. I guess Paul then represents the clergy or the head of the church - people of authority in religious business - who still speak in the name of Jesus (god) with a mix of their opinions which frequently don't have much to do with gospels.

I mean many people today still claim to be apostles, talking to Jesus, etc. but they are not in the Bible.

Like, there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of Catholics who believe that women in Bosnia talk directly to the Virgin Mary every day, so you would think that what Mary has to say would be worth adding as a new book in the Bible.

But I guess I am going off-topic now.

[GrandizerII]

Basically, then, the Pauline texts would be considered by most traditional Christians to be a mix of Paul's opinions and recollections and things passed to him directly by revelation, but all are divinely inspired and suitable in a special way for use by the church.

That sounds like a mess. I guess Paul then represents the clergy or the head of the church - people of authority in religious business - who still speak in the name of Jesus (god) with a mix of their opinions which frequently don't have much to do with gospels.

I mean many people today still claim to be apostles, talking to Jesus, etc. but they are not in the Bible.

Like, there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of Catholics who believe that women in Bosnia talk directly to the Virgin Mary every day, so you would think that what Mary has to say would be worth adding as a new book in the Bible.

But I guess I am going off-topic now.

Well, first it needs to be written down. But more importantly, the Catholic church doesn't need to add anything more to the Bible when it nevertheless upholds various holy writings/instructions besides what's in the Bible. For the Catholic church, and the Christian church in general, the Bible is a historical collection of works upheld as sacred, but not a still evergrowing body of godly instructions. The Bible canon has long been established, it's history now.

[Ahriman]

Basically, then, the Pauline texts would be considered by most traditional Christians to be a mix of Paul's opinions and recollections and things passed to him directly by revelation, but all are divinely inspired and suitable in a special way for use by the church.

That sounds like a mess. I guess Paul then represents the clergy or the head of the church - people of authority in religious business - who still speak in the name of Jesus (god) with a mix of their opinions which frequently don't have much to do with gospels.

I mean many people today still claim to be apostles, talking to Jesus, etc. but they are not in the Bible.

Like, there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of Catholics who believe that women in Bosnia talk directly to the Virgin Mary every day, so you would think that what Mary has to say would be worth adding as a new book in the Bible.

But I guess I am going off-topic now.

Well yeah quite possibly because Mary's words might be worth reading. I haven't found anything of real substance in the words of Jesus. Maybe his mom would have something better to say. But that might be why they don't put Mary's stuff in the Bible, because it might actually help people. Can't have that, can we?

[LinuxGal]

Well, first it needs to be written down. But more importantly, the Catholic church doesn't need to add anything more to the Bible when it nevertheless upholds various holy writings/instructions besides what's in the Bible. For the Catholic church, and the Christian church in general, the Bible is a historical collection of works upheld as sacred, but not a still evergrowing body of godly instructions. The Bible canon has long been established, it's history now.

If anything the Bible canon is effectively shrinking.  The 1992 edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 2267) said:

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

This made the capital punishment commandments in the Bible more like suggestions.  Then in 2018 we got this revision:


Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.  

That makes capital punishment commandments of none effect.  Naturally, Trump Catholics think Pope Francis is the devil.

[Ahriman]

Well, first it needs to be written down. But more importantly, the Catholic church doesn't need to add anything more to the Bible when it nevertheless upholds various holy writings/instructions besides what's in the Bible. For the Catholic church, and the Christian church in general, the Bible is a historical collection of works upheld as sacred, but not a still evergrowing body of godly instructions. The Bible canon has long been established, it's history now.

If anything the Bible canon is effectively shrinking.  The 1992 edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 2267) said:

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

This made the capital punishment commandments in the Bible more like suggestions.  Then in 2018 we got this revision:


Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.  

That makes capital punishment commandments of none effect.  Naturally, Trump Catholics think Pope Francis is the devil.

The death penalty gives criminals a cheap ticket out of the suffering of being alive. It's better than they deserve. I'm in full support of getting rid of it.

[Bucky Ball]

Too many historical factors to take into consideration, but roughly speaking it partly has to do with Paul being one of the prominent leaders among the mid-first century Christians, and had quite a number of epistles written in his name - some of which he himself didn't write but nevertheless were accepted/believed as such by later Christians.

What evidence is there that a "Paul" was a prominent leader among "First Century Christians" ?

[LinuxGal]

Too many historical factors to take into consideration, but roughly speaking it partly has to do with Paul being one of the prominent leaders among the mid-first century Christians, and had quite a number of epistles written in his name - some of which he himself didn't write but nevertheless were accepted/believed as such by later Christians.

What evidence is there that a "Paul" was a prominent leader among "First Century Christians" ?

The Jerusalem Church was destroyed in 70 CE, Shimon (the Lord's other brother) took the remnant over the Jordan, and only Paul's network of Gentile churches was left standing to write the histories and define orthodoxy.

[GrandizerII]

Too many historical factors to take into consideration, but roughly speaking it partly has to do with Paul being one of the prominent leaders among the mid-first century Christians, and had quite a number of epistles written in his name - some of which he himself didn't write but nevertheless were accepted/believed as such by later Christians.

What evidence is there that a "Paul" was a prominent leader among "First Century Christians" ?

I am going with what the NT scholars say here. Evidence (assuming you agree with a lenient sense of the term in this context) would have to be the seven or so authentic epistles written in his name, the ones deemed by scholars as authentic upon analysis as opposed to the other ones written in his name that are either debatable or clearly not the original Paul's work, which appear to show that he was quite a high status figure among the first century Christians (i.e., believers in Christ).

On the other hand, there is a lack of evidence to suggest there wasn't really such a Paul in the first place and that this was all made up later on.