Originally Posted by Javaman

.Yes, that is also true in as shown in both Matthew and Luke. Just so you know, we're talking 'doubt'. The teachings here are in no way clear. My personal belief is that Paul corrupted whatever may have been taught prior to his hallucination/whole-cloth-story for his own benefit.
{emphasis mine} There is much more testimony that exists and that is one part of the problem. I mean, there's more stuff written about JC such as:

Originally Posted by Javaman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. And some days after, when Jesus was going through the midst of the city, a boy threw a stone at Him, and struck Him on the shoulder. And Jesus said to him: Thou shalt not go on thy way. And directly falling down, he also died. And they that happened to be there were struck with astonishment, saying: Whence is this child, that every word he says is certainly accomplished? And they also went and reproached Joseph, saying: It is impossible for thee to live with us in this city: but if thou wishest to do so, teach thy child to bless, and not to curse: for he is killing our children, and everything that he says is certainly accomplished.

5. And Joseph was sitting in his seat, and the child stood before him; and he took hold of Him by the ear, and pinched it hard. And Jesus looked at him steadily, and said: It is enough for thee.

Originally Posted by Gamera

My answer to this is as follows:

1. Nobody doubts the historicity of Paul. Sounds like you accept this too.

2. Paul's letter writing begin at about 55 ad, give or take a few years. We know this from internal and external evidence. While the mss of Paul's letters are later, no serious scholar doubts that he was writing at about that time.

3. This means that Paul's writings antedate the gospels, which take form a decade or two latter, at the earliest.

4. Thus, Paul has been accused of "inventing" the Christianity of the gospels, and that the gospel writers were influence by his messianic view. So argues Crossant and Wilson. (you seem to take and opposite approach and argue that the gospels differ from Paul's view)

5. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He knew Peter, who knew Jesus. He knew James, who was Jesus' brother. Paul's claims about Jesus were known to Peter and James.

6. This is important since Peter and James had undeniable firsthand knowledge of Jesus' teachings. And, Peter and James had deep disagreements with Paul. Indeed, James, being a legalist, sent "spies" to watch Paul, and persuaded Peter to accept the legalist position (at least until Paul set him staight). Galatians 2:4.

7. Yet, despite their disagreements with Paul, there is no evidence that they ever contradicted his claims about Jesus. Not one ms from Peter or James or their churches says, "You know, Paul's a good preacher, but he got it all wrong about Jesus, who never claimed he was the messaiah."

8. Indeed Peter states that Paul's letters are "scripture", i.e. inspired by God (though you perhaps doubt the authenticity of Peter's letters).

9. In any case, not one ms exists in which Peter or James, men very active in the early church, attack Paul's conception of Jesus.

10. There are only two options in light of this: (1) that in a radical purge that reached across continuent, Constantine or one of his ilk was so motivated to support Paul that he hunted down and destroyed every single mss by James and Peter or their followers that questioned Paul, every copy kept in an attic or a dresser drawer of every possible follower, and this without a modern police force; or (2) Paul got it right, and James and Peter therefore didn't challenge him.

Now, which is more likely?

Originally Posted by Gamera

My answer to this is as follows:

1. Nobody doubts the historicity of Paul. Sounds like you accept this too.

2. Paul's letter writing begin at about 55 ad, give or take a few years. We know this from internal and external evidence. While the mss of Paul's letters are later, no serious scholar doubts that he was writing at about that time.

3. This means that Paul's writings antedate the gospels, which take form a decade or two latter, at the earliest.

4. Thus, Paul has been accused of "inventing" the Christianity of the gospels, and that the gospel writers were influence by his messianic view. So argues Crossant and Wilson. (you seem to take and opposite approach and argue that the gospels differ from Paul's view)

5. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He knew Peter, who knew Jesus. He knew James, who was Jesus' brother. Paul's claims about Jesus were known to Peter and James.

6. This is important since Peter and James had undeniable firsthand knowledge of Jesus' teachings. And, Peter and James had deep disagreements with Paul. Indeed, James, being a legalist, sent "spies" to watch Paul, and persuaded Peter to accept the legalist position (at least until Paul set him staight). Galatians 2:4.

7. Yet, despite their disagreements with Paul, there is no evidence that they ever contradicted his claims about Jesus. Not one ms from Peter or James or their churches says, "You know, Paul's a good preacher, but he got it all wrong about Jesus, who never claimed he was the messaiah."

8. Indeed Peter states that Paul's letters are "scripture", i.e. inspired by God (though you perhaps doubt the authenticity of Peter's letters).

9. In any case, not one ms exists in which Peter or James, men very active in the early church, attack Paul's conception of Jesus.

10. There are only two options in light of this: (1) that in a radical purge that reached across continuent, Constantine or one of his ilk was so motivated to support Paul that he hunted down and destroyed every single mss by James and Peter or their followers that questioned Paul, every copy kept in an attic or a dresser drawer of every possible follower, and this without a modern police force; or (2) Paul got it right, and James and Peter therefore didn't challenge him.

Now, which is more likely?

Originally Posted by noah

Lost in all this like a voice in the wilderness are the words of JC and his Father Yahweh.
What is it about Paul that is so authoratative to you?

Originally Posted by Nuwanda

What is it about any of the prophets of old who spoke on behalf of God and the apostles who spoke on behalf of Christ that is so authoritative to you? Your answer, undoubtably, is that none of them are authoritative. So your question of Paul's authority is circular: "The Bible is not authoritative, therefore anyone who wrote part of the Bible is not authoritative, therefore the Bible is not authoritative." Is this a fair representation of your real argument?

Originally Posted by noah

Lost in all this like a voice in the wilderness are the words of JC and his Father Yahweh.
What is it about Paul that is so authoratative to you?

Originally Posted by noah

Actually a fair representation of my argument is that Yahweh's/JC's word regarding their commands are final. Don't reword my argument cause it won't help you. The bible is authoritative to you. The issue is whether Yahweh/JC's words carry more authority than Paul's. Why do you xians throw your lot in with Paul when he violates your God's commandsP Simple question no?

Originally Posted by Gamera

Do you really think that keeping linen and cotton separate is important to your salvation. Or not eating lobsters. Do you really think the God of the universe cares about such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Gamera

It's right before your eyes but you don't see.

Assuming Paul's expression of Jesus' divinity is what Jesus taught, then where did he get it from? Not from Jesus while alive. And not from the disciples, whom he persecuted. He got it where he said he got, from the risen Christ himself, the very God of the universe, who chose him to bring the gospel to the gentiles, which again is exactly what he did.

And that's why Paul's writings about what it means to be a Christian are so important.