Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� or blind-faith?

[paarsurrey1]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]


"Again, that is an easy condition for Paul to make for salvation, (believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead), as he had the advantage of encountering the "Risen Christ" in a vision. Most of us have not been so fortunate."

I am here now and I believe it.
It is not just one sentence but the whole NT tells the same story.

Where in any of the Gospels is "believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead" stated as a condition for salvation?

Where did Jesus teach this?

If you cannot produce even one verse, then yes, Paul has added a condition for salvation and preached a "different Gospel".

Could it be that Pauline believers do not care what Jesus actually taught about God and salvation, but only what Paul taught about Jesus' death and resurrection?

"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.� Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?� Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.� John 6:27-29.

"From that time forward, Jesus began explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up." (Matthew 16:21)

Part of the 'works God requires' for eternal life is to 'believe in the one He has sent'.

So Jesus expected his disciples to believe in everything he said except that last part? Is believing what Jesus said about being raised up where the 'works' end?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

What you call "blind faith" that is therefore not "reasonable" is what Jesus said was something "blessed".

John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

If anything is unreasonable, it is these claims you continually make about Paul.

Solid evidence is lacking.

What claims about Paul am I making? That he added conditions for salvation ? Well here's the evidence: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

That is an added condition. If not, where did Jesus himself preach that one must believe he was to rise from the dead, in order to be saved?

It was Paul himself who preached a "different Gospel".

Please demonstrate that my critique of Paul is "unreasonable" instead of simply making the charge.

Again, that is an easy condition for Paul to make for salvation, (believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead), as he had the advantage of encountering the "Risen Christ" in a vision. Most of us have not been so fortunate.

I, personally, have offered quite a bit of demonstration that any charge against Paul is unreasonable, for many months now. I believe that I have even addressed this right on this particular thread. I surmise that what I have said is just not agreeable to a certain desired viewpoint, and is dismissed as poppycock.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

What you call "blind faith" that is therefore not "reasonable" is what Jesus said was something "blessed".

John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

If anything is unreasonable, it is these claims you continually make about Paul.

Solid evidence is lacking.

What claims about Paul am I making? That he added conditions for salvation ? Well here's the evidence: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

That is an added condition. If not, where did Jesus himself preach that one must believe he was to rise from the dead, in order to be saved?

It was Paul himself who preached a "different Gospel".

Please demonstrate that my critique of Paul is "unreasonable" instead of simply making the charge.

Again, that is an easy condition for Paul to make for salvation, (believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead), as he had the advantage of encountering the "Risen Christ" in a vision. Most of us have not been so fortunate.

I, personally, have offered quite a bit of demonstration that any charge against Paul is unreasonable, for many months now. I believe that I have even addressed this right on this particular thread. I surmise that what I have said is just not agreeable to a certain desired viewpoint, and is dismissed as poppycock.

How is Paul saying that one must "believe in one's heart that God raised Jesus from the dead" NOT an added condition when Jesus himself never preached that?

No one has answered that question yet, except with vague examples and linguistic and theological gymnastics.

Jesus never said "you must believe in your heart that God will raise me from the dead and you will be saved".

Paul said it, Jesus didn't.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

What you call "blind faith" that is therefore not "reasonable" is what Jesus said was something "blessed".

John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

If anything is unreasonable, it is these claims you continually make about Paul.

Solid evidence is lacking.

What claims about Paul am I making? That he added conditions for salvation ? Well here's the evidence: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

That is an added condition. If not, where did Jesus himself preach that one must believe he was to rise from the dead, in order to be saved?

It was Paul himself who preached a "different Gospel".

Please demonstrate that my critique of Paul is "unreasonable" instead of simply making the charge.

Again, that is an easy condition for Paul to make for salvation, (believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead), as he had the advantage of encountering the "Risen Christ" in a vision. Most of us have not been so fortunate.

And so it goes on,post after post, thread after thread, week after week, claims about the suspectness of Paul and of John, that are refuted time after time.

All because of a form of monotheism that it seems must be right, even if it means casting doubt on, even rejecting outright, unacceptable passages and themes that are prominent in much of scripture.

Doubt fosters doubt, just as faith fosters faith.

Doubt about Paul's experience, doubt about John's veracity, perhaps stemming from or leading to doubt about the resurrection and position of Jesus, and of his Messiah claims.

What Paul wrote was not a "condition" but a sum up of where every true believer stands, in view of what Jesus has done and who and where he is.

That is faith in the real Jesus revealed in the New Testament. Faith in a dead Jesus is to have "another Jesus".

Which of those did Jesus encourage, herald, and exemplify?

[polonius]

[quote] "This is confirmed in the preformed tradition Paul 'received' that he quotes in I Corinthians 15:1-3. That tradition lists those to whom the risen Lord 'appeared,' including Cephas [Peter], the Twelve, and James (15:5-7). These men preach the same gospel as Paul himself (15:11). Paul is implying that the Christ-tradition he 'received' and 'preaches' was formulated originally by the Apostles before him.." (Ibid.) [ /quote]

RESPONSE:

Let's look at the facts.

Paul, who wasn't a witness to the Resurrection, wrote an account about it long after the fact, to readers living about 800 miles from Jerusalem where the event was supposed to have happened 20 years earlier. None of the claimed 500 "witnesses"
nor hundreds they would have told about this miracle ever wrote anything about it.

Neither did any of the Gospel writers.

