/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Why do Christians trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%?

Because the Bible is infallible.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

The gospel were relatively close (from an ancient standard) to the events that occurred, which means the authors were within the range the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. While the Qu'ran was written over a century over M*hammad lived, and the book had multiple removal and revisions after it's conception.

The fact is, Islam is the weakest of the "Abrahamic" beliefs in it's reliability and it's existence has to be enforce upon people or replace the general, opposing populace for Islam to continue.

Luke depends on Paul. And Peter says that Paul is Scripture. If you want to kick out Paul, you have to kick out Peter too. And if Peter, then also Mark. John and Matthew both say that you ought to hear Peter. So to kick out Peter, you have to kick them out too. So you are left with James and Jude. But Jude and Peter teach the same, so do James and Matthew.

To kick out Paul, you ought to kick out all of NT.

Alos, Roma locuta, causa finita - Church accepts all 73 books as Scripture and however do not is hellbound.

>>702703

- The earliest known records show Paul's writings being used authoritatively for instruction, see for example, the letters of Clement of Rome. There is no recorded dispute over Paul's authority in the early church. Even the earliest known list of the NT canon (cir. 170 a.d.), the Muratorian fragment [1], contains the entirety of Paul's epistles.

- The use of the term eternal with respect to the Torah in the OT is not univocal, take this note of its use in a passage from 1 Kings:

>1 Kings 9, NRSV; notice how this/these 'olam' was/were conditional on continued royal fidelity to YHWH. These agreements were "eternal" as long as the condition was being fulfilled! This makes 'olam' look to mean something like 'certain' or 'continuing' or 'indefinite', as long as some 'condition' or 'nature' supported it. Olam could be 'revoked', as in the case of Eli. [2]

- On the subject of Jesus' relationship to the Law, I quote here in brief:

>There are a number of issues we have to deal with concerning Jesus' relationship with the Mosaic Law, but from the data we have in the Gospel accounts, we can safely say that He did NOT come to perpetuate the Mosaic Law or Mosaic covenant. There are several MAJOR strands of evidence to support this, for example:

>He explicitly declared the ritual issues of food–a MAJOR component of the Mosaic Law–obsolete!

>And when leaving the multitude, He had entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." (Mark 7.17ff) [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

[2] http://christianthinktank.com/finaltorah.html

[3] http://christianthinktank.com/musly2.html#perpetu8

There's a fundamental misunderstanding in regards to the law. Paul does not call to not obey the law on its own merits, he goes after the intent behind its obedience. He attacks obedience to the law on the basis of salvation - that is, that the law itself saves you. Indeed, he calls us to obey the law in that he calls us to live by the Spirit - because a moral life is a life lived according to the law. Otherwise, it would be license.

To add to the origin question:

>Paul had no logical reason to do what he did. He was in good standing with society and was pretty privileged; doing a 180 on his life - going from persecuting Christ to proclaiming Him - was an absolutely terrible decision in regards to wordly self-interest. Counter this with Mohammed, who gained greatly from his "revelations"

>Paul wrote his letters very early, more so than (arguably) all of the written Gospel accounts.

>Paul was in communion with the Apostles who themselves communed with Christ throughout his ministry. They not only did not disavow him, but did the exact opposite in calling his writing scripture treating him as an equal

Because the Early Catholic Church declared their writings to be inspired.

>>702703

Luke interviewed witnesses and wrote within said witnesses' lifetimes. The witnesses could have said that Luke was wrong, but they didn't.

Paul had a vision but did not base his theology on it, only his conversion.

>>702915

>Paul had a vision but did not base his theology on it, only his conversion.

An important distinction to draw. I once read some new-age book that compared the vision of Paul to Muhammad and Ellen G. White. Unfortunately, this idea falls flat when all his vision said was “BEGOME CHRISDIAN” and his actual theology came from living with the apostles. Muhammad and Ellen G. White (and Joseph Smith and Michael Potay et al) received all their theology from their alleged visions

1st. The Canon of the Bible is infallible and was revealed to the Church by the Holy Ghost

2nd. Paul met Peter and Peter trusted Paul and recognised he saw Jesus therefore Paul is an Apostle and his teachings are infallible was well

3rd. Luke was very dear to Paul and God would have warned him if he wasn't a good person (remember back then general revelations were a thing)

4th Nothing that Paul or Luke say contradicts the rest of the Bible

>>702960

I understand the Muhammad reference since there's 1 billion retards that fell for his meme. By Ellen White? Top winnie the pooh kek. She can't be compared to Muhammad let alone Paul. Lol winnie the pooh modernists.

>>703048

*but Ellen White

>>702705

lol

>>702703

OP, what are you even on about?

Romans 6:1-7 King James Version (KJV)

>What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

>God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

>Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

>Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

>For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

>Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

>For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Where do you get the freedom to break God's law from?

>then it's dangerous for a Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so.

Where did Paul say that? This was the same guy who wrote than an external circumcision gets you nothing, it is the circumcision of the heart that counts. Are you mis-understanding what Paul means by stuff like this?

If it is making you trip up, go get a red letter bible and follow the words of Jesus directly. Nothing wrong with that, HE is our Lord and savior after all, not Paul or Mary or anyone else.

>>702703

Because Peter the first Pope affirmed Paul's encounter with Christ, and the apostles and Church Fathers affirmed Luke's writing to be infallible scripture.

>>703399

Continuing my reading in Romans today, still waiting on OP to answer how he missed things like this in Paul's writing:

Romans 3:31 King James Version (KJV)

>Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

>>703399

>Where do you get the freedom to break God's law from?

The Law refers to the Mosaic Law given in the Pentateuch. We do not need to follow the regulations in it that demand circumcision, diet restrictions, &c.