Why are Paul's writings in the Bible?

[Fake Messiah]

What does the presence of Paul's writings in the Bible imply? Does that mean that Paul was channeling Jesus in his writings, and thus, his words in the Bible are actually Jesus's words? Or are his epistles just his opinion about Christianity? -- but, if so, why would theological mushins of some guy be in a book that was supposedly written by God?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What does the presence of Paul's writings in the Bible imply? Does that mean that Paul was channeling Jesus in his writings, and thus, his words in the Bible are actually Jesus's words? Or are his epistles just his opinion about Christianity? -- but, if so, why would theological mushins of some guy be in a book that was supposedly written by God?

By all accounts (including his own), Paul was a religious fanatic, even before his conversion.  This made him and his writings useful to the budding church.

His works are a combination of his claimed revelation and his interpretations of it, so it’s kind of a mishmash. The epistles were generally aimed at the Christian churches he organized, making them pretty important to the nascent Jesus sect of Judaism.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

I'm not an expert, but the canon was formulated (messily, over time) around those texts which were considered to be authoritative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...ment_canon

Paul was held to be an apostle, commissioned directly by the risen Christ, and so was a figure of authority within the early church. The other leaders of the early church, notably Paul and James, accepted him and his authority as valid. He was a forceful and prolific figure who established churches and was affirmed by miracles. His writings, treasured by the early church, came to be seen as having divine inspiration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

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.

[LinuxGal]

The only surviving form of Christianity is Paulism, which is attributed to the aftermath of the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70.  Apologists try to explain why James and Matthew contradict Paul, not why Paul contradicts James and Matthew.

[Bucky Ball]

The only surviving form of Christianity is Paulism, which is attributed to the aftermath of the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70.  Apologists try to explain why James and Matthew contradict Paul, not why Paul contradicts James and Matthew.

I call it Paulianity. 
The letters of Paul were not collected until the very end of the First Century. Until they were collected, the authentic letters were merely in the possession of local communities. 
When the call for "collection" went out, some communities sent in combo jobs, fakes, forgeries and whatever. There are (at least) 3 identifiable philosophies in the letters. 
It's a giant fricking mess. 

Paul was an Apocalyptic Jew, who is said to have "converted". He claimed and named himself as having apostolic status. His views actually remained the same.
He is also said to have "sat" at the feet of Gamaliel (a Hebrew expert of the time). Yet not one Jewish historian at the time mentions that a student of Gamaliel the Great (a hugely prestigious position) had "converted". Paul remained an Apocalyptic Jew, with one exception, .. he "came to see" that his (mythological Jesus), who lived in the heavens, was the messiah.

The Greek word used in Luke which says "this child shall be responsible for the *rise* and fall of many in Israel" is the same as Paul uses in talking about the resurrection, which is a "status" change not a physical resurrection. The Apocalyptic Jews thought Jewish heroes were "exalted" (not raised from the dead). "Exaltation" was a feature of Jewish Apocalypticism.
I haven't read it, but Ehrman wrote a book on the subject : "How Jesus became a god, the exaltation of a Jewish preacher from Galilee". There's also another good book on the subject, by a ("progressive") Christian seminary profesor of New Testament, Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott, entitled "The Trouble With Resurrection".

[The Grand Nudger]

Poorly framed q. Its not "Why are Paul's writings -in- the bible" it's "Why are Pauls writings the bible.".

Same reason we all know how to do the macarena.

[Anomalocaris]

Because Paul was a literate fanatic while others were illiterate yokels, and somewhere inside even illiterate yokels there were embarrassment for other illiterate yokels?

[LinuxGal]

Poorly framed q.  Its not "Why are Paul's writings -in- the bible" it's "Why are Pauls writings the bible.".

Same reason we all know how to do the macarena.

[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.

[Foxaèr]

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