And note that Paul uses the word "appeared." Look up in the Greek original (Greek interlinear bible - on line), to find if the word used means "saw" or could have been a a vision, "appeared."

I don't believe Paul ever claimed that anyone, including himself, ever saw the Risen Jesus in the flesh. That story wasn't developed until about 40 years after the claimed event.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

What you call "blind faith" that is therefore not "reasonable" is what Jesus said was something "blessed".

John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

If anything is unreasonable, it is these claims you continually make about Paul.

Solid evidence is lacking.

What claims about Paul am I making? That he added conditions for salvation ? Well here's the evidence: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

That is an added condition. If not, where did Jesus himself preach that one must believe he was to rise from the dead, in order to be saved?

It was Paul himself who preached a "different Gospel".

Please demonstrate that my critique of Paul is "unreasonable" instead of simply making the charge.

Again, that is an easy condition for Paul to make for salvation, (believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead), as he had the advantage of encountering the "Risen Christ" in a vision. Most of us have not been so fortunate.

And so it goes on,post after post, thread after thread, week after week, claims about the suspectness of Paul and of John, that are refuted time after time.

All because of a form of monotheism that it seems must be right, even if it means casting doubt on, even rejecting outright, unacceptable passages and themes that are prominent in much of scripture.

Doubt fosters doubt, just as faith fosters faith.

Doubt about Paul's experience, doubt about John's veracity, perhaps stemming from or leading to doubt about the resurrection and position of Jesus, and of his Messiah claims.

What Paul wrote was not a "condition" but a sum up of where every true believer stands, in view of what Jesus has done and who and where he is.

That is faith in the real Jesus revealed in the New Testament. Faith in a dead Jesus is to have "another Jesus".

Which of those did Jesus encourage, herald, and exemplify?

You call that debating? Simply restating in so many words over and over that Paul is infallible? The essence of your argument seems to be that it is not fair critiquing Paul or challenging his theology. Are you saying that? That we should never challenge, question or critique Paul?

The only thing that comes close to addressing the example (evidence) I provided is this line here:

What Paul wrote was not a "condition" but a sum up of where every true believer stands, in view of what Jesus has done and who and where he is.

.

That is actually a fairly thoughtful reply. One thing though, who is a "true believer" those who agree with you? The Church? The Creed?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, are they "true believers" too?

On another thread we should list all the things one must do in order to be saved according to both the Old and New Testaments. Then see how many of them Jesus taught, and how many Paul taught.

There may be some overlap, but I doubt very much they would be one in the same on each and every point. (call them conditions, summaries or whatever you want to)

Speaking of summaries, you point to Paul's claim that one must "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead".

How about this summary from Jesus himself, the essence of his teachings:

in all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for that is the Law and the Prophets.

Or "love the LORD your God with all your heart...and love your neighbor as yourself". (ref Luke 10.25-28)

Notice there is no talk of belief, blood atonement or Christ's impending resurrection, in Jesus' summaries.

The emphasis is on the DOING, (treat others) not on the believing.

(Also, it is not up to you or me to declare that challenges to Paul and John have been refuted, that is up for the reader to decide.)

[JehovahsWitness]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� or blind-faith?

Are those our only choices? This is like asking was Mohammed a liar or a pedophile? Somewhat of a A false dichotomy wouldn't you say?

The truth of the matter is any "creeds" Paul expounded upon were those of Jesus Christ. Paul was a respected Apostle, hand chosen by the Lord to explain and apply under inspiration of the holy spirit the Christian law and principle to the newly formed Congregation of God.

JW

[tam]

"This is confirmed in the preformed tradition Paul 'received' that he quotes in I Corinthians 15:1-3. That tradition lists those to whom the risen Lord 'appeared,' including Cephas [Peter], the Twelve, and James (15:5-7). These men preach the same gospel as Paul himself (15:11). Paul is implying that the Christ-tradition he 'received' and 'preaches' was formulated originally by the Apostles before him.." (Ibid.) [ /quote]

RESPONSE:

Let's look at the facts.

Paul, who wasn't a witness to the Resurrection, wrote an account about it long after the fact, to readers living about 800 miles from Jerusalem where the event was supposed to have happened 20 years earlier. None of the claimed 500 "witnesses"
nor hundreds they would have told about this miracle ever wrote anything about it.

Neither did any of the Gospel writers.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? Thank you!

Are you saying that none of the gospel writers wrote about the risen Christ? Or are you saying that none of the gospel writers witnessed the risen Christ?

Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

The only thing that comes close to addressing the example (evidence) I provided is this line here:

Quote:
What Paul wrote was not a "condition" but a sum up of where every true believer stands, in view of what Jesus has done and who and where he is.
.

That is actually a fairly thoughtful reply.

"Thank you for small mercies", EJ, as I recall my mother putting it eons ago.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

How about this summary from Jesus himself, the essence of his teachings:

in all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for that is the Law and the Prophets.

Or "love the LORD your God with all your heart...and love your neighbor as yourself". (ref Luke 10.25-28)

Notice there is no talk of belief, blood atonement or Christ's impending resurrection, in Jesus' summaries.

The emphasis is on the DOING, (treat others) not on the believing.

Notice first, what this summary is and is not of.

It is a summary of "The Law and the Prophets", not of belief or salvation, not of blood atonement, not of his impending resurrection.

That is why the emphasis in that summary is on the doing, not on the believing.

Notice second, what he said about "The Law and the Prophets", and where his emphasis really lay in his preaching and teaching:

Luke 16:16

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is eagerly embracing the way into it.